Wikipedia:Peer review/Mouna Ragam/archive1

Mouna Ragam

I've listed this article for peer review because I intend to take it to FAC, but solve any potential problem before getting there. Thanks, Kailash29792 (talk) 04:53, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

• I understand what you mean by this part (the man of her father's choice) but it reads rather awkwardly to me. Maybe change it something like this (who is forced into an arranged marriage with Chandrakumar (Mohan) by her father).

Done. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• Should this part (did not really want to be married) be in present tense like the other sentences about the plot in the lead? Also, I do not think "really" is needed here.

Removed. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• For this part (when Ratnam began writing a short story tiled "Divya" with no cinematic plans until he finished writing it), I would avoid having "writing" twice in the same sentence.

Removed second instance. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• For this part (he took a month's break), I think "a month's break" is a somewhat awkward phrase. I have personally never heard of this phrasing before, but I am honestly only familiar with American English. I would say something like (he took a break for a month) instead.

Changed, but I'm sure you understood the context. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I understood the meaning, but I was just somewhat uncertain about the phrasing. I am only speaking from my own experience though so remember to take that into account here. Aoba47 (talk) 06:28, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• For this part (into a film script, though it would eventually be renamed Mouna Ragam), I would say something like (which would eventually be renamed Mouna Ragam) to make this part a little more concise and I am uncertain if the "though" transition really works in this part.

Changed. I'm pretty sure he renamed it after Idaya Kovil's release because the title was derived from one of its songs. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• For this part (Mouna Ragam was the first film produced by Venkateswaran's Sujatha Films (later renamed GV Films)), I am uncertain if the (later renamed GV Films) part is necessary. If the company was renamed during this film's production, then I would understand why it is relevant to this particular article, but if the renaming occurred after the film was produced and released, then it does not seem entirely relevant to this article and I would remove it entirely.

Then the company was known as Sujatha Films and I don't know when it was renamed to GV Films. But at the time of release, it was still Sujatha. I've removed the new name from the lead, but in the body do I write "GV Films, then known as Sujatha Films"? --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• Is it necessary to mention the company's later name, GV Films, at all in this article? I would refer to the company's name by what it was during the film's release, but unless the company did something with the film under its new name (like re-release it or something), then I am uncertain if this information is particularly useful to a reader. Aoba47 (talk) 06:33, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• I have been told in the past to avoid the "with verb+ing" sentence construction, as is done in this part (with additional filming taking place in Delhi and Agra). I personally do not have an issue with it, but I have seen this note in several FACs so I would think about it.
• For this part (It was edited by B. Lenin and V. T. Vijayan.), I would replace "It" with "The film" just for clarification. Since the previous sentences were talking about the music and the art, it may be beneficial to avoid any chance of misinterpretation.

Done accordingly. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• Any reason why the running time parameter has a citation in the infobox?

The reason is, I cannot find a way to source it in the body. Or do I write, "The final cut measured 145 minutes.{{citation}}"?

I am actually rather unfamiliar with film articles. I have reviewed several in the FAC space, but I have never done my own nomination. I have two options I am thinking about, but I am slightly nervous about doing something new lol. I have seen some articles just say the running time in the article's prose (like Margarita with a Straw, but others cite the running time in the infobox (like Kal Ho Naa Ho). Since there does not appear to be a right or wrong way, feel free to choose whatever method you feel is best for the article as a whole. I just thought it was interesting, and I wanted to get a better understanding to your approach. Aoba47 (talk) 06:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• I would add ALT text to the infobox image.

Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I have not looked at the rest of the article yet, but I would recommend that all of the images have appropriate ALT text. Aoba47 (talk) 06:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

After looking at the article further, I realized that there are not any images other than the poster. Is there any reason for that? Aoba47 (talk) 07:10, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I hope that my comments are helpful. Since I am trying to limit my Wikipedia time, I will be adding comments section-by-section. The above comments only deal with the lead and the infobox. I think this more piecemeal approach would also be more helpful for me to take more time with each individual section and hopefully conduct a thorough review. I really enjoy romantic films so this article is definitely making me interested in seeing this film for myself. Hope you are having a good start to your week. Aoba47 (talk) 23:03, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

• For this part (meet Chandrakumar, the groom.), would it be better to say (meet her fiancé, Chandrakumar)? Something about "the groom" sounds a little off to me, and I am uncertain about putting the descriptive phrase after the character's name rather than before it.
• For this part (but when her father has a heart attack her family begs her to accept the proposal to aid his recovery), I believe there should be a comma between "attack" and "her".
• For this part (Manohar and his gang assault and rob the son of an MP.), I would say "rob the son of a member of parliament (MP)" instead. I think it would be beneficial to spell out the acronym for unfamiliar readers like myself and avoid any potential confusion.

Acronym is actually for terms like J.A.R.V.I.S. (Just A Rather Very Intelligent System). What you mean is abbreviations. But I can simply say "politician's son" right? I don't want to get too detailed.--Kailash29792 (talk) 04:14, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I only asked because as an American, I have never head of a MP before. I think "politician's son" should be sufficient. Aoba47 (talk) 05:39, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• In some FAC reviews, I have seen suggestions to include wikilinks in plot summaries to keep it engaging rather than a wall of text. I think a wikilink for bail for this sentence (Divya feels guilty, and bails him out.) would be helpful as some readers may only have a limited understanding of the concept.
• For this part (although she initially rejects him, eventually she returns his feelings), I would move "eventually" after "she" to read "she eventually returns his feelings".
• I have a question about this sentence (Manohar is a member of a revolutionary group who plan to hold an illegal rally.). Do we know what the rally is specifically about or in response to?
• This may be a silly question, but how does a police officer "accidentally shoot" someone?
• I am not completely certain what this part (Although Chandrakumar is ready to forget Divya's past) means. Why would Chandrakumar want to "forget" her past?
• This is more of a question about India than the film, but I am guessing that annulments were not a thing at this time? lol
• For this part (At the same time he slowly begins falling in love with her while denying his feelings to himself.), I would add a comma between "time" and "he".
• This (She tries to show it by wearing the anklets Chandrakumar gave her shortly after their marriage but before she could do this, Chandrakumar asks her to return to her parents home and books her trip, thinking she was simply being immature (as she was trying to surprise him by the sound of her feet).) is a very long sentence and rather dense with plot information. I would break it up into smaller sentences.
• For this part (At the railway station, Chandrakumar gives Divya the divorce papers that she had requested as a wedding gift), I am not sure this (hat she had requested as a wedding gift) is needed as it is pretty clear from the context of the plot summary at this point.
• For this part (A pleasantly surprised Chandrakumar catches up with the train which Divya is in, stops it and takes Divya home, having reconciled with her.), I do not think the (having reconciled with her) part is needed as I think this can be safely assumed from context. And I would say "takes her home" instead to avoid repeating her name.
• This is more of a clarification question, but do Divya's mother or sisters do anything important in the film? I was just curious because there seems to be more of an emphasis on her father, but if they do not anything beyond pressuring Divya into marriage (which is already addressed in this part "her family begs her to accept the proposal to aid his recovery"), then it is fine. I was just curious about it after looking at the cast section.
• I am assuming that Chandrakumar's work issues do not get resolved at the end of the film?

No, I don't think so. Because despite Mohan (Chandrakumar's actor) receiving top billing, the story is told from Divya's perspective, so we don't see much into Chandrakumar's life without Divya. Ditto with Manohar. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:14, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

That's what I thought, but I just wanted to make sure. Aoba47 (talk) 05:39, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

The above comments deal only with the "Plot" section. Apologies for the amount of comments. I found this section to be very engaging and well-done so great work with that. Since the other sections are much longer, it will take me more time to get through them (but I will try my best). I will look at the citations separately (just to make sure there is not any formatting errors) after looking through all of the sections. Again, I hope this helps. Aoba47 (talk) 07:14, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• For this part (He began Divya as a short story), I would use a different verb other than "began". The previous sentence uses "began" and I would use something different for variety.
• I have two comments on this part (but after writing the story he realised that it had cinematic possibilities). I believe there should be a comma between "story" and "he". Also, I think "he realised its cinematic possibilities" would be a more concise way of saying the same information.
• I have the same question about "a month's break" in this part "Ratnam took a month's break from" that I did for the lead.
• I am not sure "narrated" is the right word choice for this part "Ratnam initially narrated the script of Mouna Ragam when it was titled Divya to producer N. G. John". Maybe "read" instead?
• Again, I am not sure the fact that the company was later renamed (as mentioned in this part "under his Sujatha Films banner (later renamed GV Films)") really adds to a reader's understanding of this particular film. Aoba47 (talk) 14:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
• For this part (He initially had "someone like Anant Nag and Supriya Pathak" in mind when he finished writing Mouna Ragam.), I think you can paraphrase the quote in your own words and still retain the same meaning.
• I have a question about this part (made his acting debut in the film with an appearance in "Panivizhum Iravu" as a boy playing a flute). I was not aware that this movie had musical numbers until I got up to this point in the article. Maybe it is just me (since I am an American who has literally never seen even one film made in India in my entire life), but could there be a way to introduce that this film has musical numbers in the lead somehow?
• For this part (Divya did not explore the girl's past life), I think you can just say "past" rather than "past life".
• For this part (and decided to give them something that would make them accept the character without questioning Divya's actions), I am uncertain about the phrase "the character" here as I am somewhat uncertain if who is being referenced. If "the character" is referencing Divya, then I would reword it to "make them accept Divya without questioning her actions).
• I have a question for this sentence (He originally resisted this, but reconsidered because its suddenness provided a clear rationale for Divya's resistance to the arranged marriage.). Does the source provide any further information on why he originally resisted adding this plot point? Aoba47 (talk) 23:10, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, Aoba47. I re-checked the source and he says, "As a film, it would have probably been better had it remained true to the original concept. It was something I resisted at first. But having made this decision of giving an easier reason for her resistance to the arranged marriage, we thought we'd make the flashback portion light and breezy." So is the sentence coherent and worth keeping? --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:56, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

• For this part (Sreeram made extensive use of frontal and profile close-ups, set against long shots with out-of-focus foregrounds), wikilinks to phrases like "close-ups" and "long shots" may be helpful for some readers who are not familiar with film.
• I would simplify this part (filming the introductory scene of Manohar) to (filming Manohar's introductory scene).
• For this part (he had to lie on a bed sheet to film), I would replace "he" with "Karthik" as it currently reads as if the character himself rather than the actor was doing this given the previous part of the same sentence.

Apologies for the large amount of comments. I have worked my way through the "Production" section. I will take a small break here as I know that it will take me some time to get through the "Themes and influences" section as I personally do not have a strong grasp on how these sections should be written for a featured article. I hope this review is helpful, and I hope that I do not discourage other editors from joining in this discussion due to the sheer amount of comments that I have put up lol. Aoba47 (talk) 23:25, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Your comments are indeed helpful, but if the process is becoming straining, you may quit. My only aim is to make the article factually accurate, concise and coherent before taking it to FAC and avoid the problems I faced during Mullum Malarum. Unlike MM, most of the sources here are in English, hence proofreading should be easy. Here are the pages of the director's account of the film's making, and the book should not violate WP:PRIMARYSOURCE or WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD since it is an interview. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:14, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• I am glad that I could help in any way. I do not find the process straining so no worries on that part. Actually, I am enjoying the process of reading through the article. Aoba47 (talk) 06:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• I have a comment about this sentence (Mouna Ragam provides insight into the issues faced by married couples, exploring the plight and perception of divorce, how societies need to view the desires of women,). Some parts of this seem to be taken directly from the source, specifically “the plight and perception of divorce”, or taken with only minor adjustments, specifically "how our society needed to look at the wishes and desires of a woman". I would recommend that you paraphrase this part more in your words to avoid such a close match to the cited source.
• For this part (Kumuthan Maderya, writing for PopMatters, described Mouna Ragam a "chick flick"), I think you mean “described Mouna Ragam as a”.
• For this part (rather than let divorce split them), the word “split” may be seen as rather informal so maybe a word like “separate” would be better?
• For the third paragraph of the “Themes and influences” section, I would avoid starting two sentences in a row with “According to X,”.
• I have a comment for this part (The heroine has a dilemma; because she does not know the language in Delhi she can barely socialise with local people, and she is at loggerheads with the only person with whom she can relate.). It seems like “she can barely…” starts a new sentence so I would separate it as a separate sentence.
• I am assuming that “at loggerheads” is some sort of saying?
• For this part (According to Martin Clayton, Trevor Herbert and Richard Middleton's 2003 book, The Cultural Study of Music: A Critical Introduction,), I think it should be according to the scholars since the analysis should be attributed to them rather than the book itself.
• For this part (was partially inspired by the Love Theme from Flashdance (1983).), I think it should be "Love Theme from Flashdance" as that is how it is written in the articles on the film and its soundtrack. That and songs should put in quotation marks.

Is the current wording fine? ...was partially inspired by the "Love Theme from Flashdance" (from the 1983 film Flashdance). Kailash29792 (talk) 04:18, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

These should be my final comments for the peer review. Since there are pretty short, I have added it to the end of this review. Good luck with the future FAC and hopefully, more editors will participate in this peer review. Since Dr. Blofeld did the GAN for this article, they might look through this too. Aoba47 (talk) 06:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

• Just curious if there are any further comments for this? Aoba47 (talk) 16:26, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

This is a process I'll take slowly. Butt someone with a deep understanding of WP:IPC may step up and comment. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:07, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. There is no reason to rush. I was just curious. Aoba47 (talk) 05:13, 29 October 2019 (UTC)