Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/59th National Film Awards/archive1

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

The list was not promoted by Giants2008 15:26, 28 August 2012 [1].

59th National Film Awards[edit]

59th National Film Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): - Vivvt • (Talk) 15:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC); User:Animeshkulkarni[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because... the article has a great potential to be one. - Vivvt • (Talk) 15:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 12:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • The logo can be cropped to meet the non-free media policy.
done - Vivvt • (Talk) 20:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove the gallery section as per WP:IG. You may create a category in Wikimedia commons for that, and then link the category in the external links section.
done - Vivvt • (Talk) 20:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Vaibhav, Most of the award ceremony articles have images of winners on the side. See sample 82nd Academy Awards. But the images in this article were added below because of the lack of space. Is that still not acceptable? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 17:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is, but a whole gallery section with too many pictures makes it too distracting. And also, you will have to add alternative texts for each image, which can be a tedious task. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 17:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove the unnecessary external links.
All the sources mentioned in the external links are official sources except other resources. This is done per another FL 82nd Academy Awards. Are you explicitly looking for something to be removed? - Vivvt • (Talk) 20:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Entries of dubbed/revised/copied ... by the Central Board of Film Certification." There is no source for this whole part.
done. This was pointed out in Peer review and was explained then and there. But still I have added source to avoid further confusion. - Vivvt • (Talk) 20:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 4 doesn't support a huge part of the first para of the Awards section.
done - Vivvt • (Talk) 20:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Introduced in 1969, the birth centenary...its growth and promotion." No source for this.
done - Vivvt • (Talk) 20:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try to avoid words like eminent, which make the article non-neutral.
done - Vivvt • (Talk) 20:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a cn tag in the article. Please fix it.
done - Vivvt • (Talk) 20:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No source for the whole Golden Lotus Award section.
done - Vivvt • (Talk) 20:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
done - Vivvt • (Talk) 20:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't review the whole list since I don't have much time right now. After a quick look, I can say that the list needs some tweaking, but it is a good candidate for FL status. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 08:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support Good work overall. The prose seems fine to me, but like always, a copy-editor may find some problems. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 12:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, it appears that the prose needs tweaking (even though I'm no copyedit expert :P). For example, sentences like "With six categories awarded with 'Swarna Kamal' (Golden Lotus Award), rest were awarded with 'Rajat Kamal' (Silver Lotus Award)" are monotonous and do not exactly flow with the rest of the prose. Secret of success (talk) 15:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Have not read the whole thing. However, prose issues are apparent from the beginning.
Very short, one-sentence choppy opening paragraph in the lead.
"With total 392 entries submitted for the three award sections; Feature Films, Non-Feature Films and Best Writing on Cinema; eight different committees consisting of 41 jury members were instituted in order to judge the various entries.". The use of semi-colon is probably not very usual. Two unspaced emdahses can be used instead. "In order to"-- discouraged by good copyeditors, just "to" is fine. Indeed the whole sentence structure can be changed here: Eight different committees consisting of 41 jury members were instituted to judge 392 entries in 3 award sections—Feature Films, Non-Feature Films and Best Writing on Cinema.
done - §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 07:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"... was awarded as Best Book on Cinema; whereas an Assamese film... " Whereas not needed.
done - §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 07:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"...to a Bengali actor Soumitra Chatterjee...". To "the". Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
done - §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 07:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query: Regarding copy editing i had two doubts:
  1. About capitalization: Should award category titles use sentence case or title case? For categories like "Best Promotional Film" i feel title case is apt. But for main categories of "Feature Film", "Non-Feature Film" and "Best Writing On Cinema", what should be used?
  2. Hindi titles of the awards are included in single quotation marks e.g. 'Rajat Kamal' (Silver Lotus Award). Is that okay? Or should "double quotation" or italics be used here? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 07:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
done - §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 11:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article with a prose size of 15k bytes doesn't look like a list for me. —Vensatry (Ping me) 14:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the peer review i had said; "As to being an article or a list i couldn't find any previous discussions related to awards. There have been similar discussions somewhere for List-of-episodes with no definite conclusion. But still majority of such pages are under lists. I could not find any year-wise award related page under "article". Even if the content has more prose, the basic page is a list of awards. But if consensus is different i am okay with categorizing it that way." §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 14:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Ref 31-33, 44, 47, 51 has no publisher. The date format on the references is inconsistent example "September 26, 2011" and "Apr 1, 2012". Afro (Talk) 07:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
done -§§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 08:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the lead needs to be referenced. You have 2 unsourced paragraphs in the Awards section. "The court imposed 2000 on the petitioner for moving the court without ascertaining the facts of the case." Ref should at least be repeated. Afro (Talk) 10:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All info the lead is already referenced in the article below per the usual practice. It also does not contain any quotes, which are usually referenced even if present in lead. Are you looking for any particular line in lead that is missing reference? Have added references to those 2 paras. Just repeated them. Same with court thing; just moved the reference. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 10:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On review I think the sentence regarding how it was broadcast could likely be challenged. Afro (Talk) 12:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rearranged the references for the broadcast. - Vivvt • (Talk) 03:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Although I think it is rather an article. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 19:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on prose in the lead only.

  • No need to have 59th in bold.
Should we not bold the complete title 59th National Film Awards per MOS:BOLDTITLE than just 59th? I'm not sure if we need to reformat the lead. - Vivvt • (Talk) 02:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, see WP:CONTEXTLINK, we don't actually need to partially or entirely bold lead links. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • C of Indian Cinema doesn't need to be in caps.
done - Vivvt • (Talk) 20:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "for the year 2011" no need for "the year".
done - Vivvt • (Talk) 20:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For Feature Films section" -> "For the Feature Films..."
done - Vivvt • (Talk) 20:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For Feature Films section, the award for the Best Feature Film was shared by two films, ..." repetitive use of "film" three times in about 14 words.
done - Vivvt • (Talk) 02:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similar comment applies to the next sentence which has film about five times.
done - Vivvt • (Talk) 02:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which is regarded as the most prestigious award of Indian cinema" where is this claim referenced?
Added relevant sources (16,17,18,19). done - Vivvt • (Talk) 02:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "award was announced on March 23, 2012 and was awarded " -> award ... awarded is repetitive prose.
done - Vivvt • (Talk) 20:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "for his paramount contribution" keep it neutral unless someone has actually said it was "paramount".
done - Vivvt • (Talk) 20:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The ceremony also had its live telecast on" why not "ceremony was broadcast live on television..."?
done - Vivvt • (Talk) 20:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support made a minor correction in Template:Reflist to provide flexible number of columns depending on the browser width. The List article gives all the required information in a lucid way. Good job --DBigXray 20:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Partial oppose

  • Print media like "Hindustan Times", "The Hindu" and "Times of India" should be italicized (in refs #1, #13, #30, #31 and #50)
Done. - Vivvt • (Talk) 22:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is "Supriyo Sen" in ref #49 italicized
Done. - Vivvt • (Talk) 22:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "IBN Live" shouldn't be italicized
Done. - Vivvt • (Talk) 22:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #63 has neither work nor publisher parameters
Done. Replaced with another source. - Vivvt • (Talk) 22:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is Press Trust of India italicized in many refs
Done. - Vivvt • (Talk) 22:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes "ejumpcut" a RS
Done. Replaced with another source. - Vivvt • (Talk) 22:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #22 needs correction
Done. - Vivvt • (Talk) 22:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Italicize "TOI" in the section "Southern Region II: (Kannada, Telugu)"
Done. - Vivvt • (Talk) 22:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is TOI not w-linked in refs #10 and #11, either link all or only the first occurrence; same for Indian Express in ref #9
Done. - Vivvt • (Talk) 22:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • pp. 156 -> p. 156 in ref #8, same in #34, #35 and #39
Done. - Vivvt • (Talk) 22:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • refs like this [59][64][65][66][67], [44][45][47][53] and [15][16][17][18][19], should be cite killed
Those multiple references were added in multiple places because we have received such comments from other reviewers. For eg, User:The Rambling Man wanted references for establishing that DPA is "the most prestigious award of Indian cinema". All awards are referenced to one catalogue. But when subsections were left unreferenced, reviewers have commented like wise. Hence i feel its better to leave those refs the way they are unless we want to keep playing seesaw here. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 09:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never said to remove those refs. Go for trimming those refs. The present form makes the citations look haphazard. —Vensatry (Ping me) 18:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certificate Only ->Certificate only
Done. - Vivvt • (Talk) 22:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Best Writing On Cinema -> Best Writing on Cinema
Done. - Vivvt • (Talk) 22:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ministry of Information and Broadcasting" and "Amitabh Bhattacharya" are linked twice in "Award ceremony" section
Done. - Vivvt • (Talk) 22:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • USD conversion of ₹ 2000 is needed
Done. - Vivvt • (Talk) 22:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link "Siri Fort Auditorium II" appropriately
Done. No direct link found. Linked to Siri Fort.- Vivvt • (Talk) 22:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many paragraphs are inadequately sourced; For instance, sentences like "Submissions were requested to be submitted on or before January 17, 2012" needs to be cited separately
Done. Please let us know if any unsourced/inadequately sourced content found. - Vivvt • (Talk) 22:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was a delay in announcing the Dadasaheb Palke Award this year. A mention of that could be made
Phalke Award is always declared later. That should not be considered as delay. - Vivvt • (Talk) 22:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

—Vensatry (Ping me) 07:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think so. They are announced well in advance before the other awards. I still remember K. Balachander's name that was announced on 29 April 2011 where as announcement of other awards were made only on 19 May. Unlike the previous years this time many contenders were publicly announced (though not officially) [2] [3], [4] and [5]. I'm not forcing you upon this. You may like to add it —Vensatry (Ping me) 05:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those are all speculations i suppose. MidDay reports Pran and E Nageshwar Rao to be contenders. It quotes Supran Sen of Film Federation of India as "The decision is taken by the committee that includes past recipients like Dilip Kumar, Lata Mangeshkar and Yash Chopra to name some." We now know that none of those 3 were jury members. So even if Pran and Rao were "quoted" by Sen (which it isn't per report) it could very well be his guess work. The in.com report says "If sources are to be believed, then the coveted honour is either going to Vyjayanthimala or Pran..."!!!
And as to the delay, 57th awards were announced in September and 56th in January. I don't think they themselves have any time limit on announcing awards of any category. It would be our research to put it that way. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 09:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright! As I said earlier, I'm not forcing upon this. —Vensatry (Ping me) 18:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments beyond the lead - still oppose

  • "The selection process started by announcing .." not really, "The selection process started with the announcement of..."
  • " For Feature and Non-Feature Films, all the films certified by Central Board of Film Certification..." film, film, film....
  • "Feature Films were required to be certified as a feature film or...." really?! Sorry but I don't see what this really is getting at....
  • "received for Feature Films" -> "received in the Feature Film category"
  • "making it the highest in the history" what is "it" here?
  • " Non-Feature Films category" -> "The Non-Feature..."
  • "submitted for best writing on cinema section" -> "for the best writing on cinema section". Question, why is "best writing on cinema" not capitalised when you capitalised Non-Feature Film etc?
  • Especially when you have "and Best Writing on Cinema..." in the next section.
  • "With each section having individual aims, Feature Film and Non-Feature Film sections aimed at...." (1) individual aims seems pretty obvious to me. (2) "sections _were_ aimed at"

Just starting the Awards section, but this is clearly in need of a copyedit from someone who knows what they're doing.... Suggest withdrawing and getting a third party to have a look.... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Though I found a negligible difference in the new version, I have done the above changes. The third point above now reads "Films were required to be certified as a feature film or featurette, or as a Documentary/Newsreel/Non-Fiction by the Central Board of Film Certification." Secret of success (talk) 13:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: We had already raised a request to Guild of Copy Editors on 8th August. See here. Unfortunately, we got no response till date. - Vivvt • (Talk) 13:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, we have withdrawn our request from GOCE, and if you have any problems with the article's prose, please list them here. Secret of success (talk) 17:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's the best approach. This process (WP:FLC) is not designed to peer review articles. They should be of a minimum standard before being submitted here. If you can't get success at WP:GOCE then I suggest you head to WP:PR and get a few reviewers who are native English speakers to go over it a couple of times. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like you to double-check the use of those citations, they are so long they are probably copyright violations. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, Rambling man, simply making apathetic statements and the usage of phrases like "they are probably" do not add anything to your comments and are a waste of time. If you feel there are problems, please list them here before you jump to conclusions and we will try to address them. Thanks. Secret of success (talk) 12:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, I'm just trying to warn you. I'm no expert, please find one (I have previously recommended User:Moonriddengirl). The comment is not "apathetic", nor is it "a waste of time". I have jumped to no conclusions, merely offered an opinion on lengthy quotes which, in the past, have been made a lot shorter to avoid copyright violations. See the recently promoted Polar Music Prize and its associated FLC as an example of this. Hope that helps. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have checked the article for copyvios. There are no WP:QUOTEFARM problems, and no significant amounts of reproduced text that would be considered a copyright violation from any document. Secret of success (talk) 12:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you don't consider "For its witty, satirical and penetrative account of the politics involved in the commercialization of religion in India. Through a wonderfully authentic depiction of village life, mentality and gesture, Deool has a social, religious and commercial sweep, even as it individualizes each of its characters and endows them with a language and space of their own. The film ironically shows the wholehearted acceptance of commodified and clamorous religiosity in a land plagued by all the serious problems the country faces today, and it does so with laughter that is only slightly tinged with cynicism." to be a direct copy-and-paste and the same in nature to problems faced by the Polar Music Prize article? The tables with citations are a 100% copy-and-paste of the PDF article you link, i.e. 100% of the text in the PDF has been reproduced in this list. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone through the FLC of Polar Music Prize. The same argument that it is a "citation" and hence cannot be avoided in an article about the award applies here. WP:QUOTEFARM is not violated in this instance, and since the quotes given by the NFA committee are always too poetic, the method of keeping only the subjective words inside the quotes is not really useful here. Secret of success (talk) 12:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, well I firmly believe that you are violating copyright for no benefit to this encyclopedia. Because of that, and the fact the whole article needs copyediting, I strongly oppose this candidate. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that the citations be removed? The point of the citations is to provide critical commentary, and there have been no explanations as to why it is of "no benefit to this encyclopedia" other than the one that they are long, and hence all their usefulness is digested by this argument. I wish to get Vivvt's and AK's opinion on this, but as of now, my stance is perfectly neutral in order to reduce the heat. Btw, you still haven't elaborated on the copy-editing part, given that all your past concerns regarding that have been addressed. Secret of success (talk) 13:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These kind of floral tribute citations are entirely unnecessary. And what is the copyright status of the document you 100% copied and pasted? I suggest (as I did above) you get a view from someone who is much more experienced in this area than us. As for elaborating the copyedit issue, well, as I said above, I reviewed the lead, it had multiple issues. I reviewed the next section, it had multiple issues. FLC is not a peer review mechanism. I'm not going to produce hundreds more comments about the basics of English grammar which should have been resolved before this nomination was initiated. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The quotes are actually ok as they describe the actual reason for inclusion. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 13:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am okay if we remove the starting "For" from all quotes. That way it won't be exact copy and thats the only cutting-short possible. But i am against cutting it randomly or rephrasing it on suggestions of people from that GOCE group or anyone just because they are native English speakers or whatever. We can't have these editor's researches under names of that Award's qualified jury. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 13:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't suggest that. I suggest GOCE copyedited the main prose in the article, not the floral tributes. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such rule that FLC's shouldn't have too many comments and that peer reviews should be opened once someone feels that there are problems with the prose. Contrarily, it is mandated that an oppose has to come with reason, be it any number of comments. All your issues have been addressed till now, except the copyright part, and since it is felt that more issues cannot be listed, your oppose does not count for that part. Period. You have to give more detail and comments for doing that and await for the issues to be fixed, instead of just saying that the article has problems. Secret of success (talk) 13:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is a level of expectation that the prose is written in grammatically correct English. I do not have to give any more comments, but I took the liberty of just picking the odd sentence from the various sections to give you an overview of how many issues exist in the article. Please don't just fix these very specific points and wait for more, this is just a demonstration of how much work is left to do before the prose is anywhere close to meeting the requirements of FLC. Here you go:
  • "and also had live webcast" - "and was also webcast live"
  • "Submissions were requested to be submitted " -> "submissions" quickly followed by "submitted"? Not professional standard of prose.
  • "awrd .... was also awarded ..." same again.
  • "to a film personality for the outstanding contribution to the ..." -> why is it "the" outstanding contribution? Should be "his" or "her".
  • "growth and development of Indian Cinema" why is cinema capitalised this time round?
  • "A recipient of Dadasaheb Phalke Award at 53rd National Film Awards, Beneg" -> "at _the_ 53rd...." there are dozens of these.
  • "The award for the year 2011 was " -> "year" is redundant here.
  • "also awarded with a Medallion for" why capital M here? And do you really need to link it to Medal?
  • "awarded at All India as" what is "All India"? Do you just mean "national"?
  • "At regional level, each panel was formed with one regional head and four members, with regional head and one jury member selected from outside the region and rest from the region" -> the word "region" appears in this sentence five times. Not engaging.
"regional head" is like a post, like "regional manager". Hence it is used that way. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 15:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well using the same word five times in a sentence is not "professional, engaging prose" which we seek to achieve at FL. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Following were the awards given" -> "The following awards were presented".
  • "In Non-Feature Film section, 21 films have been awarded " -> "In the Non-Feature Film section, 21 films were awarded..."
  • "three films winning maximum number of awards " -> "the maximum" or do you really mean "winning the most awards"?
  • "As ceremony marked the beginning of the centenary year ..." -> "As _the_ ceremony..."
  • "of Indian Cinema, the ceremony started"-> "of Indian cinema, it started..."
  • "which surfaced the fact that " Not even sure what this means.
Is this helpful? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 15:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. It was the "surfaced the fact" that I was referring to. That's not really English. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's the reason why examples of usuage of this phrase in English are given. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 07:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow. I don't know what "usuage" means, and I don't understand what "surfaced the fact" means. It's not English. It may be poor grammatically incorrect English, in which case it should be fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@TRM: You can not simply discard it saying "It's not English" when there are enough sources provided. If required, we may also provide online sources from US based site. Please let us know on that. - Vivvt • (Talk) 13:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, keep it as it is. Please copyedit or arrange for someone independent to copyedit the rest of the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not grammar, but a side issue... Overall, the referencing is very hit-and-miss, e.g. what references all the facts about each member of the Central Jury? Two of them have citations, but the other nine don't.
No one had challenged it so far. Do you have any reasonable challenges to any things in there? Go through the official catalogue first. Most of it is in there. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 15:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not up to me to research your article. I'm asking why two out of the nine judges in that section have references. All challengeable facts should be referenced. Please directly reference all of those judges, not just two out of the nine of them. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(And by the way, if a FL director feels this nomination is far from ready, they can, of course, remove it at any time... our resources here at FLC are light already, without having to copyedit entire articles, that's why we have PR and GOCE...) The Rambling Man (talk) 14:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your valuable time. I am sure you have better things to do that read this article. But fyi, PR was done and their comments were incorporated. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 15:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well as part of my role as FL director I try to review every list and will do my best to prevent substandard lists from passing. This is one such list. And yes, there was a PR but it was a very poor showing, it barely had half a dozen comments. Compare that the number of comments here. This list is simply not ready. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We welcome comments. That's not a problem. But how does the name of this page, whether called as FLC or PR, matter? You were notified of PR and were requested to come and comment then. You did not find time then. So did other editors. Hence the PR was closed and FLC started. Now that you suggest to go for PR again, there is no guarantee that it won't remain dull and dry like previous one and we will be here in same positions a month later. So i suggest you keep commenting here itself. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 07:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It matters because there are two distinct processes. PR is for articles that need help in improving to reach a certain standard (i.e. this list), while FLC is for articles that are of a good standard that need a little polishing to fix. There's no deadline here, so waiting for a decent PR is perfectly fine. I'm afraid I can't respond to all requests to review articles, I do my fair share, but when an article of this poor quality is nominated, I have to strenuously object to it until it's better prepared. So I suggest you withdraw this very premature nomination and ask a native English speaker to copyedit it and peer review it. And be patient if it takes time to happen. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@TRM: I appreciate your comments and time but then you keep using the terms like "certain standard", "decent PR", "poor quality" etc. How do we know any of "these" till somebody points out the mistakes? I had requested multiple reviewers who were involved in earlier FLCs, including you, but there was no reply even on the talk page to inform about their unavailability. And that's perfectly fine as it may not interest everyone to review. We are OK with copy-editing and other approaches as long as it results in something. - Vivvt • (Talk) 13:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I think that's a bit naive. Look at criterion 1.... "It features professional standards of writing." Surely by now you can all see that this article is nowhere near a professional level of writing. I've left three large sets of comments already, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. The PR was weak, and you must see that by now given how many comments have been made here at the FLC compared to at the PR... It is not the role of FLC to ensure that article prose is written in grammatically correct English, that's for WP:PR or WP:GOCE. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Per WP:CONTEXTLINK, bold links are to be avoided, either remove the bold or the link, this was mentioned before by TRM
  • "to felicitate..." I have just had look up what felicitate means as I've never seen that word before, means congratulate according to the dictionary i consulted. This means it makes no sense, I take it you mean to celebrate Indian cinema? If so change it to that
The word felicitate is an example of peculiarity of Indian English. It is not used in US English, and I am not sure about British English. The word "felicitate" is widely used in Indian English to describe the act of honouring someone/ something in a function or ceremony.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That may be so, but it would be best to use a more common word, such as the ones I suggested above. You are catering to a worldwide audience so it should be easy for everyone to read, readers shouldn't have to look up the meaning of a word,while reading an article. NapHit (talk) 16:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's an essential criteria for FL/FA/GA or even Stub. Check Template:Indian English. Take it in a positive way. You are +1 in your vocab today. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 17:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. If it's not a widely understood phrase in English then it should be replaced. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "judged 392 entries submitted
  • "shared the award for the Best Feature Film." the is redundant
Which "the"? You mean second? Should "Best" be not preceded by "the"? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 15:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the one before Best, it doesn't read well, with it in. NapHit (talk) 16:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • likewise in the next sentence
  • "better known as Dadasaheb Phalke Award" -> the Dadasaheb Award
  • That whole sentence reads awkwardly, not sure about the best way to structure it, perhaps "The Dadasaheb Award, regarded as the most prestigious in Indian cinema, was also awarded at the event"
  • "was felicitated" this word again! recognised would be a better word, not everyone has such a wide vocabulary, so best to cater for all readers

That is just the lead, haven't even touched on the rest of the prose and the citations which are erring towards being a copyvio. I'm going to have to oppose at the moment, I agree with the rambling man, it needs a good copyedit and those citations need checking out. Remember FLC is not a substitute for a peer review, lists should meet the criteria before they are nominated, not eventually meet them someway through the process. NapHit (talk) 14:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks Rambling Man, NapHit, Vensatry and others for the feedback. Yes, the prose is not at the best level. We have made several changes based on the comments of The Rambling man and NapHit. I am not sure if this nomination is still active (it also appears on the failed log). In case it is still active, I would request reviewers to give their valuable suggestions to improve the prose.

For the possible copy-vio, I suggested the main contributor to use quotation marks for the citations of the awards. Will that solve the copy-vio issue? (If we use quote marks, that means we are accepting that these sentences are verbatim from the source). Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this nomination was archived yesterday by User:Giants2008. I suggest the oustanding comments are addressed, maybe on the article talkpage, and as I've said a few times, a thorough copyedit of the article is made, and some discussion is held with someone who is knowledgeable in copyvios over those citations. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:06, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ok, thank you. Will address the outstanding comments, and get opinion from copyvio experts. The list has already been submitted to GOCE. Hope the list will be back in FLC soon :) Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:18, 30 August 2012 (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_list_candidates/59th_National_Film_Awards/archive1&oldid=1138478751"