Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sathi Leelavathi (1936 film)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 17 January 2020 [1].

Sathi Leelavathi (1936 film)[edit]

Nominator(s): Kailash29792 (talk) 07:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the debut film of several personalities who later became legends of Tamil cinema, most notably M. G. Ramachandran. I know it is FA-worthy because it is comprehensive and wide in coverage, with every single statement sourced. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Aoba47[edit]

Resolved comments
  • I have a question about the lead. Is it necessary to put all of the actors' names in parenthesis by the characters' names? The paragraph is quite dense with names, so I think that removing the actors' names would help to make this part more readable.
Agree, I removed them for conciseness. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have two questions about this sentence: "It is based on S. S. Vasan's novel of the same name, which was serialised in the magazine Ananda Vikatan." Do we know when the novel was first serialised in the magazine? If so, would it be helpful/beneficial to include the year in the prose to give the reader a better understanding of the timeline?
Added 1934. It most likely ended serialisation in 1935, but I can't prove it, so didn't that. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would recommend putting the citations in numeric order. It may not be required for a featured article, but I always found it to be helpful.
  • I do not think the descriptive phrase "the British writer" is necessary for this part "based on the British writer Ellen Wood's 1860 novel, Danesbury House". It is not used in the lead either so it would be more consistent to remove it here.
I considered doing that, but the article belongs to Category:Films based on British novels. Therefore, describing Ellen Wood as British helps it right? Kailash29792 (talk) 06:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My main concern is that the phrase is not used in the lead so it is a little inconsistent. I would recommend adding it to the lead too. Aoba47 (talk) 17:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part "at a mock tea party arranged for this purpose", I do not think "arranged for this purpose" is necessary as I think it can be assumed from context that Ramanathan arranged the party for this purpose without explicitly saying it.
  • I am a little confused by this sentence: "Krishnamurthy finds a treasure and gives it to his master, who is pleased and adopts him as his son." What is the treasure? How did he find a treasure at a tea estate?
The plot in the pressbook mentions a "treasure trove". Tell me once you read it. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I actually forgot while reading the article that this was a lost film so I had erroneously assumed there was more detail about this. Apologies for that. Since there is not any further details about this point available, I think it should be good in its current state. Looking through the pressbook is rather cool so thank you for finding and including it in the article. Aoba47 (talk) 18:42, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part "When the servant came out Ramanathan picked up", there should be a comma after "out".
Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since Tamil is linked in the lead, I would also link it on the first instance in the body of the article, which would be here: "Pathi Bhakthi was a Tamil play,".
Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part "said that after Bhakta Nandanar's release Tandon asked", there should be a comma after "release".
Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would it be helpful to link "copyright violation"?
I pondered over this for long; the words "copyright violation" were there long before I started editing this article, but Sathi Leelavathi was actually involved in a case of plagiarism. Is CV still the right word to use? --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am actually not sure. CV could still be correct as a copyright may be placed on an idea or book during publishing, but that is outside my area of expertise. I will leave that up to other reviewers. Aoba47 (talk) 17:43, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would rephrase this part "including the same name of the female leads (Leelavathi)." to something like "including the female leads having the same name (Leelavathi)". Something about the current wording seems off to me, but it may just be me.
Done as suggested. The earlier phrasing was by the GOCE. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ceylon is linked twice in the article when it should only be linked once on the first appearance.
Done: linked only twice now, the lead and plot sections. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part "to deliver the dialogues naturally, with natural acting", I do not think "with natural acting" is needed as that can be assumed/understood from the previous part of the sentence.
Done, but you understood the context right? Kailash29792 (talk) 07:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do. That's why I suggested removing that part because I found it unnecessarily repetitive. Aoba47 (talk) 17:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part "According to Dungan, when the actors faced the camera they", I would add a coma after "camera".
Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part "the plight of Tamil Nadu labourers on Ceylon's tea estates", I would link "Tamil Nadu".
Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the "Themes" section, I was wondering if either of the sources discuss further about how alcoholism and chastity are represented in the film? I was just curious because the information is rather brief in the section.
Nope, the sources only mention them as themes without elaborating further. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Understandable. Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 17:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would include a brief sentence about the themes in the lead.
Now I've written "Sathi Leelavathi explores themes such as temperance, social reform, selfless service and the plight of labourers" in the third para for balance. That good? --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me; thank you for addressing this. Aoba47 (talk) 19:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would move the link to "temperance movement" to this part "Sathi Leelavathi explores the themes of temperance" since that is where temperance is referenced for the first time in the article.
Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part "in one scene Dungan showed the dancing girl as seen by the inebriated protagonist, and in another Dungan", I would add a comma after "scene" and "another".
Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article seems to repeat the information about the strict discipline, shooting by schedule, camera mobility, cabaret dances and less-theatrical acting in the "Filming" and "Legacy" section.
I can cut down the wording in "Legacy", is this good? The features that Dungan introduced in the film became staples of Tamil cinema.? Kailash29792 (talk) 06:48, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. Thank you for addressing this. Aoba47 (talk) 17:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a question about this part "M. S. Murugesan as Marwari". Is this referring to this part "A Marwari who lent a large sum to Krishnamurthy to support his lavish lifestyle obtains a repayment warrant" from the "Plot" section? *Is the character referred to as just Marwari in the credits? Just wanted to clarify this.
Murugesan is simply credited as "Marvadi" in the pressbook, and in the plot of the pressbook he is called "A Marvari". But writing "the Marvadi" won't be so harmful will it? Kailash29792 (talk) 06:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If he is credited at just "Marvadi" in the pressbook, then it is probably best to keep that way in the article too. Thank you for the explanation. Aoba47 (talk) 17:48, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that my comments are helpful. Great work with the article. Aoba47 (talk) 04:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Aoba47, they are indeed helpful. Since the film is lost, all plot details are taken from the pressbook. The plot is written in both English and Tamil, but the Tamil plot is more comprehensive. Still, you read the English plot only and tell me: is it coherent enough, and does the Wiki plot match the pressbook's English plot? Because I took some details from the Tamil plot at the instigation of GA reviewer Ssven2, who is not currently active. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The plot summary from the article matches the pressbook and does a very good job in presenting a coherent storyline (at least in my opinion). I just have two last comments.
  • In the article, it says "Rangiah receives seven years' imprisonment", but the pressbook says "Inspector Rangia is convicted for 7 years rigorous imprisonment". I think this is referencing something along the lines of penal labour, and I would include it in the prose if that is the correct interpretation.
  • Would it be beneficial to clarify that Ramanathan was sentenced to death by hanging or could that be understood from context?
Once these points and my response to the Ellen Woods comment are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this. Aoba47 (talk) 18:48, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please re-check your comments and strike them if they have been solved. But voluntarily I reduced the sentence "Both men approached Vasan, who gave them the rights to make a film version of his novel. Mudaliar then began writing the screenplay of Sathi Leelavathi" to "After Chettiar obtained the rights to make a film version of the novel, Mudaliar began writing the screenplay of Sathi Leelavathi" for conciseness. How is it? Besides, I think the final sentence of Rangiah's 7-year sentence (as written by me) is not wrong as convicts typically perform rigorous labour during their sentences. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your response. I normally do not strike out comments; that is just not my approach to doing these types of reviews. I will collapse the above comments though if that helps. The revision to the sentence looks good to me; I did not have an issue with the original wording, but it is always best to try and make things as concise as possible for a featured article. I only asked about the rigorous labour part because it was clarified that way in the pressbook, and it is probably a cultural difference as not all American prison sentences for instance require this type of labour. I do not think it is absolutely necessary for the plot summary. I support this for promotion. If you have the time and interest, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current FAC. Either way, best of luck with the nomination! Aoba47 (talk) 19:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size
Which file are you referring to? File:Krishnamurthy and family Sathi Leelavathi.jpg or File:M. G. Ramachandran in Sathi Leelavathi (1936).jpg? Or both? What should I do? Kailash29792 (talk) 03:49, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Search for "px" in the edit window of the article, and either remove the value or swap it for |upright=. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:59, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Sathi_Leelavathi_(1936_film).jpg: why is this believed to be PD in the US? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:42, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please see this, and I believe it leads to the answer. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:49, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The linked page argues against deletion of images with copyright restored by URAA. However, this image has a tag stating it is PD under URAA, and my question is why that is believed to be the case. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:59, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ping. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:30, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I don't know what to do Nikkimaria. Remove the PD-URAA tags from the images (just keep {{PD-India}}) and they can be used? Or remove the pictures altogether? Because apart from the fact that the picture's copyright has expired in accordance with PD-India guidelines, I don't know how it can still be copyrighted in a country where it wasn't published. But I don't know if an Indian film that released on 28 March 1936 would be considered eligible on 1 January 1996. Does this have the answer? Kailash29792 (talk) 03:44, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear that the image is in the public domain in India - the problem is US status. Take a look at Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights, specifically the four-point test:
  • Is the source country a WTO member or a party to the Berne Convention? Yes, India is.
  • Is the work copyrightable in the United States? Yes, it meets the required standard of originality and is not in one of the exclusion categories.
  • Was the work published after January 1, 1923? Yes, in 1936.
  • Had the copyright expired in the source country on the date of restoration? It appears not. The current PD-India tag indicates en expiration 60 years after publication, counted from the beginning of the following calendar year - which would in this case give us 1997, after the date of restoration. This means that US copyright persists.
You could potentially upload it locally under a fair-use claim. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:49, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ping. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:30, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Yashthepunisher[edit]

  • " which was serialised since 1934 in the magazine" Which was serialised in 1934? Or which has been serialised since 1934? It's a bit unclear.
It is unclear whether the novel ended serialisation in 1935, but saying "serialised in 1934" is not misleading in any way is it? Because that's what I wrote now. --Kailash29792 (talk) 11:14, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see a lot of actors in the first para who don't have a wiki article, either red link them or remove them.
Some actors like M. K. Mani, P. Nammalvar and M. R. Gnanambal (the female lead) are too important to omit from the lead because of their characters. But red-linking looks like it will do more damage. I don't think these actors will ever have articles because of lack of sources. --Kailash29792 (talk) 11:14, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we really need to link 'directorial debut' in the lead?
I agree it isn't useful, de-linked. In fact, the page shouldn't even exist as every man has a first film. --Kailash29792 (talk) 11:14, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And every woman as well. Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:48, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Madras in the second para.
Madras is linked in the first para in "a wealthy Madras-based man". --Kailash29792 (talk) 11:14, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yashthepunisher (talk) 10:28, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from DBigXray[edit]

  • Please fill up the "| runtime =" parameter in the infobox. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:38, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also see if there are others missing parameter in the infobox, that can be added. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:39, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we really need to include that the reel was of length XY ? what is the significance ? what makes it special ? looks like trivia to me. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:38, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is needed to signal the film was finished in some way. And since there is no source stating the film's runtime in minutes, we can only state it in reel length. So should I add this value in the infobox? I think so. --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:19, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, I forgot, in the olden days, reel was used to measure runtime. If I remember correctly there was a standard that 1 reel = W Mins. So the best way here would be to mention runtime = X reels (Y mins). --DBigXrayᗙ 16:38, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The runtime parameter is filled, but only in reel length. Can a duration in minutes also be added using the standard durations mentioned at Reel ? --DBigXrayᗙ 13:01, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DBigXray, is this calculation acceptable? Do I write 180 minutes? --Kailash29792 (talk) 12:00, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is actually 200 mins, writing it in bracket looks helpful to me. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:04, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DBigXray, I've written 200 minutes in the infobox. Should I put the reel length in brackets next to it? Do you have further comments? Kailash29792 (talk) 13:18, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox is fine now. I would suggest to mention "(equivalent to 200 mins)" at the place where the reel length is mentioned. So that one can make out where this 200 mins is coming from. --DBigXrayᗙ 13:39, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DBigXray, I've solved all your comments so far. Do you have further comments? It seems you do. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:13, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY marked as fixed. --DBigXrayᗙ 13:23, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the section "Filming" There are 2 refs together that are not arranged in ascending order in pair. Please fix this and review the article if more such examples are there. --DBigXrayᗙ 13:22, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I identified it at the sentence "lack of on-screen stage influences" and fixed the ref order. No other set of references arranged this way. --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:02, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY Thank you, marked as done, I will try to find more issues in coming days. If no more comments from me then this should be taken as a support from me. --DBigXrayᗙ 16:07, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Any further comments DBigXray? If not, you know what to do... at least for the co-ordinators to understand. --Kailash29792 (talk) 03:46, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is one more near "Danesbury House;[22][2] "--DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 17:25, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Kailash29792 (talk) 15:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I read the plot in English again and it says, "A Marvari who had lent a huge sum to Krishnamurthy, issues a warrant..." Is the current wording fine and accurate though? Kailash29792 (talk) 15:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY Thank you, marked as done. Looks fine. --DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 15:32, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, the link you put here is an American magazine. --Kailash29792 (talk) 15:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY Thank you for checking, marked as done. since the indian one does not have an article. --DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 15:32, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Kailash29792 (talk) 15:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY Thank you, marked as done--DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 15:32, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is "Saadhanaigal Padaitha Thamizh Thiraipada Varalaru" ? a magazine ? newspaper ? please clarify it since Non Tamil speakers cant decipher what it is from the name. --DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 17:37, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's a book, written. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY Thank you, marked as done--DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 15:32, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. I would still want a full sweep to fix issues that might have escaped. I will review it again once you have done your sweep. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 09:50, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the email, I understand that you cannot reply right now, but there is no hurry. Please ping me from this page, once you are unblocked and have checked the entire page to fix the CLOP issues if any. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 15:14, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from zmbro[edit]

Overall very well done. Just a few things:

I was advised against this by Yashthepunisher, and his reason was justified. --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:33, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • My main question is (and I'm sorry if this was already answered above) but is there a reason why the film no longer exists in its entirety? I'd really be interested to know. And how much of it remains? Half? Over half? Or only a small fragment?
Really I don't know. Maybe lack of care and preservation facilities then. Whatever remains is here. --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:33, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rest looks good. Great job to you! :-) – zmbro (talk) 15:56, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Zmbro, so does this mean you'll say support? --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:33, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yep happy to support :-) – zmbro (talk) 17:01, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Laser brain[edit]

I scanned this over this morning and find the prose to be deficient. It needs significant work from a strong copyeditor. A few random examples just from the Music section:

  • What is a "music director" in the context of an Indian film from that era? No explanation or context is provided.
  • You go on to discuss the lyricist and then presumably a song from the film but, again, no context is provided for what you're discussing.
  • Who is the composer?
  • There are lots of awkward phrases like "based on Subramania Bharati's poem, 'Karumbu Thottathile', with modified lyrics" The phrasing suggests lyrics were written from the poem and then modified for this version... but it's unclear.
  • "and the song explored" The song still exists presumably... you need to review what tense is used for writing about creative works like songs and poems.
  • "The song, which was composed in the Carnatic raga" The wording here is quite awkward. How do you compose "in a raga"?

These are just pot-shots from one section but it needs significant work to be FA quality prose. --Laser brain (talk) 14:49, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

if Ian doesn’t get it by the time we stop at a place where I can type, I’ll do it then. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:16, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the extent of the copyvio investigation into this nominator, along with Laser brain's oppose, archiving seems appropriate here. Earwig shows no current copyvio, but the history might need investigation nonetheless. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:19, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will suggest waiting for a month before archiving this. Nom has applied for unblock and talking with him, I feel he is ready to help fix the problems. --DBigXrayᗙ 20:24, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then it could come back to FAC in a month, after addressing issues raised by Laserbrain. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:26, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been at FAC over two months and concerns of the nature Andy raises at this stage necessitate closure regardless of the block and any potential unblock. It can be brought back at a later stage (minimum of two weeks per FAC instructions). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Sathi_Leelavathi_(1936_film)/archive1&oldid=936308298"