Talk:Pather Panchali

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articlePather Panchali is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 26, 2015.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 22, 2008WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
July 17, 2008Good article nomineeListed
August 20, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
January 3, 2014Peer reviewReviewed
March 28, 2014Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 17, 2014Featured article candidatePromoted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on August 26, 2019, and August 26, 2022.
Current status: Featured article

Copy edit, December 2013[edit]

  • Filming, para 3: "One producer, after learning of Ray's plan, contacted the widow of the novel's author ...". Google books appears not to recognize the isbn 8172153678 given for Ray 2010, but the same information is given in English in Ray 1996 (pages 33-34). Shall we use this instead? Also, Ray 1996 names the producer in question as Mr Bhattacharya of Kalpana Movies. Is there any reason we just say "one producer" rather than naming him? --Stfg (talk) 16:34, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ray 2010 is a Bengali book, and may be that is why not recognized by Googe Book? Not sure. I have access to the book, and hence used it extensively, as opposed to the Ray 1996 (English version of the same book) which I do not have complete access to. If you are able to see the same info in that page in Ray 1996, you can use that.
  • Yes, the Bengali version (Ray 2010) provides the same name (Mr Bhattacharya of Kalpana Movies). The reason I did not include the name in the text is I did not have the whole name of Bhattacharya (which is the last name).--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's OK to name him as Mr Bhattacharya in that case. I've changed to Ray 1996 because more people will be able to verify from the English version. I can see those pages in Google Books at the moment. --Stfg (talk) 15:38, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Release and reception para 4 Crowther: "even though he praised the deftly crafted, yet slow, emergence of a poetic theme of lament" is well beyond what the source says. Re-summarized as "even though he praised its gradually emerging poignancy and poetic quality". --Stfg (talk) 18:15, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Release and reception, end: is it feasible to update the availability of recordings? --Stfg (talk) 18:15, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the data is current as of 2013. Removed that as of, as the time is same as the time mentioned in the preceding sentence.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Themes para 2: "Cooper has analysed that the immersive experience of the film corresponds to this epiphany of wonder." Uncited and I can't find it in the reference. The book doesn't contain the word "immersive". Generally, I find this paragraph nearly impossible to understand, and I think the concept of "epiphany of wonder" needs to be explained a bit more. --Stfg (talk) 19:34, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This page seems to explain it (the word "immersive" must have been added later over here). Couldn't understand it myself and they need to elaborate more on this in the article. Good job with all this, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Ugog Nizdast. Reading that, I think I was probably wrong to use the plural ("epiphan[ies] of wonder") in one place. We speak of people "having an epiphany", but this seems rather different. Robinson's phrase is extremely poetic, but it seems to me a rather strange term for the camatkara defined there. Immersion is mentioned in that passage, by the way. Can anyone see how to unravel this, as we need something that can be understood by readers without looking at the source? --Stfg (talk) 16:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This would be very challenging to unravel in the text. If we explain properly, that would take up a lot of space. However, one alternative could be explaining camatkara in an explanatory note. What say?--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a very good idea. Would you be willing to prepare it, Dwaipayan? I would find it difficult. I'm confused by the phrase "epiphany of wonder" used for a state of immersion, because an epiphany is an event rather than a state. Sanskrit dictionaries on the internet seem to translate camatkara as astonishment, but that's different from what's being described in the link Ugog Nizdast provided above. As you can see, I don't quite get the intended meaning here. --Stfg (talk) 15:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Funny reference: Reference Cooper 2000 gives an ISBN that lead to the book where the cited statements can be found, but it also has a link to a short PDF, which doesn't, and which appears to be a different source altogether. --Stfg (talk) 19:34, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Legacy: The sentence about Apur Panchali is the only one that deals with work by anyone other than Ray, so sticking it anywhere in the middle of the section makes it seem out of place. That's why I shifted it to the start of the section. --Stfg (talk) 20:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citations need a bit of sorting out. The article mostly uses {{sfn}} but the Explanatory notes use {{harv}}. The mixture of in-text and footnote citations in the Explanatory notes is particularly ugly. --Stfg (talk) 20:29, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now, this is a problem I faced in some other articles as well. For unknown reasons, the sfn template does not work if used inside efn templates (the template that is used in this article for explanatory notes). That is why had to use harv template for citations within explanatory notes.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, I see. Unfortunately I'm no expert on reference techniques. Hey ho! --Stfg (talk) 15:38, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

I am sorry that I missed the FA review. I will make a few comments here as time permits.

  • There is another source for the run time:BBFC says 110+ for the original, 115 and 120 for videos. Maybe that can help explain some of the discrepancies. BollyJeff | talk 15:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incorporated BBFC source in the explanatory note.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:44, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first sentence of the second para of Influences section (The realist narrative style...) could be better placed at the beginning of the first para, since it appears to summarize that one. I also do not see why the entire last sent of second para needs to be in parans.
  • Translocated the sentence to the beginning of the first paragraph. Indeed it fits much better there. The entire last sentence of second para in parenthesis:I am not sure either why this is in parenthesis. I cannot remember how it got the parenthesis. I think it may be as well without. I did not change it though.
  • Boral is mentioned almost back-to-back and with no link. Try Garia, which mentions the film.
  • Boral, the village, has probably become a satellite part of Garia now. Ok, will do so.
  • Done.
  • One section says the widow agreed and another says the widow declined permission. Which is it, and if she declined how did they go forward?
  • Tried to make more clear.
  • "It has also been cited as a major influence on The Beatles, specifically George Harrison". Not so sure about that. The book says that Shankar was an influence, but not necessarily the film itself, which only gets one minor mention. Would need another source to back this up. BollyJeff | talk 15:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I removed "major" from the sentence. Yes, to make that a major influence, it needs more citations. How about just "an influence"? D you think one source is sufficient?
Actually, you didn't miss anything, the FAR was closed due to lack of interested reviewers and was advised to open it some other time when the backlog was cleared. About your widow comment, the first statement refers to Ray himself getting permission from her while the other one refers to her refusing a rival producer who had plans to make his own film with some other director. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Then it could say that she declined because she already had a verbal agreement with Ray, or whatever the truth was.
  • Accolades -
    • Source for OCIC award?
Still looking for this.
OCIC seems to be an award that has been discontinued in Cannes for many years. I am having trouble finding good source for this. Lyden, John (2009). The Routledge Companion to Religion and Film. Taylor & Francis. pp. 61–62. ISBN 978-0-415-44853-6. is perhaps the best source I found. Manorama Online mentions this. What about incorporating these two?--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:40, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That would be better than nothing, yes. BollyJeff | talk 12:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Added the two sources.--Dwaipayan (talk) 01:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Run on last sentence in first para - mixed usage of , and ;
  • I think the usage of comma and semi-colon is correct here. The semi-colons divide the awards by years, while within each year the individual awards are separated by commas.
Got it.
    • Misplacement of "New York in 1959" and the source.
  • Corrected.
  • First para of Release and reception has five of the same source in a row. Try to reduce or find something else to throw in between. Same in Script section.
  • Well, same source for consecutive sentences is not a problem. What can be done is not providing citation superscripts for every sentence. The citation may be given at the end of, say, three sentences, or, at the end of the last sentence that uses that citation. Do you think that should be done?
Probably. There is this: Wikipedia:CITEKILL#Needless_repetition_of_citations.
Decreased citation overkill in those two sections.--Dwaipayan (talk) 01:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In places where the only ref is by Ray himself, it would be wise to find a backup source, so as to avoid the primary source argument.
  • I think unless the fact supported is extra-ordinary or controversial or contrary to common sense, ref by Ray is sufficient.
  • In places where there are two refs together, the one with the lower number should appear first.
  • Right. I may have missed some such instances. If you pick any such error, can you please mention the specific instance/ correct it in the text?
Done.
  • Put categories in alpha order.
  • source 57 violates p. vs pp. Check them all.
  • Corrected. This was a mistake. I hope p and pp usages are ok now.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:44, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's it. Let me know when it comes up for review again. BollyJeff | talk 19:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you also remove the red links? It kills me to see those in an FA level article. BollyJeff | talk 12:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Red links converted to blue links. Hope I have not missed any redlinks. Thanks.--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Something else: The infobox lists four distributors that are not mentioned elsewhere in the article (so no sources), including Sony from 1995 (presumably for DVD?). Then the 'Release and reception' section lists two different distributors for DVD. So where is Sony, and how do all those other distributors fit in to the puzzle? BollyJeff | talk 02:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, this is tough. I have added an explanatory note to elucidate as much as possible. Excellent catch, bye the way.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good job, but now there is a citation error in the notes section. It happened during this edit, but I cannot figure out what is wrong. BollyJeff | talk 12:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tar shehnai vs shehnai[edit]

Note that the instrument referred to in the soundtrack section is the tar shehnai, as stated in the source. It's a stringed instrument, and different from the shehnai, which is a double reed wind instrument. Both are mentioned in Indian musical instruments. --Stfg (talk) 23:59, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's now an article on it (with the correct spelling, which I've adjusted above). --Stfg (talk) 18:46, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, thank you. BollyJeff | talk 20:02, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apu Trilogy[edit]

We're inconsistent in the capitalisation and italicisation of the Apu trilogy. Which is correct:

  1. The Apu Trilogy
  2. the Apu Trilogy
  3. the Apu trilogy
  4. the Apu Trilogy
  5. the Apu trilogy?

The article The Apu Trilogy uses style 1, but I'm not sure what's really best. --Stfg (talk) 11:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I support the last one. It's the most simple-looking one. Besides Apu trilogy isn't really an official title, just a handy way to describe three films together (that were never made with the intention of making a trilogy). The article should accordingly be moved to Apu trilogy.—indopug (talk) 12:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NYT article[edit]

NYT recently published an article on The Apu Trilogy here. You may find it useful Dwaipayanc. Cheers! --Krimuk|90 (talk) 08:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request for TFA for Pather Panchali[edit]

Please note that I have requested that this article be included as Today's Featured Article for August 26th, the 60th anniversary of its Kolkata premiere. Dylanexpert (talk) 18:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's been scheduled; see WP:Today's featured article/August 26, 2015. One question: the article has "criticized" but "romanticising". Are we going with -ize or -ise? - Dank (push to talk) 12:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dates[edit]

I am replacing the dates for Satyajit Ray (1921–1992). This is a routine feature of many articles. 143.85.18.18 (talk) 13:00, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Pather Panchali. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Pather Panchali (novel) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:17, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

—Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 13:02, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pather_Panchali&oldid=1209656112"