Pakeezah has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: June 29, 2022. (Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Untitled edit
The Devanagri spelling of the movie's name is incorrect.
Specifically, it has an extra dot under the "k" sound. This dot is not needed, and makes it incorrect.
Explanation:
The original Devanagari alphabet does not have certain sounds, such as "f" or "z" or "q" (as in "Quran"). However, due to long contact with Persian/Arabic and due to the development of Urdu, certain foreign sounds were added to the script. These additions were done by taking a letter representing a sound close to the one to be added, and then modifying it by the addition of a dot below it.
For example:
Original letter ज (the "j" sound) - modified to ज़ (the "z" sound), by adding a dot.
Original letter फ (the "ph" sound) - modified to फ़ (the "f" sound), by adding a dot.
Original letter क (the "k" sound) - modified to क़ (the "q" of Arabic), by adding a dot.
Original letter ग (the "g" sound) - modified to ग़ (the "gh" of Arabic), by adding a dot.
Original letter ख (the "kh" sound) - modified to ख़ (aspirated "kh" of Arabic), by adding a dot.
In this case, the Devanagari version of "Pakeezah" has been written as पाक़ीज़ा (with dots under both "k" and "j". The dot under the "j" sound is correct, since it converts the "j" to a "z". However, the dot under the "k" would convert it to the aspirated "k", which is typically transliterated in English as "q", as in my previous example of "Quran". So the Devanagari spelling there would be read as "Paqeezah", which is incorrect. The correct word is "Pakeeza", as written in the Urdu version which follows: پاکیزہ
The correct Devanagari spelling would be: पाकीज़ा —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.200.23 (talk) 09:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
यह ज़रूर किसी हिन्दू का काम है. क्यों की "पाकीज़ा" उर्दू लफ्ज़ है, जिस ने भी यह लिखा, ज़बरदस्ती "क" की जगह "क़" लिख दिया यह सोच कर की उर्दू है. कमबख्तों, स्कूल में कुछ पढ़ा लिखा भी या सोते रहे? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.200.23 (talk) 10:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
It is indeed incorrect. I can read Devanagari as well as Arabic, and when I read the Devanagari I immediately noticed the qaf. I looked at the Arabic and saw kaf and not qaf. Additionally, when I have heard paakeezaa said by native Urdu speakers, I do not hear qaf but kaf. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.195.127.15 (talk) 19:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Reviews edit
- Filmfare --Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 06:25, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- The Illustrated Weekly of India --—Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 11:22, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Run time edit
This film is 147 minutes. [1]. Cbfc is a 148 minute. The British Film Classification certificate is 153 minutes. Australia film Classification 153 minutes [2] [3]. Cinzia007 (talk) 10:01, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Runtime issue edit
The movie's runtime is 147 minutes, not 175 minutes. This is a fact and should be fixed. Normally, runtimes don't come with sources on Wikipedia because it is self-evident within the film itself, but since someone who I'm assuming is the page manager is refusing to let me change it without adding a source, then I guess I have to play along and add a source for that.
In any case, regarding IMDB: per the article on citing IMDB, it is acceptable to do so when the citation confirms a self-evident fact within the film, because the film is considered its own source. This includes the film's runtime. So, IMDB should qualify as a valid source for the film's runtime. And yet, my edits including IMDB as a source for the runtime are being removed. Why is that?
Since I don't want an edit war, I'm taking the issue here so as to solve a problem with this article. To reiterate: the runtime is 147 minutes, which is an easily provable and very important fact about the film, but the article incorrectly states it's 175 minutes. This is misinformation, and it must be changed somehow, and if we need a citation, then I don't see why IMDB can't qualify for that. AnyGuy (talk) 16:51, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
GA Review edit
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Pakeezah/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 11:51, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi! I'll be reviewing this article, using the template below. Looking forward to reading it! —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:51, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. |
| |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. |
| |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. |
| |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). |
| |
2c. it contains no original research. |
None found - pass. | |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. |
| |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. |
| |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). |
| |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. |
| |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. |
| |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. |
| |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. |
| |
7. Overall assessment. |
@Ganesha811: Regarding the run time, I would choose to follow what the book source says, as it is an encyclopedia and to me, more preferable than websites. The "Production" section is a summary of the larger Production of Pakeezah article, so I think a picture is not needed; I have added Kumari's image in the "Legacy", please take a look. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 01:01, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Nicholas Michael Halim: do you know why the discrepancy exists? Are there different editions/cuts of the film? The newly added image looks good. 13:20, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Ganesha811: No idea but probably because the film's print was transferred to video. I will follow what the encyclopaedia says because books are generally more reliable than websites. Or, maybe adding a note is better? —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 14:02, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- I would add a note saying that while the given time is most likely, some sources disagree and give the alternate length. That's a good solution. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:03, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 02:35, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- This article now passes GA! Congrats to you and anyone else who worked on it. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:55, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 02:35, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- I would add a note saying that while the given time is most likely, some sources disagree and give the alternate length. That's a good solution. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:03, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Ganesha811: No idea but probably because the film's print was transferred to video. I will follow what the encyclopaedia says because books are generally more reliable than websites. Or, maybe adding a note is better? —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 14:02, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Ref errors edit
@Nicholas Michael Halim There seem to be harv errors with refs 8, 12, 18, 28. Could you fix them? Thanks — DaxServer (t · m · c) 16:55, 29 June 2022 (UTC)