Talk:Swayamvaram (1972 film)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Dwaipayanc (talk · contribs) 01:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review comments[edit]

  • The plot section has sentences that sound rather like editorial comments ("it is the most important journey of their life"). Some re-writing of the plot would help. Additionally, the plot has striking similarity with a plot written in another website. This creates copyright problem or close paraphrasing problem. S, some re-touching by someone who has seen the film would be nice.
Done
  • The cast section is lengthy, it list so many actors. I doubt if all of them were important roles. Please try to cut down the list, if possible.
Done
  • The article is usually using Adoor (the first name) of the director whenever he is mentioned. The common practice is using the last name, not the first name, unless there is some compelling reason.
Done
  • New Wave movement needs wiki link.
Done
  • the whole first paragraph of development section actually discusses the director's life rather than preproduction of the film. This definitely needs summarization. This information is suitable for the article on the director, not here.
Done
  • " Later, under changed circumstances..." Wat is the changed circumstance? It's mysterious. Either explain the circumstance, or remove this phrase.
Done
  • " He wrote to the heads of college and universities..." Wrote for what? Asking for new faces?
Done
  • Adoor has been used very frequently, please use pronouns such as he, his as appropriate.
Done
  • " Every shot and envy action of Swayamvaram was culled from real life" What does this exactly mean? It sounds like a ornamental hollow sentence.--Dwaipayan (talk) 01:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done
  • In "Critical" subsection under Reception section, there is one paragraph on the film's screening at different festivals. hat paragraph should not belong to Critical reception, rather in screening or theatrical subsection, Also, that paragraph says that it was the first Malayalam film to be screened at different festivals. This needs a citation.
Done
  • in the same subsection, one sentence goes like, " Being the debut... One may find traces of some influence ..." This sentence reads unencyclopedic, needs restructuring. ( indeed the sentence has incorrect grammar). The same paragraph has a sentence , " and it's treatment is entirely different" this sounds like an editorialized comment. Needs modification and/or citation.
Done
  • In the theatrical subsection, a sentence reads, " Now the things changed..." Poor sentence.
Done
  • is it possible to add some information on themes or styles used in the film? I already found some style comments ( such as the novel use of natural sounds) scattered throughout. If some more information are available, such scattered information can be grouped together, if they amount to a sizable section. Such a section named themes and style, or something like that, would be a great addition, and will make the article appear more comprehensive.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • copyvio or close paraphrasing problem with this website is present.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done
  • "Jan R. Hakemulder Et Al., Jan, R., Fay A. C. de Jonge (1998). Future of journalism, mass communication and public relations. Anmol Publications" This reference is not properly written. There should not be author names after et al.
Done
  • "Thoraval, Yves (2000). The Cinemas of India. Delhi: Macmillan India. p. 411" In this reference, the author name is written in "last, first" style. But for all other references, "first last" format has been used.
Done
  • I will try to read majority of the retrievable references, and might change sentence structures if I find significant copy-vio problems.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 8th Moscow International Film Festival". Moscow International Film Festival. 1973. Retrieved 21 June 2011. this reference links to this page. That's not the intended page. Please try to link to the 8th festival information.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done
Fixed some comments. Working on rest. - Vivvt • (Talk) 22:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Non-reviewer comment
  • Aren't there any songs in the film? Although that's very common in art film genre, on the whole its quite unique for Indian films; even nowadays. Maybe a single sentence could go in. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. The film did not have any songs in particular. Only some of the aalap and background score. I've mentioned about it in the article. - Vivvt • (Talk) 14:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if references are present that call this film as pioneer of new wave movement in Indian and Malayalam cinema, is it right to credit it that way? Satyajit Ray and Ritwik Ghatak have had many films in Bengali before 1972. V. Shantaram has had some in Marathi and Hindi. Bimal Roy's Do Bigha Zamin (1953) also falls in this genre. For Malayalam it is a pioneer. But not for whole Indian cinema. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree and corrected the article accordingly. - Vivvt • (Talk) 19:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I don't have any other points. Dwaipayanc will surely be taking care of rest. Good luck! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, finally the lead. It's quite large, to begin with. Several words in the second paragraph ( post-Nehruvian, ontological plane etc) have not been mentioned/explained in the body of the article. Additionally, I am suspicious of copy-vio in these sentences (although I have not checked), going by the extent of copy-vio that we discovered in the article.
The third paragraph (per-production, money) has details unnecessary for lead. I suggest complete removal of this paragraph, and maybe one or two short sentences to summaries per-production.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done Fixed. Also, removed some of the "nicely written" sentences with copy-vio suspect. - Vivvt • (Talk) 16:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


  • Closing comments

I have done some copy edits, particularly in the lead. I feel the article meets GA criteria now. Thanks.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Swayamvaram_(1972_film)/GA1&oldid=1140112621"