Template:Did you know nominations/Samaantharangal

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by PumpkinSky talk 23:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Samaantharangal

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that for the film Samaantharangal (1998), Balachandra Menon handled nine departments and also won National Film Award for Best Actor at 45th National Film Awards?

• Reviewed: 1976 Summer Olympics torch relay

Created/expanded by Vivvt (talk). Self nom at 17:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• Article is new enough, long enough, and within WP policy.
• Regarding the hook, however, I believe the word "departments" is confusing. One doesn't say, for example, that the director of a film "handles the directing department." I think that statement can be clarified- Menon served in nine different capacities on the film. -- Wikipedical (talk) 23:15, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• ALT1: ... that for the film Samaantharangal (1998), Balachandra Menon worked on nine aspects of the film-making and also won National Film Award for Best Actor at 45th National Film Awards?

• The "nine aspects" part still seems confusing, and after rereading the article, it's unsourced. I'd suggest you scrap it and stick with the Best Actor fact, which is sourced. AKA "... that for the film Samaantharangal (1998), Balachandra Menon won the National Film Award for Best Actor at the 45th National Film Awards." -- Wikipedical (talk) 23:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• You've probably mistaken it to be unsourced. Please read page 35 of the PDF and 25 of the brochure. Can we replace "aspect" with "responsibility"? saying..."worked on nine responsibilities" or "worked on nine film making responsibilities"? - Vivvt • (Talk) 14:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

• I still don't think that makes sense. Again I would recommend "served in nine different capacities on the film." -- Wikipedical (talk) 00:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

• I am OK with it then.
• ALT2: ... that for the film Samaantharangal (1998), Balachandra Menon served in nine different capacities and also won National Film Award for Best Actor at 45th National Film Awards? - Vivvt • (Talk) 03:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

• I really do think it's too cluttered still, dealing with two unrelated facts. You should pick one or the other, and I would advise the acting award, since it's the least confusing. -- Wikipedical (talk) 03:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

• There are already 48 winners for acting award but none of them have served more capabilities for a film. Menon is the only one to do all these activities for a film. - Vivvt • (Talk) 04:19, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

• Right, so then include that fact without the acting award, which is tacked on and unrelated. It's a second separate fact. -- Wikipedical (talk) 05:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Can we not have both the facts included? Correct me if I am wrong but DYK rule book does not say to have only one fact included. - Vivvt • (Talk) 05:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

See here. Two facts included for one DYK. - Vivvt • (Talk) 04:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Its in fact better to have more info. Even if such rule exists, ignore it. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 09:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but in that case, the two facts were about the article in question (Lonesome Glory). In this case, the two facts are about Balachandra Menon, not the film. Again, my suggestion is either to expand upon the "nine capacities," which is still quite confusing without detail - Menon served in nine capacities- producer, director, etc - or include just the acting award. -- Wikipedical (talk) 18:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Though he got the acting award, its about his acting in the film and again for the film he worked on nine different things. I don't understand how could it not be related to the film? - Vivvt • (Talk) 19:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

With observed inactivity of the original reviewer (Wikipedical) for a week in spite of reminders, I would appreciate if other reviewers can review the nomination. - Vivvt • (Talk) 19:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Ohhh!!! Why is this still here in pipeline? ALT1 is good to go. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 20:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Article lacks sources and inline citations. Mentoz86 (talk) 21:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Added/improved the references. - Vivvt • (Talk) 01:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

It's still a unsourced section in the article. And as a general rule, the lead should summarize the article and doesn't need refs, but everything in the body of the article should be sourced. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:57, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

References are not required for the film's plot. Refer WP:FILMPLOT. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 11:29, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry, you are correct; per Supplementary guideline D2, plot summaries don't need inline citations for DYK. So I'm reinstating original tick per Animeshkulkarni's review. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:30, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you all. - Vivvt • (Talk) 16:06, 19 August 2012 (UTC)