Talk:Bhakta Prahlada (1932 film)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: MSG17 (talk · contribs) 02:46, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello! I will be reviewing this GA. Since it is rather short, I hope I can get it done by the end of the weekend (give or take), although, as usual, we should try to get this completed within a week. Anyway, after your awesome work with Hindi cinema (and one Tamil film), it's great to see you improve an article for a Telugu film. And what more fitting than the first Telugu "talkie"! MSG17 (talk) 02:46, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Old films tend to get little media coverage or most published sources about them have lost. Maybe, I will expand Ayodhyecha Raja, the first Marathi talkie and the first bilingual talkie, if I am not mistaken, but this one will not be easy because the film is not lost so I need to watch the entire film to expand the plot section. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 03:11, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Prose and MOS

Mostly good, just needs some copyediting.

• The film is about the Hindu religious leader Prahlada. I think it would be more appropriate to describe him as a "Hindu legendary figure".

Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 02:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• The same cast, all were Telugus, from it was also used for the film adaptation. "The same cast, all Telugus, was used..."

Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 02:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• was considered the first protagonist don't think "considered" is needed here, since it is established this is the first Telugu sound film

Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 02:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• L. V. Prasad, who worked as an assistant director and appeared as the comical cameo of Prahlada's classmate, became the first comedian in the history of Telugu sound films. - might be better to word it like this: "...assistant director, played the first comedic role in Telugu sound cinema in a cameo appearance as Prahlada's classmate." (L. V. Prasad is not considered a "comedian" in the Telugu film industry, which has a very specific/typescripted idea of a "comedian" actor playing humorous characters for their entire career, often with similar personalities in each role, e.g. Brahmanandam.)

Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 02:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• with orchestra located far from the camera. "an orchestra"

Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 02:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• The film's duration ran for 108 minutes. "ran for" -> "was"/"lasted"

Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 02:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• 22 January 1932 censorship "censorship" is ungrammatical, maybe "censor [certificate] date" or "censorship date"?

Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 02:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• the picture's unclarity unclarity is wrong here, better to say "low clarity" or "low quality"

Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 02:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• but praise the sound and songs "praised", past tense

Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 02:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• using the cellulose acetate film no "the"

Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 02:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• more uninflammable "uninflammable" is technically correct (due to some funny aspects of English), but is quite a mouthful; maybe "fire-resistant"

Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 02:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Great. Did some minor copyediting of things I didn't see the first time around and added the year to the currency templates (thought there was some MOS stuff about issues with historical currency conversions, but I didn't catch anything). With that I think the article has passed the criteria and deem it a GA! Congrats! MSG17 (talk) 03:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Looks pretty good here. Don't see any issues with reliability, plagarism/copyvio or original research. Only one thing:

• Can you add a page number for ref 3?

Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 03:05, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Scope, neutrality, stability

Looks pretty good on all these fronts. Scope is good, it could be expanded but given the lack of materials for this film it is understandable that coverage is limited. No bias that I see. Not many changes in the past weeks. If there is a better synopsis of the film available, though, I'd recommend you include or expand from it.

I have done considerable research before expanding this article, and found no surviving synopsis or contemporary reviews online. This is what I have for now. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 02:08, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I commend you for making the material you had go this far. MSG17 (talk) 03:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Images

• Poster + still, all PD, all placed appropriately. Passed.

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed