Wikipedia:Peer review/Veerapandiya Kattabomman (film)/archive2

Veerapandiya Kattabomman (film)

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 and Kailash29792 wish to take it to FA. This film is noted mainly for the performance of its lead actor, Sivaji Ganesan and the international recognition it received. Constructive comments to improve the article are most welcome. Thanks. — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} and --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:09, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS

Can you find something stronger than a forum for File:Veerapandiya Kattabomman Poster.jpg?

The image traces back to "முதல் வெளியீட்டு விளம்பரம் : The Hindu : __.5.1959" which translates to "First release advertisement [technically, poster]: The Hindu : __.5.1959". What do I do when the date ain't available? Just write, "The Hindu, May 1959" with no link? --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:19, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would ultimately prefer a non-forum link, which might lead to some print advertisement. Having no URL at all would be suspicious and can potentially raise concerns of fabrication. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:41, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How about this link, Snuggums? Will this do? — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 16:07, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:17, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You should note in the lead when and where filming took place

The lead already mentions Jaipur. Perhaps I could add, "Principal photography began in October 1957, and took place mainly in Jaipur and Chennai"? Although the city was known as Madras till 1996, I should use that name, right? Kailash29792 (talk) 06:19, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, do add when filming began. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:39, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly can one say a film was commercially successful without knowing its budget or (initial) earnings?

Because I think the media wasn't so fussy about BO figures back then, and a film's success was determined by how long it ran in theatres. In this case, it ran for over 25 weeks and that has been mentioned. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:19, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's add when filming ended; the article otherwise looks incomplete

I know it does (I really wish I found exact details about the filming), that's why I added "The film's final length was..." as attempted compensation. I can only estimate that filming ended in 1958 or 1959, but that's WP:OR. According to page 121 of this book, principal photography ended in Jaipur, just in time for Gemini Ganesan (not Sivaji) to return to Chennai to witness the birth of his child (Vijaya Chamundeswari, not named in the source). Once I find her year of birth, I'll write that shooting ended the same year. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:19, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't find the exact month, then the year would be better than nothing. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:39, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure File:Kattabomman1959.jpg meets criterion#8 of WP:Non-free content criteria
It might help to add another paragraph's worth of reviews

That's all I've got. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:40, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SNUGGUMS

Done I've written, "This was where the final filming schedule took place, and principal photography ended in the same year". Does that solve anything? Kailash29792 (talk) 13:44, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 15:37, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Moisejp

"G. Dharmarajan, the play's set designer, did the same for the film." I'm not sure what "did the same for the film" means.
An introductory sentence for the third paragraph of Origins would be helpful, maybe something about "There are conflicting accounts of..." I got lost in that paragraph and confused at first why we were going back to talking about Vasan here.
OR instead of my above suggestion, another possibility would be to combine (not sure exactly how) the third paragraph into the regular narrative from 1953 onwards and add more details about holes in the story for the Vahan version (see the next two comments below).
If available, it would be nice to have information about, in the first account, what Ganesan told Vasan to convince him to drop the project.
In the first account, Vasan's dropping the project was approx. four years before Ganesan did his play. It'd be nice to have a more fluid narrative, and if available more details, about the transition between directors and about the period between Ganesan's working on it and what Vasan was doing for those four years. Moisejp (talk) 04:19, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for making changes to this section. I've read your changes and am afraid the section unfortunately doesn't seem any clearer. My advice above about combining the third paragraph into the main narrative may or may not have been a good step in the right direction, and if it wasn't good, I apologize.

From how I see it, the situation is that there are three levels of narrative: 1. The top level is that the director B. R. Panthulu made the film with Sivaji Ganesan. That's the fact of how the film ultimately happened; 2. The second level down is that there were other attempts or thoughts to make it previously, including by Vasan; 3. The third step down is two contradictory accounts of how it was Vasan ended up not making the film. I think the narrative needs to be structured in a way where different the levels of narrative stay clear and separate for the reader, while still keeping the relationships between the levels clear. This could include the use of introductory and transitory sentences, and also weeding out unnecessary details at the lower levels of narrative (that may pull the reader further from keeping a grasp of the different levels of hierarchy). I've got to go now, but I'm going to look at this more on the bus to work this morning, and see if I can get more ideas for you about making this section work. Moisejp (talk) 15:22, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On the bus now. I’ve read the section again just now and have some ideas. I don’t think I’ll have time to type them on the bus but will try to get to it soon. Thank you for your patience. Moisejp (talk) 16:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll come back to the section above as it requires more thought. Jumping ahead a bit, may I strongly suggest that in the Music and Critical reception sections you paraphrase at least half or more of the quotations. There are far too many. When I work on an article I always have an online thesaurus open and am constantly looking for opportunities to reduce the number of direct quotations. Moisejp (talk) 16:24, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, I'll try and solve them. But do you see any detail worth deleting, especially in "Legacy"? Kailash29792 (talk) 10:31, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was going to be my next comment, that the Legacy section seems far too long and meandering. Try to cut some and I’d suggest trying to organize the points so they seem less random (i.e., group the the comments more thematically). See how far you can get with that, and if you need more help with specifics, let me know and I’ll see what I can come up with. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 16:29, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Veera Narayana

"Produced and distributed by Panthulu under his label Padmini Pictures" -- If i am not wrong, label refers to those companies which market a film's soundtrack. Some other word must be used for production and distribution.
- Done: changed to banner. I guess it was Miniapolis who changed it to 'label', for reasons best known to herself. --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The dubbed version was released in 1959, which was the year in which the original was released. Why mention the year instead of saying "in the same year'? Any reason for doing so?
- Changed to "in the same year" and Amar Shaheed as "the following year". --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In the plot summary, you have mentioned Kattabomman as a king of Panchalankurichi, but wasn't he a polygar? And Wikipedia says that a polygar was "the feudal title for a class of territorial administrative and military governors appointed by the Nayaka rulers of South India". Do you want to say something regarding this?

I too cannot recall what exactly. Hope Ssven2 can solve this. One thing is for sure though, historical accuracy wasn't this film's plus point. --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"...and a devotee of his family deity, Murugan of Thiruchendur." -- This point in the plot summary, does it have any actual significance in the film? If no, please remove it.
"...Kattabomman and his retinue set out incognito to capture the robbers" -- Is incognito the right/proper word in context of the happenings?
How did the British entice Ettappan? what was Ettappan going to gain by doing so? If the film lets us know, please mention it.
Two things: Why Jallikattu is italicised? Why can't we add a note for non Indian readers (this is a very local event unlike a generalised Diwali)?
"The king receives a message from W. C. Jackson, the tax collector for Tirunelveli, which demands a meeting with him at Ramanathapuram to discuss payment." -- Who is that king?
"Jackson, learning that Kattabomman has come with his troops, demands to meet him alone." -- a slight rephrase is encouraged to avoid close repetition (a sentence ends with Jackson and the next one starts with Jackson).

More later. Veera Narayana 11:01, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]