Wikipedia:Peer review/Thiruvilaiyadal/archive1

Thiruvilaiyadal

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 want to seek others' opinions on how great/concise the article can become before I take it to FAC. Thanks, Kailash29792 (talk) 04:22, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Veera Narayana

I start my review (or) opinion (or) list of suggestions with this caveat: That i don't know anything about Madurai of Tamil Nadu and its deities, the Tamil text on which this film is based on and might ask the contributors to help me understand few things which i can't, if any, during the process.

Going through the plot summary, i understand that a mother tells to her son four stories of his father to calm him down after a petty issue. But, can you help the readers know exactly how these stories helped him calm down? I mean, did the characters in those stories suffer any humiliation (too big word, i know that) similar to what he has/is faced/facing? Or, did the stories tried to explain the child that his father has always been a prankster of sorts? I believe that this clarification is crucial before you guys proceed to FAC.

It appears that this too (the competition for the mango) was one of Shiva's games and Muruga, realising this, subsides. I hope someone who remembers the film crystal-clearly can fix this issue. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:57, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you are clear that this too was one of Shiva's games, mention that Muruga realised that his father played a game with him too and subsides. Veera Narayana 08:23, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Angry with his father, Muruga (dressed as a hermit) goes to Palani despite Avvaiyar's attempts to convince him to return to Mount Kailash." -- who is this Avvaiyar? I understand we have been given a wikilink, but unlike the previous characters, she springs out all of a sudden into the summary. Any lead, like say, how Narada has been introduced clearly as a sage?
Shiva is a god, you got to mention that, because you introduce the child's mother as a goddess clearly. (Don't ask me if goddesses don't marry gods and instead fall for humans. Urvashi and Pururava have already made a case study among many others in Indian Hindu mythology.) Or, if you think i am not being just, better seek a second opinion.

Written, "The Hindu gos Shiva". Kailash29792 (talk) 03:57, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nakkeerar was very adamant, and suddenly he accepts giving away those coins to Dharumi. Why so?

The ever-popular scene from the film is there with subtitles. Please see and suggest a re-wording. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:57, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The scene makes me feel, that Nakkeerar believed that it was Lord's will that Dharumi should get those coins, and has accepted the same. Veera Narayana 08:23, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shiva's marriage with Dhatchayaini was done before the yajna was conducted. Then how can he be Dhatchan's future son-in-law? At least that was what i could understand from the plot summary.
Who is Nandi?

I've written he is a bull deity. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:57, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Savitri's portrayal of the goddess Parvati was the deity's first depiction in a South Indian film." -- Nice to know. But, if i am not wrong, B. Saroja Devi played Parvati in Bhookailas (1958) and there might be even more depictions of the goddess in the past. I am not against this fact about Savitri, just telling.

I agree with you, I've removed it. I too believed Thiruvilaiyadal could not have been the first film to show Savitri, but someone added it anyway. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:57, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More later. Veera Narayana 17:14, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is a Macha Veena?
Raadhika made a teleserial with 64 tales and the film had just four; both were titled Thiruvilaiyadal. Nice. Does the article say that the film inspired her in some way to take up this Otherwise, this is a disjoint.
"In his review of Oru Kanniyum Moonu Kalavaanikalum (2014), Baradwaj Rangan compared Shiva's intervention in human affairs in Thiruvilaiyadal to the use of touchscreen human facial icons on mobile apps." -- I think Rangan was saying, that the film's framing device of gods influencing human lives was Thiruvilaiyadal-like. So he is listing as an inspiration/reminiscence in terms of filmmaking. The line in the article says otherwise IMHO.

For now, this is all i have got to say. Rest shall be handled at FAC. Veera Narayana 08:23, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Tintor2

On a quick note, I think the plot should explain who are these characters even if the lead already explained (I'm pretty sure it's in the WP:Lead guidelines). For example "Shiva is a (insert description) who gives a sacred mango fruit". Also the sections release and re-release seem to be too similar yet distant. I would renamed one or combining depending on the material of the section. Shouldn't the response to the music be also part of reception? That section is meant to be a response to most aspects of the film. If you find more reviews, you could make a reorganization by making generalizations that are backed by the sources and make the reception easier to follow for the common reader. That's all I found. Good work with the article.Tintor2 (talk) 20:39, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've written that Shiva is a Hindu god. And yes, I agree that even the music reviews should go under "critical reception". But it won't lead to overclutter, will it? Kailash29792 (talk) 03:57, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

Make sure to add ALT text for the infobox image.
You have "The Hindu" wikilinked in the "Music" section, but you first reference it in the "Themes" section.

Fixed. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:53, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a inconsistency with how numbers are represented. In these two parts (The film was a commercial success, running for over twenty-five weeks in several theatres and becoming a silver jubilee film.) and (A commercial success, the film ran for twenty-five weeks at the Ganesan-owned Shanti Theatre.), it is done with words, and in this part (It also ran for 25 weeks at the Crown and Bhuvaneshwari Theatres in Madras and other theatres across South India), it is done with numerals. I would make sure to stay consistent with one method or another.

Fixed. Went with words. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:53, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused by this sentence (Despite its being a re-release, Thiruvilaiyadal received public acclaim and was a commercial success.). You say that it was successful "despite" being a re-release, but I am not sure if a the idea of a "re-release" carries the connotations that it will be commercially unsuccessful, which the "despite" transition suggests.

Removed the "despite". Still, it is unusual for re-releases to do so well. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:53, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "Reception" section includes some negative comments about the film, while the lead only mentions the praise the film received. I would include a part about the criticism to the lead.

It was only a single reviewer's view, not a shared view, hence I didn't include in the lead. If more than one reviewer shared the same negative points, I would have written in the lead, "while some criticised the x and y." How do I solve this dilemma? --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:53, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is not entirely true. The reviewer from The Indian Express and S. Theodore Baskaran provided criticism of the film so it is more than one. I would see how other reviewers respond to it. Aoba47 (talk) 21:31, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am uncertain about the placement of the following sentence (S. Theodore Baskaran gave the film a mixed review, saying that it was like "watching a merely photographed drama" but commended Nagesh's performance: "If there is just one role that he is remembered for, it is this.") in the second paragraph of the "Reception" section. It is a little odd to jump from a positive comment to a more mixed comment back to a positive comment.
I am a little confused on how the "Reception" section is structured. Is there an overall theme or idea to the second paragraph? It seems to jump around a lot between different ideas. Maybe the following resource could be helpful for thinking about organization in this section?

Great work with the article as a whole. It was a joy to read this, as I always enjoy seeing your work on here. I hope that my comments are somewhat helpful. Aoba47 (talk) 20:52, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for my delayed response. I am currently taking a wikibreak until the end of the year so I will be unable to help with this peer review. I believe that the article is in great shape for an FAC, and my only concern is the construction of the critical reception section. Aoba47 (talk) 21:31, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jim

Bearing in mind that it's in the lead and will probably be part of the blurb if this should be a TFA, I'd like to see a gloss of Shaivite, to avoid non-Hindu readers having to click through in the lead

What should I do? Add a footnote explaining what Shaivism is? --Kailash29792 (talk) 15:24, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

praise of its screenplay— personally I'm inclined to use "praise for" and "criticism of" in BE. I don't know if that applies in India-related articles though
I thing we are told too often that there are 64 stories, the film is about four of them and they are about Shiva as a trickster

It is mentioned only thrice; once in the lead and twice under development. I can remove the first instance under "development"? --Kailash29792 (talk) 15:24, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In English-language films, aggregation sites like Rotten Tomatoes are favoured in the reception section for obvious reasons. I assume there's no Tamil equivalent?

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:14, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MovieBuff is trying to be India's answer to RT, but they don't collect reviews for classic films. --Kailash29792 (talk) 15:24, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]