Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Satyajit Ray

Satyajit Ray

This article on the Indian filmmamker has improved considerably in the last months. A very comprehensive peer review was done, and the issues raised there have been addressed. The article size is 47KB, but much less if the numerous citations are discounted. Thanks,--ppm 03:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Very good work, and thoroughly peer reviewed. I have only one small comment, which I feel should be handled immediately. The article has the stamp Image:Domsat1.jpg, which is a set of stamps featuring RAy and one of his movies. However, the stamp's license, {{Stamp}} clearly states that for "Fair Use", the image of the stamp can be used "to illustrate the stamp in question (as opposed to things appearing in the stamp's design), on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation". So, the stamp cannot be used in this article. This is a very minor issue, but "Fair Use" doesn't apply in using the stamp here. I personally used to think we can use stamps to illustrate the subject of the stamp, but after some discussion and reading of the "Fair Use" criteria, it appears that we cannot use stamps in articles not related to stamps or philately ... i.e. we can't use a stamp on Ray in Ray's article. So, please remove the stamp ... it doesn't hurt the article, but removes any potential "Fair use" problems. Thanks. --Ragib 03:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Query- when it says "to illustrate the stamp in question", does it mean the *whole* article must be on the stamp, or only that the stamp itself must *also* be discussed? The stamp is mentioned explicitly in the article--ppm 04:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:FAIR#Images. It says "Stamps and currency" (can be used) "For identification.". Also, Category:Fair_use_stamp_images specifically says stamps should not be used to illustrate subjects of the article. I quote:

As the template mentions, stamp images in this category should not be used solely as a cheap way to illustrate articles. In addition to the problem that images are often altered for artistic reasons and thus may not be factually accurate representations of their subject, Wikipedia:Fair use criteria does not allow for it.

In some cases, the issuance of a stamp is itself notable, and the stamp may be allowable in the article (for instance, if the issuance of the stamp was an overtly political act, with the design chosen for political purposes). For these images, the image description page must describe this as part of its fair use rationale, and the article(s) using the stamp must do so also.

Use of these images in philatelic articles is almost always legitimate. The image description pages should mention this also, ideally with links to the article(s), so as to facilitate future automated link checking. (As of March 2006, most will need to be added.)

So, fair use doesn't apply here. The stamp isn't irreplaceable for the article, so it's better not to use questionable fair use images such as this. Thanks. --Ragib 04:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the stamp--ppm 16:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You did the correct thing - Yes. --Bhadani 11:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support thorough and dedicated work by Shmitra. Congratulations! Rama's arrow 07:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Just one comment. The section New directions (1965 - 1982) looks a bit choppy with 8 small paragraphs. Can it be made compact? Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 11:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

merged a few paragraphs--ppm 16:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the lead is overlinked and the language is a bit too glowing in places- I think a copyedit might tidy this up.--Peta 01:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

reduced wikilinking in the lead--ppm 01:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak oppose~~ Weak Support for now (will change to strong support after minor copyediting). Commendable effort from Shmitra especially, but I'd like to see some changes to the prose before I support this. More specifically, my objection is to the excessive use of review quotes, especially laudatory ones to describe the movies. This makes some parts look more like an essay than an encyclopaedia.Most concerns have been addressed. Thank you.

~~:Couple of minor things:The Indian reaction was similar (Apu) - the sentence is ambiguous (I think the meaning is that the Indian reaction was positive)~~

:Ray had not thought about a trilogy while making Aparajito, and it occurred to him only after being asked about the idea in Venice - though this might be true, I would like to see a source for a matter-of-fact statement like that.Great work, comprehensive article. And thanks for removing a lot of quotation marks :-) - Cribananda 17:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added citation for Apur Sansar. I also removed 2 of the 3 review citation for Pather Panchali. The remaining reviews are all negative. Wood and Kurosawa's statements are not reviews, they are from books or letters.--ppm 15:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support - this is a perfect article - informative, interesting, non-biased, well-cited, rarely vandalized. --GoOdCoNtEnT 07:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support very good work. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support: a nicely creatred article on one of the greaterst filmmakers. BTW, I am a fan of his movies, and have seen many. --Bhadani 11:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support: I Admire shmitra for doing a great work. Auyon 06:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]