Wikipedia:Peer review/Pather Panchali/archive1

Pather Panchali

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because we wish to take it to featured article candidacy. Any input will be highly appreciated.

Thanks, Dwaipayan (talk) 05:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Kailash

I do not have much to say, except for these: -- Kailash29792 (talk) 07:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• The lead section can be expanded to three paragraphs, or just two big paragraphs.

• Lead has been expanded now.

• The title card can be replaced with a poster. These ones could do: [1], [2] and [3]

• Thanks for the links. Now, the title card has been replaced with a poster.

• All URL's must be archived to avoid link rotting.

• Technically I agree, although it's not a must. Do you know if this needs to be done manually for each URL?--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:59, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• All URLs now has archive links (unless I missed any).--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:42, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

• Also, I find the word "movie" cited too many times in the article. Because it sounds too amateurish, please replace it with something like "film".
• Pather Panchali has been included in NDTV's list of India's 20 greatest films and CNN IBN's list of 100 greatest Indian films of all time. Where can these statements fit in the article?
• The "Themes" section looks better near the production section, does it?

Comments by Dharmadhyaksha

• Infobox: Running time: 122 minutes (West Bengal)... What does that mean? Did the version released in WB run longer than other versions?

• Unsure about this. Will have to do some more searching.

• The searching ended up in an explanatory note explaining variable running time in different sources!--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:59, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• I agree on Kailash's comment of poster. But that should be done only if the original or at least a film poster of that age itself is available. I couldn't find any such. All are modern CD/DVD covers.
• "earns a meager living as a priest"... priest as in Pujari? We have separate article of that and can be thus used.

• Used the term Pujari, with wikilink.

• The snake crawling into the house. I didn't understand that. (I haven't seen the film.) How is it important to mention? Were snakes hushed away many times before in the film? What does it denote?

• Removed that bit. The snake probably denotes the idea of vastu sarpa, a snake that is believed to live in a house when it gets deserted (telling from memory, I do not know the exact significance of vastu sarpa) Anyway, it is not so significant.

• Plot section should contain only plot of the film. The farm running scene being memorable can go in another section or moved to the caption of the image and removed from the plot. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:16, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• Agreed, removed that discourse on the particular scene from the plot section.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:59, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment by RegentsPark

The 1959 "Best Foreign Film" award at the New York Film Festival is dubious. The festival began in 1963 and is non-competitive (no awards). Perhaps some other festival in New York? Also, you'll need to add references for each award (several are missing citations) if you want to take it to FA. --regentspark (comment) 15:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Excellent point. Thanks. I did not even look at that awards section before. Satyajit Ray Film and Study center at UC Santa Cruz says that NY award is from "Afro Arts Theater, New York". I will do some more search o the awards section, and add appropriate ref for all of them. Thanks a lot, again, regentspark. --Dwaipayan (talk) 02:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• Regarding the MoMA exhibition mentioned, since it seems to be an important point, you need to specify which exhibition. According to this, the film was shown in conjunction with an exhibition titled Textiles and Ornamental Arts of India. --regentspark (comment) 19:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• Named the exhibition.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• Also, Bosley Crowther's review is misrepresented in the article. Though he did use "listless" and the Hollywood reference, he's using that to tell the reader that the film is not an ordinary one. In the very next para, he continues But, oddly enough, as it continues—as the bits in the mosaic increase and a couple of basically human and dramatic incidents are dropped in, such as the pitiful death of the old woman and the sickness and death of the little girl—the poignant theme emerges and the whole thing-takes a slim poetic form. By the time it comes to its sad end, it has the substance of a tender threnody[4]. More like high praise rather than scathing! --regentspark (comment) 19:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot RP for detailed reading of the source. Yes, definitely the review is not "scathing". I made some changes in the sentence, although I am not sure if the particular sentence is good. Please have a look. --Dwaipayan (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Bollyjeff

• Is www.satyajitray.org reliable and objective enough according to WP policies to be used as a source for this article (currently 8 citations)? See their aboutus page.

• No, it is not a reliable source for this article. I'll replace the use of this website with other sources. Thanks for bringing our attention to this.

• Production-Title section: I see a non-uniform mix of italics and quotation marks, a red link, and a dead link.

• Made correct use of italics. The redlink stays redlink, there was an article on Panchali before, which got AfD-ed. Will replace dead URLs.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Classicfilms

The article shows a lot of potential. The language needs to be tightened a bit in a few places, something I don't have time to do right now but I'll try to take a look at another time.

There is a bit of an imbalence in the sections re: length and for this point I would refer you back to: Mother India http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_India

Beginning from the bottom:

• External links could be cleaned up a bit - only the bare minimum should be there (IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes etc.) - the rest should be integrated into the article.

• Removed three ELs.

• The References section is a little long - It is an important film but references really should be just a selection of some of the best works of scholarshp or articles on the film out there.

• The reference section lists books that have been used in the article for citation. The citation superscripts link to the footnotes in "Notes" section, which, in turn, links to respective books listed in Reference section. There is no additional books listed in Reference section other than those actually used for citation superscripts. So, there is no way really to decrease the number of references, unless we can overall use less books for citation.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• I prefer 3 columns for footnotes but I know there is not a set rule on that point.
• See Also can be tweaked to just contain the most relevant Wikilinks

• Actually removed the whole see also section for now. None of the items listed seemed essential, to me.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• The Awards section (didn't that subhead change to Accolades?) is a problem. I would either convert it to text such as in Mother India or make a brand new page such as:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lage_Raho_Munna_Bhai#Accolades

• Hmmm, I have no particular preference for table versus text. The wikiproject film MoS suggests "On the other hand, if the film is critically acclaimed and has many accolades, they can be listed in a wikitable. Column names for the table are typically Award, Category, Name (of persons), and Outcome. If a table overwhelms the rest of the film article, it can be split into a list article focusing on the accolades (e.g., List of accolades received by Up in the Air). The "Accolades" section can also mix prose and list." Do you think the list of awards, as it is now, overwhelmes the article? In that case, prose will be preferable. A list, however, has the advantage of easy readability and search-ability.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• The Reception section needs to be trimmed and reorganized - I would look again to Mother India:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_India#Reception

• Soundtrack - same, I'd look to Mother India:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_India#Music

• The soundtrack section is different from many other Indian films as it did not have any song, and I am not aware of any release separately (although it is possible). Not much objective information is available.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• I would reconfigure the "Production" section to mirror the MOS for Wikiproject Film:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(film)#Production

• That's a nice way of presentation of the production. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. I see such structure, however, is not always followed in film articles. even in FA articles. That being said, I liked the suggested structure. I'd definitely give a try to re-structure this article accordingly. --Dwaipayan (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

That's about it for now. Good choice, I'd like to see all three films of the Apu Trilogy become FAs. -Classicfilms (talk) 18:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

All of your responses seem fair - these were just suggestions - follow your instincts with regard to pushing to FA. -Classicfilms (talk) 08:21, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Stfg

• Prose: is already pretty good, and certainly up to GA standards, but not quite there for FA, I think. A few examples:
  • "The sitar-maestro Ravi Shankar": shouldn't hyphenate that, and maestro is really only used for conductors, not instrumentalists; virtuoso would be good.
  • "The tale of Apu's life is continued on the two subsequent installments ..." in, not on.
  • "her elderly aunt-in-law": I'm not sure whether we talk about aunts-in-law, but even if we do, "her" must be referring all the way back to Sarbajaya, since Durga doesn't have in-laws yet. "Harihar's elderly aunt" would be fine.
    • "cousin sister" isn't possible. Female cousin? --Stfg (talk) 14:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I've heard that this is an Indian term, but I agree it's too vague to use. Hekerui (talk) 15:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'll be ... You live and learn. Yes, several good online dictionaries acknowledge it, including Cambridge Online, Oxford Advanced Learners (which, however, counts it as informal) and Collins (which calls it a "new word suggestion", but with the previous evidence, one wonders). Thanks. --Stfg (talk) 16:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Wow, really we learn every day. I actually used just cousin, then probably ugog changed it to cousin sister, which was ok for me. Then I got to learn from stfg here that cousin sister is unusual. However, I've heard that a lot of times in India. I also think its a typical use of Indian English.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I added it there for the sake of flow (In my first read, I came to know, only after the first para, that Indir was a lady). All this while I thought the word was maybe colloquial but normal. Let's keep it as it is unless someone later objects; we can always add the most accurate (also a bit dull here) sounding "female cousin". -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:33, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

• • "overly". Colloquial.

and so it goes. If you wanted to request a copy edit at WP:GOCE/REQ, I'd quite like to do this one if someone doesn't beat me to it, but it won't be before Christmas and probably not till the 2nd week of January. Someone else might step up quicker.

• "The title of the film in English is Song of the Little Road.[3]" I'm not sure if that's true -- it could be just a translation of the title, rather than an official English title as that sentence implies. This film is often shown on British television, and I've always seen it billed as Pather Panchali, never with a translated title.

More to come, possibly. --Stfg (talk) 23:10, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

• All examples of prose deficiencies are addressed. That aunt-in-law was a massive error, and I overlooked it. We'll put the article in GoCE in a few weeks. Thanks a lot. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 00:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to wait and let you copy edit this yourself, since you are familiar with this discussion here and the specific areas where the prose needs to be improved. Dwaipayanc, what do you think? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

@Dwaipayanc:, @Kailash29792:, @Dharmadhyaksha:, @RegentsPark:, @Bollyjeff:, @Classicfilms:, @Ugog Nizdast:: I've just done a complete copy edit. Please would you review for error and infelicities. Happy New Year! --Stfg (talk) 20:38, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Ugog Nizdast

I've done a few minor fixes and some changes for better flow, check it in case I've changed something drastic. A few suggestions :-

• Plot
  • Perhaps you could use simpler words for derelict, propensity to steal, embittered, filial., I don't know about everyone else but I had to use a dictionary...
    • I am all ears for better simpler words. I will try myself. Any suggestions will be valuable. I think some of these words got inspired from the synopsis of the plot in different books.
      • Derelict is common, surely, and seems the right word here. Tendency instead of propensity was good. For embittered, just bitter? Instead of "Durga feels filial affinity towards her", would simply "Durga is fond of her" do? Except that "her" is ambiugous -- is it Indir or Sarbajaya? --Stfg (talk) 14:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
        • Those are all good solutions. Derelict...if anyone comes up with a better and simpler word, do replace it otherwise we can leave it, doesn't seem that bad now. How about just broken down? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
          • Broken down is said more of machines than of buildings. Derelict has a flavour that it's so bad that it's beyond repair, so I'm no longer sure it's such a good choice if Harihar intends to try to rebuild it. What would be your view of would ramshackle? or dilapidated? --Stfg (talk) 21:01, 18 December 2013 (UTC) (refactored --Stfg (talk) 23:23, 18 December 2013 (UTC))
            • Yes, dilapidated. That's the word. I think that word has a flavour of neglect. I personally have difficulty exactly understanding the word ramshackle, and not sure about its flavour. Dilapidated is the best.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Even ramshackle sounds fine by me. I think it's a more simpler word (since I have, again, not seen "dilapidated" much) but anything will do. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:33, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

• • " dreams of a better career as an author of scholarly plays and poems. ", sentence could be redone...rather than being an author of poems, just say 'poet'.
    • Done. Used "poet and playwright"
  • You could move the statement, "necklace that Durga had earlier denied having stolen;" to the first para itself. Better to clarify in the start itself that she denied it for better flow.
    • Added "Durga denies the accusation" at the end of the first paragraph. Is the flow/connection beter now?
      • I've merged it myself, it's better now. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Elaborate more on what's a jatra, reader may be forced to click on the link.
    • Slightly elaborated.
• Cast: The need to add "Apu and Durga's father" seems unnecessary, presenting just their character seems more than enough, since it's just after the plot. Also you can write the rest as "Apurba 'Apu' Roy" and "Durga Roy (Teenage girl)"
  • Removed mother and father info.
• Production
  • Again, forced to click on the link for "bildungroman".
    • Added the meaning.
  • Does the "Title" sub-section really deserve to be separate? Seems a bit stubby to me...
    • Completely agree that the subsection is stubby. Will have to think about how to incorporate this to somewhere else. ANy suggestion?
      • Not sure, best append it to the following sections (which is most apt) and name it "Title and ...". -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Minor wording and not sure myself: Is it founding member or founder member? and does "in location" require a hyphen?
    • Changed to founder member. Not sure about the hyphen in on location. Probably not in this instance.
  • "For the role of Apu, Ray advertised in newspapers looking for boys of five to seven years age.[33] Several boys turned up in response, but none of them met the expectation of the director. Finally, Ray's wife spotted a boy in their neighbourhood as a possible candidate. This boy, Subir Banerjee, was eventually cast as Apu (the surname of three main actors was Banerjee, although they were not related to each other).", these sentences can be be shortened and merged...especially the "several boys turned up" part since it sounds a bit silly. I think this can be even made into a single concise statement.
    • Yes, it's a bit silly/gossipy/anecdotal. Will try to reword. And I totally like your suggestion to shorten, but was unable to do so right now (have developed kind of a block towards the prose, fresh eyes needed).
      • Yup, hate that "block". Happens whenever I write my own prose from scratch and spend too much time on it. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  • "Filming" sub-section: "Ray had never directed anything and cinematographer Subrata Mitra had never operated a movie camera. Art director Bansi Chandragupta had professional experience, having worked with Jean Renoir on The River. In later years, both Mitra and Chandragupta went on to establish themselves as respected professionals in their craft."...Again can be shortened a bit I've highlighted the fragments which can be replaced with shorter wording.
    • Removed anything and in their craft. Could not figure out how to re-word the never operated a movie camera bit. Any suggestion?
    • Hope "Flopped" isn't a bit colloquial?
      • May be, not sure. Have not changed it, for now.
    • In Ray's quote about Indir Thakrun not dying, I'm not quite sure I understood what is meant by this...The character or the actress? Since that's a quotation it cannot be edited directly and maybe you have some additional explaining to do...
      • Hmmm, this one is tough. Ray is using the character names, but actually meaning the real-world actors. May be we should name the actors in square brackets within the quotation. What do you think?
        • Exactly, use the square brackets; that should do fine. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
    • "Indeed, the money was loaned on record for 'roads improvement', " Similar to the words to watch out for in MOS:OPED, I think it needs to be changed and again, I didn't get what that para was trying to say. Did the government fund it because they got fooled by the film's title?
      • Indeed. Removed. I am not sure if the government got fooled by the name, or, they intentionally sanctioned the loan in "road improvement". I will try to read the sources once again.
  • "Soundtrack": "described as at once plaintive and exhilarating", shouldn't that be in double quotation marks and maybe a mention of who said it (in this case, the reference which is provided)
    • Yes, done. Well, mentioned the magazine, not the author though.
    • "When Ray met him, Shankar hummed a tune which had both a classical...", sounds a bit odd...maybe needs to be elaborated/reworded better.
      • Hmmm, the source (Robinson's book) uses the verb hum. I changed it now to croon. Not sure which one is better. Also, changed the sentence and made it more like what the source says.
        • Croon really isn't suitable. If someone hums, then hum really is the right word. What's wrong with that sentence? --Stfg (talk) 14:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
          • Yes it isn't. On second thought, I think I'm fine with the original sentence. Maybe it caught my eye because of the wording since its anecdotal. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Shouldn't "raga Desh and Todi" be in italics or inverted commas?
      • Italics. Done.
        • Are the performance times from the Somanatha source? I ask because in The Raga Guide Desh is not connected to rain and Todi is not an evening raga and I have not seen those time claims in any other source I remember. Hekerui (talk) 11:01, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
          • Thanks for pointing this out. I had my doubts about this. Now, I removed the time info for Raga Todi, and removed the book source (ragas of Somanatha) that was supposedly for supporting the Todi time; I checked the mentioned pages of the book, the book does not mentiion anything on the time of Todi. The time of Desh Raga is based on Robinson's book.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:09, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
• Release: The first two paras seems a bit jumbled up. Perhaps split them into actual date of release and then international/domestic reception? First it says that it didn't do well locally but then said it did. And a maybe better wording in "Ray and his team worked day and night"...
  • I agree, I also felt that it may appear jumbled to a reader. For now, wanted to keep the flow chronological. In your suggested approach, the approach won't be chronological (which is not a problem) but may be easier to grasp. Will give it some thought. The appraoch in the source book has been chronological. That being said, the book has the luxury of space, which an encyclopedia article does not.
• Themes: The last sentence here maybe has a quotation by Biswas which needs to be in double inverted commas.
  • I will have to look at the source to verify if this was a verbatim quote or an acceptable close paraphrasing.
• Accolades: It has been discussed above about whether to use prose or lists—but personally, the first para is hard to read through comfortably because of it being in prose and with all its distracting blue links.
  • No particular preference, table versus prose. Let's keep it as it is. If more readers suggest using table instead, will do so.
• Legacy: "The central theme in Aparajito is the poignant relation between a doting mother and her young ambitious boy (of him right?). Apur Sansar tells the story of the brief family ('later' life would be better here) life of Apu, his reaction at the premature death of his wife, and finally bonding with his son whom he left as an infant." ...Just to make it more easier of the reader to understand.
  • "The central theme in Aparajito is the poignant relation between a doting mother and her young ambitious boy" that means the relationship between Sarbajaya and Apu (who become teenage). Is the sentence not clear?
    • I know it's obvious but it just didn't flow well according to me (The possibility of that referring to someone else). I've just placed "it" over there and now I think this maybe isn't a problem. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
• I found two instances of typographic commas, just make sure there aren't any more to replace with the typewriter form per WP:', also I'm not sure whether "Apu trilogy" should be in italics.
  • I was not aware of this style manual. Not sure how to find those, unless just happen to catch incidentally.

You have done a very good job with this and I hope my suggestions prove useful. And now I look forward to following this article's FAR when it happens so that I can get a first-hand experience...I've so far seen only two. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Wow! That was a tremendous review. Thanks a lot. Please continue to follow this, and provide more suggestions. Also, you cango ahead and fix things in the article. Thanks a lot.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

You're most welcome, I don't know whether I may be able to find any more but I'll try after a few days. Also instead of requesting at the GOCE, how about what waiting for Stfg like I said in the above section. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

That's kind of you, Ugog Nizdast. There's no need to request at GOCE, as I've become interested. I will try to get to it very early. --Stfg (talk) 21:01, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Wow, that would be great. Thanks, both of you. And I am feeling glad that stfg has grown interest for this article. That's the goal, making people interested! Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)