Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/Parasakthi (1952 film)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Parasakthi (1952 film)

[edit]
Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review
This peer review discussion has been closed.

i have started this peer review because I want the article to become as good as it can be. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:06, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have not read the full article; the structure looks ok. Following are some random sampling:
  • "A. V. Meiyappan's newly established AVM Productions which was on a high, having produced a series of hits as Nam Iruvar and Vazhkai planned to make a film, later titled as Parasakthi in 1952 with a newcomer Sivaji Ganesan, who had earlier dubbed for Telugu artist Mukkamala Krishnamurthi in the Tamil film Niraparadhi." Complex sentence, please fragment.
  • " sightless sister" --> blind sister.
  • The role of the "loving brother" in this drama was played Sivaji Ganesan. Why loving brother in quote? Brother would be enough.
  • "However, Parasakthi did not begin well for Ganesan. The directors, Krishnan and Panju, worked hard with the newcomer and after a few thousands of feet were canned, Meiyappan and his crew viewed the rough-cut footage and were disappointed, feeling that Ganesan was not the right choice. Meiyappan suggested that the hero be replaced by K. R. Ramasami. But producer P. A. Perumal was not convinced. He had great faith in Ganesan and was not ready to heed Meiyappan's advice. Therefore, he stopped for quite a while and Ganesan had no option but to undergo long stretches of intense mental agony, and insecurity, until Perumal decided to continue with him". Heavy copyright violation from this article.
  • "Made at an impressive budget ..." What does that mean?--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll fix all the errors by today afternoon. Abt the last statement, an old editor wrote it. I find it insignificant, so I'll remove it. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly everything here has been fixed. Pls check nd review. Kailash29792 (talk) 18:40, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The above concerns (by me on 27 March) seem to have been addressed. However, now the article has a huge quote in "production" section. That needs to properly paraphrased. It's too large to remain.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:35, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any rewriting software, that can reword or improve writings? I haven't found any yet, and that is the only thing that can help satisfy ur request. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:04, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, there is no re-writng software that I know of. An editor has to manually re-write that, taking care it is not so close to original as to infringe copyright (close paraphrasing), and also not so much deviated from the original as to constitute original research!--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can u do it at least a little? Please. Rewriting is a big challenge for me, and even if I do so, I need someone by my side to help. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have done the para-phrasing. Since I do not know much of the background, there may be information missing in the re-write. Moreover, I removed many names (I felt those names were actually related to the other film, En Thangai, so not needed in this article). Add citations. See what changes you feel are necessary.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:21, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok now that Production is done (who knows, we can do better), can we please shift to the box office section for now? Kailash29792 (talk) 13:57, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Because "box office", "release" and "critical reception" (which has extra text, can be further reduced) are small sections/subsections, all of those can be merged in one section (name it "Reception").
  • Any more box office data available (money?)? I understand it may not be available.
  • That link to a blog should be removed from text. It can be retained in "External links" section though.
  • "Ganesan's debut film as an actor was actually Poongothai, which was released as his sixth venture" If it was his debut, hw come it was his sixth venture? Does that mean he did work in some non-actor capacity in previous five ventures?
  • It seems from reading the article so far that the film might have had impact on succeeding films/productions. Fancy a section named "Impact" or "Legacy", if you have sufficient references?--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My facebook account has the images of a professional magazine article (9 pages long) describing everything about the film before and after release, check here: [1] additionally, if the link I mentioned in box office section is not acceptable despite being the only source, the box office section can be renamed to legacy or reception, taking info from the link I have just mentioned. Critical reception may be renamed to reviews. Believe me, I could have taken info from the magazine if someone sat by my side, but no-one did. ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 15:17, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I could not see the magazine, the link is not working for me. If the magazine has such wealth of information, you should defenitely go ahead and take data from there.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Through my Photobucket account, I think the images can be seen now: [2]; if u can see it this time, pls add at least a little info from one page minimum. for u r a veteran editor, I'm not yet. ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 06:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I saw the article through your photobucket account. It is high quality article, so you should use it definitely as a source. Bye the way, why do you need someone sitting beside you when attempting to use that magazine? You can easily do it yourself. My suggestion would be add staffs from that article, and then we can continue PR.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:48, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, u can take a well deserved break. To answer ur question, anyone sitting beside me could tell me wat all to add to the article. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Massive changes have happened. someone pls review them. Kailash29792 (talk) 19:03, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Parasakthi was a popular Tamil play written by Pavalar Balasundaram, a Tamil scholar." Give the year of publication/first enactment of the play. Otherwise we don't know when are these things happening.
Reply: can't find the year of the play, not even in online books. can asking a film historian personally (like Randor Guy, Mohan Raman or Theodore Baskaran) get the job done? Kailash29792 (talk) 06:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "who convinced Meiyappan to retain Ganesan in the film, to which Meiyappan relented." Remove the clause "to which ... relented" Unneeded.
Reply:  Done ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 13:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ganesan was paid a monthly salary of 250 (US$4.60) for acting in the film". That conversion is at today's rate. At that time (1952) Rs 250 would convert to a different value of US dollars.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply:  Done. please check. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The critical reception section begins with the sentence "Contemporary reviews for Parasakthi have been mostly positive." But the very next commentary by Randor Guy is from 2011. Contemporary reviews, in this context, means reviews around the time when the film was released. So, this needs to be re-worded.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't "contemporary" mean "present day"? pls check everything else. Kailash29792 (talk) 21:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also had the same impression previously (that contemporary means present day). actually, it (and also the word contemporaneous) means "occurring at the same time". --Dwaipayan (talk) 21:59, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After months of shooting and preparations, Parasakthi was released on..." Either mention approximately how many months, or, you can simply remove that clause (After months of shooting and preparations).--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply:  Done. "contemporary" replaced with "critical", and "after months..." line removed. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The film's status in Dravidian movement deserves a mention in the lead.
Hard to put. must ask someone. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
but is the plot section well written? the plot for the lead was taken from IMDB, with a few additions. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have made some changes in the ploy outline of lead.
The plot section of the article seems to be a touch longer than needed, the story line is not much complicated (not a thriller) even though many incidents happen. --Dwaipayan (talk) 05:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The peer review has been closed, i can get better suggestions through a GA Review. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Parasakthi_(1952_film)/archive1&oldid=557754359"