Wikipedia:Peer review/Mayabazar/archive1

Mayabazar

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I, along with Kailash29792 and Ssven2, am aiming to bring Mayabazar to FA status upon a suggestion by Dr. Blofeld. Mayabazar happens to be my first attempt at a FA, second for Ssven2 and third for Kailash29792. Thanks, Pavanjandhyala (talk) 04:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Skr15081997

For Telugu language sources use |language=Telugu in the cite templates.

--Skr15081997 (talk) 05:00, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Pavanjandhyala (talk) 05:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

5 sentences in the lead start with "The film".
"eighth in the series of the adaptations of the folk tale Sasirekha Parinayam." We can have a note regarding the other seven versions.
The info regarding the technicians & 400 members can be moved to the filming section.
The fact that 4 members of the cast were alive during the release of the digitally remastered version would be appropriate in "Digitisation and colourisation" section.
"Telugu singer include stage actor Madhavapeddi Satyam" something is wrong about this.
" with no duplicate houses looking alike." If they are duplicate then they would surely be alike.
supervision of the art directors
Why is "Film, TV and Theatre Development Corporation and Kinnera Art Theatres" in italics?

--Skr15081997 (talk) 09:15, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Skr15081997: All your comments were resolved by Ssven2 in my absence, except the second, as we do not have any information about all the other seven films. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 11:48, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from IndianBio

For the Telugu language titles in the references, you have used the corresponding English title in braces. Please use the trans_title parameter in the citation where it should be ideally placed. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 07:06, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Pavanjandhyala (talk) 07:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Srivin

Hi bro, why dont you add details in popular culture for instance please check out the Telugu films in which the songs from this film has been parodied. "Vivaha Bhojanambu" was reused in animation film Ghatothkacha. Not only Aha Naa Pellanta, even other songs were also named as films. Srivin (talk) 07:37, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Srivin: I thought of that and it is best to add the info. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 07:39, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added info regarding Vivaha Bhojanambu (1998), Choopulu Kalisina Shubhavela (1988) and Ghatotkach (2008). Pavanjandhyala (talk) 05:12, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Viriditas

Prose will need a close review before FAC. For example, the last paragraph of the lead says: "The Telugu version's digitally remastered and colourised version was released on 30 January 2010. It too was successful both critically and commercially." Two things: first, the repetition of "Telugu version's...colourised verison" should be removed. There are any number of ways to do this. You could say, "The digitally remastered and colourised Telugu version was released" or something along those lines; second, the last sentence would work better merged with the previous. Something like this: "The digitally remastered and colourised Telugu version was released on 30 January 2010 and was critically and commercially successful." Viriditas (talk) 06:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Viriditas: Rephrased as per your suggestion. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 06:37, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Bollyjeff

Lead section:

"produced ... under the Vijaya Vauhini Studios" Under the building? Improve the grammar.
"the eighth in the series of the adaptations" Is there an official series of adaptations? Watch out for unintended messages in the text.
₹ 200,000. There should be no space between ₹ and the figure, per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Currencies.
"Ghantasala orchestrated and recorded four songs composed by S. Rajeswara Rao apart from composing the rest after the latter left and Marcus Bartley was the cinematographer." Very confusing about the music and then a couple words thrown in about cinematographer at the end.
"with its cinematography, art direction and visual effects," What about them?

I am afraid this would get killed at FAC. You need to have it copy edited first. BollyJeff | talk 13:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bollyjeff: Comments resolved by Ssven2 in my absence. Made a request at GOCE for a thorough c/e. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 06:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that you need a separate section for 'Legacy' and 'In popular culture'. The data each seems fairly interchangeable at present.

Initially we had only a Legacy section. During a c/e before GAR, it was split into two sections for easy reading. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 02:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For it to be split, there should still be a clear difference between what is in each section. For example, wouldn't stuff about text books and names of newspapers be better in the second section? Also, you could consider removing or changing the name of the second section title for another reason. To some FA reviewers, 'In popular culture' sounds like 'trivia' which could be a problem. BollyJeff | talk 12:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the second section title. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 12:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now everything should be as close to chronological order as possible in the section.

Done. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 04:10, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You list a budget for both original and remake. Is there no information on the earnings of either one?

Remake? Which Remake? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 04:10, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant the colourized re-release. BollyJeff | talk 12:18, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! Well, there is no reliable information available about the earnings of either one. When i expressed this doubt to Krimuk90, he said that it is not such a big issue. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 15:53, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure you go through the toolbox at the top of this page. For example, you seem to be missing alt-text on some images. There are also some duplicate links in the 'casting' , 'filming', and and 'music' sections.

I and Ssven2 have added the alt comments. The duplicate links shall be fixed soon. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 06:04, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"This was the first time in his career that Rama Rao played the role of Krishna". Were there others times after? How many? Was it because he was well liked in this role that he did it many times? Needs some elaboration.

Rama Rao reprised the role of Krishna in seventeen unrelated films. He became an ideal actor to play Rama and Krishna in Telugu cinema. This was covered in the legacy section with a note mentioning those unrelated films as per Dr. Blofeld's comments at the GAR. This may be trivial, but for better understanding : M. L. Narasimham of The Hindu - Forty-thousand multi colour calendars of NTR as Lord Krishna were distributed and most of them adorned the drawing rooms, offices and other establishments and some even found their way to the prayer rooms of Telugu homes. Utmost care was taken to design his get up (make up: Pithambaram and Bhakthavatsalam) and NTR did the rest. The ‘Lord’ had arrived! Pavanjandhyala (talk) 04:10, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then could you please change that first sentence to "This was the first of many times in his career that Rama Rao played the role of Krishna"? And I would not say that this is too trivial. BollyJeff | talk 12:18, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changed the first sentence as per your suggestion. Can you suggest me where to place that calendars issue? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 15:53, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it happened as part of the initial release, then Release section would be the place for it. I do not see the full source to know if that is the case. BollyJeff | talk 23:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the source Pavanjandhyala (talk) 01:59, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it doesn't say exactly when, but it would probably be okay in this section. However, the source also says "The previous year he had made a brief appearance as Krishna in Sonthavooru", so it was technically not his first appearance. Probably his first full length role, but don't you think the minor appearance should be mentioned as well? BollyJeff | talk 00:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Mentioned about his brief appearance in Sontha Ooru. Will add the calendars issue later today. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 06:10, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Telugu and Tamil bilingual" and "bilingual film in both Telugu and Tamil languages" in back to back sentences.

Done. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 15:53, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In 'Themes and influences' it would be nice to have another source or two, and name who said what about the themes, rather than just stating everything as a fact.

This is it, sadly! Pavanjandhyala (talk) 15:53, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jaguar

Just noting some prose concerns I can find along the way:

"₹ 200,000" - there appears to be a space in between the symbol (oh, I just realised it was mentioned above!)
The first paragraph in the lead would need to be re-organised in order to meet the FA criteria.
"Mayabazar was the eighth in the series of the adaptations of the folk tale Sasirekha Parinayam" - this is a run-on sentence, what kind of adaptation is it? Is it the eighth film adaptation or eighth overall? If I knew what it was I could re-structure this sentence to something like Mayabazar was the eighth adaptations of the folk tale Sasirekha Parinayam
To meet the FA criteria, the plot segment in the lead could be expanded slightly to summarise more
"The digitally remastered and colourised Telugu version was released on 30 January 2010 and was critically and commercially successful" - could be rephrased to The digitally remastered and colourised Telugu version was released on 30 January 2010 and was similarly met with critical acclaim or something similar?
Not enough on development/production is in the lead. More importantly I would recommend slight re-structuring of the lead, I could help with that once all of the above are clarified!

I'll try and find more as I go along. JAGUAR 14:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaguar: Comments resolved. I request some time to elaborate the plot. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 06:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Artscribbler

The fact about the film becoming the first Telgu film to be colorised and digitally mastered would be of point of interest to many readers,it should perhaps be mentioned earlier in the article. --Artscribbler (talk) 19:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the participation. Well, the lead section is summarised according to the flow of the article and perhaps, placing information regarding the first Telugu film to be colourised and digitally mastered may break the flow of the lead. Since the article is currently at WP:GOCE, the copy-editor would decide a better position for the same.

Pavanjandhyala (talk) 05:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Csisc

Dear Mr.,

First, I thank you for your work about Mayabazar that talks about a Tamil Classical Film. However, you had missed some important details. In fact, you had only talked about the expenses of the film. You did not talk about its income... Furthermore, the abbreviation of INR is not supported by computers... So, try to write INR instead of ₹. Try to expand this... This will better the output of your excellent work. Moreover, you had not well described the places where the scenes had been done and how the fees had been allocated for the Mayabazar film and you had not well estimated the value of Roubie in USD so that the users can get a better overviews of the material expenses of the film.

Yours Sincerely,

--Csisc (talk) 21:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the participation. I feel sorry and sad to say that i missed out details about the film's income because no reliable information is available regarding the same. Ditto with the fees of the actors and technicians. With the limited resources we had, i could expand the Production section and sadly, that information did not inform the places where the film was shot particularly. I shall change the ₹ template to INR text soon as per your suggestion. But i could not understand the statement you had not well estimated the value of Roubie in USD so that the users can get a better overviews of the material expenses of the film, Can you please explain me in detail? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 00:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr., I thank you for your reply. What I meant is just to give what the INR is worth in the time of the film. For example, the gram of gold is worth 2435.47 INR in 2015 due to the inflation. However, it was worth 1782.26 INR in 2009. The INR of the mid XXth Century has not the same value as the INR of nowadays... So, you have just to convert the gram of gold in INR as of the time of the publication of the film. Yours Sincerely, --Csisc (talk) 15:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Csisc: One of the co-nominators have addressed this issue. Please go through the article once and suggest the right way if we are wrong. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 11:23, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Pavanjandhyala: Well done. Excellent work. Thank you. Yours Sincerely, --Csisc (talk) 12:32, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dr. Blofeld

I'll make most of the minor edits myself, but I feel that the Themes section isn't of FA quality. It's so weak in fact that it tells me nothing about themes but reiterates the plot scenario, rendering it redundant. Is there no way you can further develop it to read as more scholarly?♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, but i have an idea. Since there are bleak chances of developing the section, why not rewrite/remove few sentences and shift them to Development and Casting sections? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 07:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't write anything about it I'd remove it, otherwise it looks like padding and comes off looking worse than if it didn't exist.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay doctor. I have blanked the section as per your advice. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 11:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Overall I'm of the opinion that the prose isn't up to FA quality yet. It does read as a bit sketchy and lacks the finesse of a higher end article throughout. I think it needs a considerable copyedit by a few people before it heads to FAC. @RHM22: and @SandyGeorgia: are usually excellent commentators on that aspect, so requesting their input.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]