Wikipedia:Peer review/Mother India/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mother India[edit]

Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
We want to take this article to FAC soon and would like some outside opinions.

Thanks, Redtigerxyz Talk 10:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Crisco 1492

  • a 1957 Hindi epic film ... a melodrama - These two may work together better in the same sentence
  • That sounds okay, yes. I generally think genres should be with genres. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
done. --Redtigerxyz Talk 09:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • India's Gone With the Wind is cited in the "Critical reviews" section, where three sources (critics, authors) are cited. Shall we change the sentence in the lead as follows : "Known as India's Gone with the Wind according to several critics" or "Regarded as India's Gone with the Wind" by several authors/critics" ?
  • If several sources make the comparison there's no need. Perhaps rephrase "Often referred to as India's Gone with the Wind..."
Better to leave it out from the lead. --Redtigerxyz Talk 09:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation needed tag added.
  • Citation added for "most revered film".
  • Present day? When? 1957?
  • Present day/time the time of the narrative of the film, which is likely to be 1957. But the film does not explicitly mention whether it is 1957 or 1956 or any other year. So, what do you suggest? Any change of the semantics? I am not sure.
  • I think 1957 would be safe, as it's clearly not the present day for our readers (2013... she'd be quite an amazing woman to live so long). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to "The film begins in the present time (1957)" in the beginning of plot; at the end of the plot section, changed to "The film ends in 1957...".
  • the village - Does it have a name?
  • I have not come across the name of the village in any publcation so far. I don't remember the name from the film either (I saw the film partilly many years ago). I will ask in WT:INB is someone remembers.
  • You should definitely watch the movie again. Perhaps you could develop the plot a bit more (although it looks fine as is). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link names on first mention
  • I will go through the article to check if we missed any linking on first occurrence (as in the cast section). There are a few actors/crew whose names are not linked at all, as they do not have wikipedia articles. Do you prefer red-linking them?
  • No, I was thinking of the actors and actresses in the plot. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did.
  • 500 rupees - Roughly how much in pounds or dollars at the time? 500 rupees now is... not that much. Then?
  • I shall add the US dollar equivalent of that time (in this instance, and also other in other parts of the article). However, am not sure if we can add inflation-adjusted value, because I don't know where to find the inflation-adjusted values. Will try.
  • Added 1957 equivalent in dollars. However, this loan of 500 rupees was taken much earlier than 1957. The "present time" of the film is 1957, and this loan took place maybe 25-30 years earlier. Will think about this, and add perhaps an explanatory note.
  • "sell herself" - Her words? If so, would be nice to have a footnote here.
  • Removed this bit for now, as we are not sure if those were in the script of the film. I will see that part of the film again, and if she says something similar (in Hindi), will add that in a footnote.
  • sweep through the village, destroy the harvest, and kill Radha's youngest child. - are all of these because of the storm, the flood, or a combination?
  • Again, I wll see the pertinent part of the film, and then comment.
  • Changed to "A combination of storm and the resulting flood demolishes houses in the village and destroys the harvest; Radha's youngest child dies during the calamity."
  • migrate - Evacuate?
  • Changed to evacuate.
  • exactions - Perhaps a more common synonym?
  • Hmmm... extortion? demands?
  • Changed to demands.
  • Sukhilala and his daughter, lashing out at his family. - Feels redundant. I think you could lose "lashing out at his family"
  • Removed that part.
  • If Sukhilala's daughter has a name, it would be useful to avoid awkward constructions like "the wedding of Sukhilala's daughter"
  • Will try to find out the name. I can't recall now.
  • Got the name, Rupa. Used it in the article.
  • who had promised that Birju would not do harm, - Promised who? Was Birju invited? Also, wouldn't "would do no harm" be better?
  • Changed that part as followes: "...Birju returns with has gang of bandits to take his revenge. He kills Sukhilala and kidnaps his daughter. Radha, who had promised to Sukhilala that Birju would do no harm..."
So, Birju actually attacked (not invited) as a bandit on the day of the wedding, and took Sukhilala's daughter away on his horse. When he was fleeing from the village, Radha shot him from back. Please have a look if this is clearer.
  • So why/when did she promise Sukhilala that Briju would do no harm? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tried to explain all these. The last few sentences now read "He is chased out of the village and becomes a bandit. Radha promises Sukhilala that she will not let Birju, the bandit, do any harm to Sukhilala's family. On the day of the wedding of Sukhilala's daughter, Birju returns with has gang of bandits to take his revenge. He kills Sukhilala and kidnaps his daughter. When Birju tries to flee the village on his horse, Radha shoots him. He dies in her arms.".
  • Mayo singled out the "rampant" and fatally weakening sexuality of its males to be at the core of all problems, leading to masturbation, rape, homosexuality, prostitution, venereal diseases, and, most importantly, premature sexual intercourse and maternity. - If "rampant" is a direct quote it needs a source right at the end of the sentence.
  • Removed the quotation marks.
  • Mayo created an outrage across India - Mayo or her book?
  • The book; changed.
  • on a matter related to producing the film. - What matter?
  • He sought permission from the import authority to import film stocks for the film. Mentioned that in the article now, not sure if it is clear.
  • There has been considerable confusion and misunderstanding in regard to our film producing Mother India and Mayo's book. Not only are the two incompatible but totally different and indeed opposite. We have intentionally called our film Mother India, as a challenge to this book, in an attempt to evict from the minds of the people the scurrilous work that is Miss Mayo's book. - Best to provide the original (Hindi?) as a footnote, if it's not in English.
  • It was actually in English (a common language for official communication in India), and here it is copied verbatim from the source (Sinha 2006, cited)
  • Should the book have a redlink? I.e. Mother India (book)? If it got such a big reception, it's definitely worth its own article.
  • Wikilnked.
  • 1937 and 1940 - Perhaps link to the two films here?
  • Linked The Good Earth (film) to 1937. Surprisingly I could not find information on The Mother! Is it wrong information? May be. I will check Sinha's book (the cited source for this sentence).
  • Indeed it was wrong info. The source book did not mention The Mother as a film. I have changed the sentence as follows: "Khan took inspiration from another American author, Pearl S. Buck and her books The Good Earth (1931) and The Mother (1934); he also saw the film The Good Earth (1937) directed by Sidney Franklin".
  • (based on a novel by Maxim Gorky) - Not quite relevant here
  • Removed.
  • An unrelated Indian film named Mother India was released in 1938. - Probably not worth having in the article, perhaps a hatnote?
  • Removed this.
  • The caption was "Hindu mother and child. She feeds it opium when it cries." - This doesn't seem to be related to the film.
  • removed the image for now.
  • The production section needs some rearranging, some of it seems redundant (i.e. much of the paragraph starting "Khan took inspiration from another American author" should be in #Script
  • Moved to Script, as suggested.
  • assistant director of the film, - Who?
  • Named the particular assistant director.
  • Master Sajid - Was that his first name, or is Master an honourific?
  • Male child artists in Hindi film in those days were credited as master x, master y etc, while female artists often had the prefix baby! i do not readily have a documentary proof of this, just telling from experience. in this particular instance, master Sajid was what was written in the credits. Do you suggest an explanatory note? (again. I do not have an evidence to support this). Or else, just Sajid could be an option.
  • I'd just use Sajid, if Master is an honourific like that. Roekiah was credited as "Miss Roekiah" for much of her stage career, but Miss certainly wasn't part of her name. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed the honorific in all instances.
  • Link "lakh"
  • wikilinked.
  • Agree about the US$ being needed here
  • Added US dollar equivalents in 1957 exchange rate.
  • Did not find any notable names. Some names (such as the site of the canal, the location of the fire scene) were mentioned in Chatterjee's book, but no major notable names. The credits of the film actually had a thank you note to the chiefs of all the villages where it was shot. But IMO that is not a significant info to include in the article. What do you think?
  • Khan insisted that the film be shot in 35mm. - Why do we need to know he "insisted" on it?
  • Removed.
  • processed to - Sounds weird
  • Changed to "converted".
  • If the flood scenes used a farmer's land, what was Irani shooting in Uttar Pradesh?
  • Generic flood scenes without actors were shot in Uttar Pradesh. The specific flood scene was shot later. --Redtigerxyz Talk 09:49, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • free of cost; however he was paid later. - Did he not ask for reimbursement but have it given anyways, or did he change his mind?
Option 1. --Redtigerxyz Talk 09:49, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed the reference to Chatterjee book. Described now the way it is described in the book, and attributed "the belief that those were free of cost" to the author Chatterjee.
  • 200 farmers, horses and tractors - 200 each of farmers, horses, and tractors?
  • The source, Chatterjee's book, use "scores of horses...". Now incorporated that term, within quotes.
  • The fire scene was shot in Umra, Gujarat, - What fire scene?
  • Provided the context of the fire scene.
  • reel-life - Erm, this looks like a neologism
  • Changed to "in the film" and changed the sentence construction. Please have a look.
  •  — a popular actress at the time — - This should have been when we were first introduced to her
  • The sentence reads "Nargis — a popular actress at the time — fell in love with Dutt, who was in early stages of his film career and played her son in the film;" So, the phrase "popular actress" is used to contrast with the relatively new-comer Sunil Dutt. That's why I think it should be placed here, rather than in the beginning (lead? ) of the article. It tries to provide some context to the then background of the two actors.
  • Should note their actual date of marriage after you say that they were told to hold it.
  • Done.
  • Doing a fairly extensive copyedit as I go, make sure to point out anything I've changed that you don't agree with.
  • That's it for today, quite a bit for you to chew on. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed it for now. The photo is from the copy of the book that is hosted in the Australian version of gutenberg, that is why the Australian pd tag.
  • This image doesn't seem to be removed yet. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now removed.
  • File:Mother india soundtrack.JPG - This is clearly not an original CD (there were no CDs in 1957) but a rerelease of the original album. I don't think you need the cover art here anyways, as it's not particularly pertinent to context (i.e. NFCC#8)
  • Removed.
Thanks a lot for the detailed review. We are working on it, and replying immediately below each bullet pointed comments. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • distribution zones - Does this have a good target? Not sure it's a common term.
  • Changed to regions.
  • screening in Calcutta. - One or two?
  • Changed to "a screening".
  • 1,06,35,95,000 - huh? what? Huh? This number doesn't make sense. Also, the total before inflation should be in the article too.
  • No reliable data is there for the box office earning. Total before inflation is not available. The numbers are just estimate by trade websites. Mentioned this in the article now. Even Chatterjee's book (based on her research including accounts of the production house) does not give any idea about the exact earning.
  • There was a renewed interest in the film in 1970s when ticket sales showed an upsurge. - Was it in theatres again? Why?
  • It is mentioned later, in "legacy" section in the article, that the film was in continuous distribution (in theatres) since its release up to mid-1990s. Any suggestion if this needs be mentioned here? Or, the 1970s info be moved down in legacy?
  • Yes, Eastern bloc; used that term in the article now.
  • so a "color motion picture process" held a screening? Erm... doubt it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its the name of the company as well, the full name is Technicolor Motion Picture Corporation. Indeed Technicolor SA seems to have been a sister company of that, and changed its name to just "Technicolor" in 2010. The source simply mentions "Technicolor", according to Wikipedia aarticle. Should we change that to "Technicolor Motion Picture"?--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might need to dig further. For now, unless we're certain, we shouldn't link. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Les Bracelets d'or - Why the capital B? French naming conventions avoid capitals after the first word.
  • Changed to bracelets.
  • Paragraph starting "Greece and communist countries..." is very list-y and needs to be rewritten, perhaps in further summary.
  • Tried some trimming, although not a lot. The problem is this paragraph mentions the name of countries or group of countries; so it has the listy feeling. I am unsure how much successful I will be in summarizing this paragraph without loosing some information.
  • Baburao Patel of Filmindia - Is this a magazine, a newspaper...? Tells us about the publication.
  • In a 2002 review in The New York Times, film critic Dave Kehr said that the film "...is often said to have helped set the pattern for the nearly 50 years of Indian film that has followed it." and the following sentence - Seems more suited for a legacy section
  • Moved the "50 yeras..." sentence to legacy. Regarding the following sentence (on comparison of the film with other films like Gone with the Wind"), do you think it can stay here? I mean it can probably fit in both sections if fitted correctly!
  • Probably preferable to keep it in Legacy. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moved the whole Gone with the Wind bit to legacy, as suggested.
  • Contemporary Indian (or foreign) reviews would be a blessing, although admittedly a little tough to get.
*Baburao Patel is Contemporary, we can check if others can be found. --Redtigerxyz Talk 09:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The New York Times' website should have something. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added bits of two contemporary international reviews. Will try for more.
  • Critical reviews section seems a bit too dependent on quotes for me.
  • However, the submitted entry was dramatically different from the original version released in India. The version sent to the Academy was edited down to 120 minutes, cutting at least 40 minutes from the film for the benefit of a foreign audience. - Is this the same as the international edition noted above? Might be worth expanding on there instead.
  • Yes the Oscar version was similar to the international version, but with two changes. The Oscar version had English subtitles, and the logo of Mehboob production was removed. Now, whether the international version did not have English subtitles? I don't know. I am digging at the source to see if any info on that is available. So far, it seems the Oscar version predates the version that was released in English-speaking Western world. So, likely that the version reeased in US and UK had English subtitles. In that case, some clarification will be added.
  • Several when and where tags.
  • The editor Redtigerxyz seems to have taken care of these tags.
  • masala - What does this mean? If it's still closely related to the Indonesian masalah, it would mean "problem", so I'm not exactly getting his point.
  • masala "a varying blend of spices used in Indian cooking." - Merriam Webster. Indian word incorporated in English. --Redtigerxyz Talk 09:49, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Themes usually goes after production.
  • Moved the theme section; it is now right after Production.
  • classical music - Like, Mozart classical?
  • Yes, like Mozzart classical. Slightly changed wordings and wikilinked.
  • woodwinds - Link?
  • Wikilinked.
  • Removed played loudly.
  • Check for tense agreement in the legacy section
  • It is one of the films on Box Office India's list of "Biggest Blockbusters Ever In Hindi Cinema".[1] - Not particularly impressive, it can be trimmed.
  • Removed.
  • Trimmed. Contained only Deewar.
  • Themes section looks like a mess, I'll put it off for now. Maybe tomorrow. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:48, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The piece is unmelodic and effectively creates tension over such a negative moment in the film. - Opinion, needs attribution.
  • Changed the wordings, and attributed.
  • Themes section is inherently POV, so we have to cite who's POV we're writing. As an example, "Nargis's Mother India is a metonymic representation of a Hindu woman, reflecting high Hindu values, with virtuous morality and motherly self-sacrifice.": according to who?
  • Started working on giving proper attribution in the theme section. This is taking some time. Searching, and also making sure there is no close paraphrasing.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Attributed all sentences except a few becasue either could not find the attribution (added cn tag in article), or could not find the page numbers mentioned on-line (left inline comments, so that this can be addressed later).
  • Reduced the quote; left about half within quote, and rest converted to prose.
  • "The red water that flows from the canal irrigating the green fields at the end of the film is seen as the blood of Indians in the struggle for independence flowing to nourish a new free India." - Is this still Chatterjee's opinion?
  • It is not Chatterjee's opinion; indeed it's from a video (a TV production) in YouTube. I have commented out this sentence for now, until we check that video.
It is Chatterjee's view as in the documentary. Redtigerxyz Talk 13:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • the earth-mother - What's this supposed to mean?
  • While the nationalistic representation of Hindu values may seem unusual in that the "Mother India" figure was portrayed by a Muslim actress and directed by a Muslim director, - According to?
  • Ya, it was editorial comment. Removed, Retained just the fact that acted by a Muslim, and directed by a Muslim.
  • Mother India's actions - The character's name is not Mother India.
  • Changed to Radha.
  • Note the citation needed tag
  • This section is written extremely well, much better than the others, so I'd strongly suggest you do a thorough check for close paraphrasing. It's difficult with theme sections, but we need to be extra careful. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did check for close paraphrasing by copy-pasting sentences/clauses in google search. One significant result was returned. I converted that clause within quotation marks ("vied for alternative definitions of Indianness"). --Dwaipayan (talk) 20:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • account ledgers of the production revealed that they were paid - Who was paid? Unclear from context.
  • Vilklagers were paid; mentioned that.
  • Karlovy Vary International Film Festival - Probably needs an "in" before modern day Czech Republic
  • Added "in".
comments from Tim riley
  • General
    • Punctuation: be consistent about use of double or single quotes. WP prefers the former, for some occult reason.
Not sure about this. Can you please give an example. Will stick to double quotes. Redtigerxyz Talk 17:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The one that caught my eye – there may be others that I missed – was as the 'mother' of the village in the plot section. And the Rushdie block-quote in the Themes section shouldn't be enclosed in quotation marks (see WP:Manual of Style#Block quotations) and has a rogue single quote mark before the words that image. Tim riley (talk) 18:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Script
    • "was penned by Babubhai Mehta" – rather repellent journalese. What about "written"? There's another "penned" later, too.
    • "the public will not accept their casting as mother and son because she has done several" – surely "would not" and "had done"?
Both done. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Casting
    • "directors'" – there seems to have been only one director, so the possessive apostrophe needs to go before the s.
Done. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Themes
    • "all time iconic images" – I think (but I may be wrong) that you need a hyphen in all-time
You are right. Done. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Release
    • "were invited to the premiers" – premieres, not premiers
Oops. Done. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Music
    • "Another "penned" here.
    • "similar discordal orchestral music" – neither the Oxford English Dictionary nor Grove's Dictionary of Music and Musicians has heard of the word "discordal"
Was "discording". Changed. Done. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Explanatory note b
    • "can not" or "cannot"?
Both are acceptable. [1]. Redtigerxyz Talk 17:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bibliography
    • I found the jumbled mass of web refs and book refs heavy going. Too late now, but in future articles it will be much easier for your readers if you put web refs in the notes, and have a bibliography of printed books. Hacking my way through the undergrowth I noticed some missing ISBNs for the printed sources – e.g. Ghandy, Rajadhyaksha, Sinha (1998).
Since there is no concrete policy on this, we used the current one, which is advised during making of FA Ahalya. Earlier, I followed the style you described in FA Iravan. Will fill ISBNs. Redtigerxyz Talk 17:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's my lot. Tim riley (talk) 11:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tim riley for the comments. Redtigerxyz Talk 17:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please let me know when you take this article to FAC. I'll be glad to add my support. Tim riley (talk) 18:16, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Bollyjeff

  • While links to sources like newspapers and websites are linked mostly first time in the text, they are linked randomly, and very often in the references. Try to do first times only. Also, Hindustan Times is not italicized in the fourth bib entry.
  • Within Bibliography, wikilinked on the first instances. Great observation. Italicized the Hindustan Times.
  • In Music section Planet Bollywood is incorrectly italicized. Probably should check all non-newspaper web sources for this.
  • This one rectified.
  • Newspaper and film names are not italicized at all in the footnotes. Is that by design?
  • It is by design.
  • A fair number of red links.
  • That's not a problem for the article. If you think any redlink is undue, that can be removed. Most of the redlinks are notable, and deserves an article, so kept the redlink.
  • Full video on youtube and links to external pictures; allowed?
  • External pictures are probably ok. Not sure about youtube though.--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:56, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to feedback I received while working on Darah dan Doa, external links for films are copyvios unless the films are PD, CC, or hosted by the company. In other words, as the film is not PD in the US an EL is not a good idea. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might be worthwhile to make sure newspapers use cite news instead of cite web and vice versa
  • As far as I understand, it is the output (how the readers are reading the article/references) that need to be consistent, not the particular template that is used. That is, templates used may be different, but the article, while reading, should look consistent. --Dwaipayan (talk) 14:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That may be true (I don't know), but 'cite news' usually contains work=, whereas 'cite web' usually has publisher= which would help the italics to be right more often. BollyJeff | talk 15:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Doing. --Redtigerxyz Talk 15:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I may be back later, but it looks quite good. BollyJeff | talk 01:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I know that this could be challenging, but in the name of comprehensiveness, how about Home media? BollyJeff | talk 01:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added the availability of DVD and distributor. Not much concrete data available, as you suspected.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are several other DVD releases listed on Amazon as well. Knowing which one came when etc. is a real challenge. If you can find out when it first came out in any format, that would be good. BollyJeff | talk 00:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, there are some more DVD releases listed in Amazon; all are distributed by Eros. One entry is on a region 1 release. All regions include region 1, so we chose this particular entry. I could not find when was it first released in DVD. Moreover, it was released in VHS before, and there is one catalog for VHS ( company name something like Al Mansoor of UAE) in WorldCat. Since not much information is available, we just included the availability.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:59, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mark Arsten

  • I've made it down to "Reviews" thus far. It looks pretty good, not a lot of complaints. I've been making some copyedits as I got, but feel free to revert any of them.
  • Check for consistency with the serial comma.
  • That's a difficult one :) Will try. In general, we are probably tending to use it.
  • Check that reference numbers are in ascending order, i.e. [9][26] instead of [26][9]
  • I hope this has been addressed.
  • De-linked orchestra. I guess polemical is a difficult word, and would be ok for a wikilink?
  • For "According to the academic Nalini Natarajan" you might want to specify which type of academic he is.
  • Hmm, good question, I'm not sure. I guess you could leave it as is. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The production team had planned to release Mother India to commemorate the tenth anniversary of India's independence on 15 August 1957, but the film was released over two months later." Any idea what caused them to miss the target?
  • I did not find anywhere any explicitly written reason for the delay. However, the main book that we have used (Chatterjee 2002) mentins that the director had to do "tremendous effort to bring the film to the release print stage as quickly as possible and dispatch it to the Technicolor office in London. Mehboob then proceeded to London for the final editing and colour correction, and Irani accompanied him for sound editing." We can imagine that the delay was probably due to such protracted post-production; however, lack of such explicit mention prevents me to say so in the article. At best, we can add an explanatory note What say?--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There was a renewed interest in the film in 1970s when ticket sales showed an upsurge." which film are you referring to here?
  • Clarified in the article that the film in question is Mother India.
  • "Technicolor arranged one screening of the film in Paris on 30 June 1958, under the name Les bracelets d'or." What does that translate to in English?
  • Added in the article.
  • "Mother India was also acclaimed across the Arab world, in the Middle East, parts of Southeast Asia and North Africa and continued to be shown in countries such as Algeria at least ten years after its release." I'm curious, is there any information about its reception in Pakistan?
  • In my readings, I did not come across any mention of Pakistan. I seriously doubt whether it was officially released in Pakistan. There was a ban on Indian films in Pakistan (not sure about exact timeline though).
  • "It was released in US on 9 July 1959 to lukewarm response, and the UK release was also a commercial failure.[64] The initial international version of the film was 40 minutes shorter than the Indian release version." This was subtitled, I presume?
  • Yes, it was; will add that.
  • When was it released in the UK?

Mark Arsten (talk) 19:00, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Birju, embittered by the demands of Sukhilala since he was a child" To be nitpicky, the "he" here is somewhat ambiguous.
  • Changed to "Birju, embittered since childhood by the demands of Sukhilala..." Indeed this "since childhood" phrase may be deleted altogether.
  • You might want to add the dates of the reviews in the reviews section.
  • Dates added.
  • " but there were fears it might not be accepted by American audiences" Might want to specify who feared this.
  • Clarified this by changing the sentence construction.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, sorry for the delay, but that's all my comments. Looks good to me. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Boxofficeindia.com.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Mother_India/archive1&oldid=1089813976"