Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/Mughal-e-Azam/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mughal-e-Azam

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel it has featured article potential and that issues identified here will be more productive and better prepare it at FAC…

Thanks, ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:56, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Info abt the DVD release can be added from here ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 03:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley

[edit]

I'm afraid I haven't time to do a thorough review, but here are a few comments that I hope you will find useful.

  • General: you need to be consistent in your layout and punctuation of people's initials. Sometimes you use full stops, and sometimes you don't. Sometimes you leave a space between first and second initial and sometimes you don't.
  • Lead
    • "Contemporary critics unanimously praised the film" – an impossible claim to prove: how do you know that there isn't one hostile review you haven't seen?
  • Development
    • "followed suit" – I'd lose "suit"
    • "They roped in" – slangy – better to say "They recruited"
  • Casting
    • "was reluctant towards the idea of acting" – "was reluctant to act"
    • why are "wig" and "twilight" bluelinked? See WP:OVERLINK. No need for inverted commas for twilight
    • There are three "significant"s in this paragraph, which I'd say is two too many
  • Design
    • "The film's production design was in a massive scale" – "...on a massive scale"
    • "in 1960[a]),[22] a price" – some muddle over placing of notes here
  • Principal photography
    • "Sir David Lean": not Sir at the time in question.
  • Music
    • "The lyrics were penned – written?

I'll add more if have time. Best. Tim riley (talk) 10:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tim.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed all issues mentioned above by Tim.--Nvvchar. 14:33, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SchroCat

[edit]

I've made a few tweaks here and there: feel free to revert or tweak, as you prefer. First chunk:

Development
  • I've left a {{cn}} tag on one unsupported statement. I'd also add that "the presently-known cast" isn't right and needs a tweak
  • "However, Asif and Amrohi had a confrontation" needs re-wording
Design
  • "paraphernalia": props?
Principal photography
  • "a trilingual of Hindi/Urdu, Tamil and English": missing at least one word after trilingual, as it doesn't make sense here. Alternatively, "film was being produced in Hindi/Urdu, Tamil and English"

More to follow. - SchroCat (talk) 20:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some further minor copyedits, which should be OK, but please feel free to tweak or revert if you feel appropriate. Some further points:

Infobox

  • Re-release dates and runtime not needed (see WP:FILMRELEASE) as these can be adequately covered in the body.

Lead

  • "a superior dancer" A senior dancer, perhaps? (Superior suggests "better")

Development

  • "but the result is often likened to poetry"; verging into WP:peacockery here, and the "often" is not supported by the source. You've shown one source which calls it poetry, so the text should reflect that. I think it would have been stronger if you'd quoted the source too
It is not known how they collaborated or split up their duties, but the Times of India considers the "writers' mastery over Urdu's poetic idiom and expression is present in every line - giving the film, with its rich plots and intricate characters, the overtones of a Shakespearean drama".
Your call if you go down the full quote route here, but you shouldn't be claiming "often" based on one source (unless that source specifically says that the film is often compared to poetry)
  • " that business tycoon Shapoorji Pallonji" - > " that the business tycoon Shapoorji Pallonji"
I am not sure that I agree with this, or most of the other 'the's that you added in the text. What is the need? Also, why change theatre to cinema? BollyJeff | talk 01:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not having the definite article when dealing with occupations is journalese. Having it is correct English. This also holds if there are a number of people involved (ie. "the journalist", or "the music director" even if there are numerous journalists or music directors involved). I was under the impression that IndEng followed BrEng in using the cinema to watch films and the theatre to watch plays: if that's not the case, feel free to revert. - SchroCat (talk) 08:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you get these rules? This guy (a professional writer) says that it is wrong, and should only used for unique occupations: [2]. As for the cinema, you may be right; I am American and we call it theater (er not re). BollyJeff | talk 12:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough if you don't believe me, I'll flash up the bat signal for Tim riley to comment on the use of definite article in these circumstances. I certainly wouldn't take the word of a blog, and especially when he is writing about the journalistic use, which is where the practice has become all too common. - SchroCat (talk) 12:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why can't us Americans and British just get along? :-) How am I supposed to contribute to this site when I have to purposely write everything differently than how I was taught? This "the" stuff just sounds bad; I will never get it. Also, what do you Brits have against the letter "z"? :-) BollyJeff | talk 12:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know - I have the same problem when writing on American topics - and don't get me started on the different dating styles either! And why do Americans have an obsession in using "z" and not using the letter "u"...? ;) - SchroCat (talk) 12:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not being racist, but I think American English is casual and simplistic, in contrast to British English. And since British English is formal like the people who speak it, its better to follow it on Wiki. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good example of the wisdom of Wikipedia's WP:ENGVAR rules. When writing about an American subject I write in American English (e.g. Cole Porter, Jerome Kern and H. C. Robbins Landon; when my respected American colleagues and sometime collaborators are writing about British subjects they write in British English (e.g. Neville Chamberlain and Noël Coward). We tweak one another's prose when our grasp of the other's idiom occasionally goes awry. As to the "According to premier David Cameron" construction, I know no British style-guide that countenances it, though I assume the tabloid papers' internal style guides must do, as the usage is common there. In scrupulous British usage it is avoided, but I shouldn't dream of quibbling about it in an American article, as the usage is idiomatic in the US. Horses for courses. What is best for an Indian article is not for me to say. Tim riley (talk) 13:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting that this is the "right" way even though many writers in your own country as well as those in America see differently. Anyway, as long as I am writing on these subjects, I will do my best, and let someone else correct it. Concerning what Kailash said... no, I will just let it go. BollyJeff | talk 12:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Casting

  • "When the author-backed character": I'm not sure what you're saying here
    • Author backed is an usage in Indian English. This means a role which has a favorable character/outcome in the story, often a meaty role. I guess this usage needs to be changed to some other word.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Post-production

  • "over a million feet of negatives" You've already told us about that (in the section above), so remove it from there and leave it here

"A song titled "Ae Ishq Yeh Sab Duniyawale", picturised on Sheila Dalaya, was cut from the film"; firstly "picturised" isn't a word I'm aware of (fair enough if it’s acceptable in IndEng). Secondly, I'm not entirely sure what this is saying, apart from the song being cut.

Yes it is very common in IndEng, meaning that the song played during a scene involving her, or that she lip synched to it. BollyJeff | talk 12:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Themes

  • "rendered by Anarkali" -> sung by?

Music

  • "handed him a briefcase full of money": this may be true, but comes across as too unencyclopaedic as it stands. Perhaps a tweak to even "handed him a briefcase containing money".
  • "a situation which attracted the attention of his surprised wife." Also needs some work here too
  • "qawwalis": First mention of this term and no corresponding Wiki article to link to. Could you help the readers out with either a very brief explanation of what it is or (preferably) a stub/start to link to?
It was linked previously in another section. Link again? BollyJeff | talk 12:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the ultimate analysis": is no-one going to analyse the film further, which is what "ultimate analysis" suggests? I'd prefer to see that source who came up with the soul quote named instead.
  • "and is often cited as one of the best soundtracks": again you've got one source saying something and are referring to it being "often cited".

Box office

  • "A number of sources have stated that Mughal-e-Azam is the highest-grossing": again, only one source saying something does not equate to "a number of": tweak to say that The Hindu states that..."

Done down to the end of Accolades: will finish off later today, all things being equal. - SchroCat (talk) 11:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - I made notes and a few copy edits last week but didn't post my notes: apologies!

Colourisation

  • I'd take out the "However" at the front of the sentence: it's a big no-no at FA nowadays
  • "with the total number of frames numbering 300,000": this is a bit cumbersome. Perhaps "with over 300,000 frames"?
  • "Additionally, Siddiqui" - > "Additionally" not needed
  • "develop a software": - > "develop software"

That's it from me. Drop me a note when it gets to FAC and I'll have another read-through then too. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Preservation

[edit]

As Indian media does not often keep archives, the URL's have a good chance of becoming dead links. Even the popular archiving site WebCite appears close to discontinuation, which makes archiving URL's even more difficult. So I advise the editors to archive all the important URL's used in this article through the Wayback Machine ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 08:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Crisco review

[edit]
  • pivotal roles - is this proper English? Leading roles is more common
  • "often featured ... rioting in certain places." - Unpleasant implication, may want to rework that sentence
  • an outstanding Indian movie of all times. - An outstanding, or the most? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:28, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice plot summary, well under the 700 word maximum. (no changes needed)
  • principal wife - Have a link there? (Interestingly enough, in Indonesia there's a similar concept: the permaisuri is the queen, but the king may have more wives)
  • M. Kumar - Muhammad Kumar? Do you have his full name?
  • Sheila Dalaya as Suraiya, Anarkali's sister - She doesn't feature in your plot summary, might not be worth including here
  • Other minor parts were portrayed by Vijayalaxmi, Khurshid Khan, Shah Gul, Jago, Syed Hussain, Khanna, S. Nazair, Khawaja Sabir, Mah Gul, Paul Sharma, Gulam Sabir, Surender, Johnny Walker, Tabassum and Gopi Krishna. - Is this really necessary?
Isn't it helpful?
  • Imtiyaz Ali Taaj -Worth a redlink?
  • Anarkali - Either version notable?
  • They recruited four notable Urdu writers to develop the screenplay and dialogue: Aman (Zeenat Aman's father, also known as Amanullah Khan), Wajahat Mirza, Kamaal Amrohi and Ehsan Rizvi. - Notable or noted?
  • Chandra Mohan or Chandramohan?
  • presently-known cast. - What's this mean?
  • However, Asif and Amrohi had a confrontation, - had a confrontation sounds really unnatural
  • The role of Anarkali had previously been offered to Suraiya. - such a minor note, should be worked in with another sentence
  • To get into the skin - not encyclopedic
  • Jalal Agha - who was he?
The one who played yourg Salim, as described in cast section.
  • on a massive scale and expensive, - doesn't sound natural
  • dress designers Makhanlal and Company --> dress design firm Makhanlal and Company
  • Jaipur cavalry, 56 Regiment or Jaipur cavalry, 56th Regiment? Notable?
  • http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/151890/Mughal-E-Azam/credits - what makes this reliable? It's not from the NY Times proper, but likely user submitted or from AllFilm
Interesting to know, thanks. Of course, then the question becomes where to find reliable sources for film cast and crew?
Try this page at the BFI. Most of the main cast is shown and an extensive credit list is there. - SchroCat (talk) 13:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, lots of names there, but I noticed that it conflicts with the book source "Encyclopaedia of Hindi Cinema" as to who were the assistant choreographers, sigh. BollyJeff | talk 01:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does the film's credits say? Compare the two with the primary source and use the correct one. If the film doesn't list them, or both sources are wrong, then you can either ignore such a trivial point and not mention the assistant choreographers in the article, or highlight the discrepancy in a footnote. - SchroCat (talk) 05:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Credits did not say, so I took them out, thanks. BollyJeff | talk 14:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kumar and Madhubala - no indication they were dating or married
That sentence is the indication, no?
  • "Ae Ishq Yeh Sab Duniyawale" - standardise italics (songs should not be italicised, so this one is okay, but your earlier ones were off). Make sure you standardise giving translations or not
  • How is Jhansi Ki Rani not notable?
It re-directs to an article about a queen, not the film.
  • Themes section needs better attribution
How so? Doesn't WP:CITEKILL say to not have identical cites in a row?
  • Any more discussions on themes?
  • not as a boy as depicted in the film. - didn't mention this earlier
  • There were also errors in sets, costumes, and music. The Sheesh Mahal, actually the royal bath of the queen, was enlarged and turned into a dancing hall. Music and dancing styles from the 19th century were shown, though the story takes place in the 16th century. - Any way to develop this more? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:36, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • such as the Raga Durbari, the Raga Durga, used for "Pyar Kiya To Darna Kya" - Not sure what you're getting at here
  • Ustad Bade Ghulam Ali Khan - who's he?
  • Standardise capitalisation of song titles'
  • It is claimed that the song "Mohe Panghat Pe" was - by who? Also, why the passive?
  • It is claimed that the song "Mohe Panghat Pe" was objected to by veteran director Vijay Bhatt, who was not directly involved with the project, since it spoke of the celebration of Janmashtami, an oddity since the song was depicted in the Mughal court. - run on sentence. Also, why passive?
  • The premiere was held amidst great fanfare, witnessing - a premiere does not witness
  • the entire film industry, - erm, really?
  • Bookings witnessed - bookings don't witness
  • historical whose - as in the original?
  • Contemporary reviews?
  • Another observation is that people go to watch Mughal-e Azam not to see the faded hero but to see the grandeur of the film. - that's terrible prose.
  • as a tribute to Asif. - had he died by then?
  • original running time - how long?
  • Significance of Diwali release not clear; is it a time when many people go to the cinemas?
  • the film witnessed - films do not witness
  • One negative observation made about the colorization of the film is that all characters appear "constipated." - how?
  • I think you should check for close paraphrasing; I have a sneaking suspicion about some passages
  • fourth film certified for showing in Pakistan - overall, or fourth Bollywood film?
  • During the making of the film, when Zulfikar Ali Bhutto of Pakistan visited the sets, - why is this sentence worth having?
  • This is a testament to the passion that went into making the film. - POV much?
  • Mughal-e-Azam often ranks on lists of top Indian films, such as the 2002 British Film Institute poll of "Top 10 Indian Films", - didn't you deal with this above?
Don't think so. Where?
  • "Anupama Chopra included the film in her list of "Top 100 Films", writing "with its powerful performances, thunderous father-son drama and spectacular song-and-dance sequences, Mughal-e-Azam is the apotheosis of the Hindi film form.", for instance.
Thank you Crisco. I have a couple questions sprinkled in above. BollyJeff | talk 12:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input Schrod and Crisco!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:48, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think that I have covered most of these points now, except for the complete read through. Maybe later. BollyJeff | talk 03:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redtigerxyz's comments
  • The film is blamed for creating the myth of Jodhabai as Akbar's wife. Historically, Jodhabai was Jahangir's wife. Should be noted in Historical accuracy. [3].
  • Hindu Queen Jodahai Bai: typos
  • "the Janmashtami celebrations of Krishna's birth" context missing -> the Hindu god Krishna
  • Hindustan -> context. Hindustan = India for a western audience
  • Inconsistency: Bahar v/s Bahaar.

Redtigerxyz Talk 12:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I didn't add the part about Jodhabai and Salim because the article said that the complainers have "their own version of history". BollyJeff | talk 12:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The soundtrack section is big enough to have its own article now. Do you think it should be separated out or kept together with the film? BollyJeff | talk 12:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I feel yes. But there are only 2 reviews for the music alone. I feel that at least 3 more music reviews can be added, and when that is done, the soundtrack may look eligible for having a separate article. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Mughal-e-Azam/archive1&oldid=1089813959"