Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Taare Zameen Par/archive1

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 20:30, 14 November 2010 [1].

Taare Zameen Par edit

Taare Zameen Par (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Ωphois

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it is now up to FA standards, especially after the recent copyedit. I normally only focus on TV articles, but after watching such an amazing film, I felt it deserved a high-quality article. Ωphois 00:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • When people cite DVDs, they normally cite which minute of the footage it occurred in, don't they, in the same way as in book pages.. Or do they expect people to scan through the whole making of?? Newspapers need to be italicised, and the books in the further reading aren't in yyyy-mm-dd like the rest. Is the fact that about 35% of the cites come from the behidn the scenes DVD make it a primary source? YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 00:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have never seen any article or FA specifically cite minutes on a DVD. I have fixed the book dates, and am currently working on fixing the newspapers. And yes, the DVD's are arguably a primary source. Ωphois 01:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have made all the newspapers italics. Ωphois 01:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • There was an article a few months ago that failed for different reasons, that cited minutes in the DVD, It was about a certain UEFA Champions LEague final. There have been others YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 08:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • And there have been many more that don't. Ωphois 14:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • As of now, I've added in timestamps for the first half of the commentary. Ωphois 03:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have finished the timestamps for the commentary, and am almost finished finding the times for the Making of. Ωphois 04:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Nice to see the new Rupee symbol, but you use both the symbol as well as "Rs." Please be consistent and use only one.
  • I think the first paragraph of the lead devotes too much text to name people who worked on the film. I don't think the name of the visual effects studio, claymation artist, and lyricist are too important for the lead.
    • Since this was the first time claymation has been used in a Bollywood film, I think the claymation artist is important. The lyricist also won an award for one of the songs. Ωphois 17:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instead concentrate more on the plot. For one thing, I don't think the film is about the relationship between the two, but rather is a portrait of the boy. Right?
  • The last sentence of the lead is very vague (you need to read the Slumdog section to make sense of it); could you probably combine it with the previous sentence to make your point clearer?
  • Can the plot be condensed into a tight 3-4 paragraphs? It's a little rambly now, with the short, stubby paragraphs and the names of all those famous dyslexic people etc. Don't go into too much detail.
  • Woah, you quote eleven people for their positive reviews in the critical reception section! (including two from the Beeb, and Kashyap.) Since they all mostly say the same thing, you think you can cut down to just 5-6 uniquely worded reviews? Further, have the positive reviewers offered any words of complaint against the film? It might be useful to add that info in the negative reviews paragraph.
  • If successive sentences in the same paragraphs are referenced by the same citation, you don't need to cite every sentence, just the final one. (especially in the Children section).
  • India uses British English, so per WP:TIES, color should be colour, authorizes should be authorises etc.
    • I went through and corrected any instances in the text I could find. However, I wasn't sure what to do with quoted instances, so I left them as originally written. Ωphois 04:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm surprised there is no mention of the "3 into 9" sequence being a rip-off of a Calvin & Hobbes strip.
    • Thanks for the heads up. Blogspot is not a reliable source, but I'll check for a mention elsewhere. Ωphois 14:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      I couldn't find any reliable sources for this. Ωphois 23:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was the film influenced by the Truffaut film The 400 Blows? (The plots of the two films are very similar...)
    • I couldn't find any reliable sources for this. Ωphois 23:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can add a pic of Aamir Khan to the article.
    • He is already in the critical response section. Ωphois 14:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • My only real worry: why haven't the two psychiatric journal articles on the film in the Further reading section—"Wake up call from 'Stars on the Ground'" and "Taare Zameen Par and dyslexic savants"—not been used as sources in the article? Without them, the article fails WP:FA? criteria 1b and 1c.—indopug (talk) 08:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll look into that later today or tomorrow. Ωphois 14:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      I read the articles, and in my opinion they can only work towards the response section as "scholarly reaction" or something similar. I will work on that later today. Ωphois 15:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I added these to a Scholarly response section. Ωphois 23:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I also used some of the other Further Reading to make a Public Response section. Ωphois 04:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe all the concerns have been addressed. Ωphois 01:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll revisit this in a few days, in the meantime, could you review the issue of the repeating refs for consecutive refs? (for eg, ref #3)—indopug (talk) 04:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, thought I had gotten all of them. I've gone back through it and correct the remaining ones. Ωphois 04:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have all your concerns been addressed? Ωphois 17:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • For an example of an FAC that cites where in the video that an source occurs, see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dustbin Baby (film)/archive2 right below this. For the number of cites you have to various videos, this is a good idea, it's equivalent to page numbers. If the video being used as a source is short (under 5 minutes, say) then it's not needed, but I'm assuming that a commentary on a movie is longer than 5 minutes.
    • I'll work on that later today or tomorrow. Ωphois 14:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/ a high quality reliable source? And it should be linked on the first occurrence in the references, not the second as currently occurs.
    • Formerly known as IndiaFM, it has been mentioned by CNN and The Economic Times. It was also recognized by PC World as "Best Indian Entertainment website". Their "about us" page is here. Ωphois 15:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additionally, both MSN and Yahoo! hired Bollywood Hungama to provide content for their Indian sites, as noted here. Ωphois 15:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I corrected the linking. The link is now in the first ref instance instead. Ωphois 18:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving these last out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • I want to know, in the first paragraph, what the title means, in English.
  • UTV Home Entertainment released a DVD for Indian audiences in 2008. A few years later Walt Disney Home Entertainment released an international edition DVD titled Like Stars on Earth, marking the first purchase of distribution rights for an Indian film by a global company.
There is no such thing as a "few years" between 2008 and November 2010. A "few" might range from two to four and passibly stretch as far as five, but to describe a period of one-and-a-bit as a few is not appropriate. Besides which, a little research will surely give you a precise date!
Amandajm (talk) 12:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not fixed! Give us a real date. Disney [2] gives the date of release as 1-12-10. The only problem with this is that this date appears (to me) to be in the future. However I believe there is some strange American custom of putting the month before the year in numerical dates. So whether this date should be read as 1st December 2010 or 12th January 2010 I am at a loss to know. But I am almost sure that a little research would give you a better answer than "later". Amandajm (talk) 02:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article is written in British English, not American English. The Disney release date is detailed farther down into the article. The lead serves as a summary, and does not require every detail. Since the Disney version was released in three different regions on different dates (one in 2009, and two in 2010), I feel it would be too much unnecessary information. If you want a more specific phrasing, perhaps "Less than two years later" would work? Ωphois 04:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem that I mentioned with reading the date doesn't relate to a date in your article. It's the date ofn the Disney webpage.
Givn what you said here, I think that "later" or "less than two years later" is fine. Amandajm (talk) 06:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. I think I understand what you mean. The date listed on the Disney website is using American English, and means January 12. This is for the Region 1 release, which Disney released second. Anyways, I have changed the sentence to "less than two years later". 15:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Support All my concerns have been addressed.—indopug (talk) 19:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More than three weeks up, no consensus to promote, and I don't see a spotcheck for WP:V or WP:COPYVIO; please bring the article back in a few weeks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Taare_Zameen_Par/archive1&oldid=1086102930"