Talk:Pakeezah

Untitled

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

• 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

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

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

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.

---

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.	As is my usual practice, I will go through and make any nitpicks/tweaks needed myself to save us time. If you object to any of my changes, just let me know. —Ganesha811 (talk) 03:52, 29 June 2022 (UTC) There were a few grammatical issues scattered throughout and some clarifications needed, but I think my changes have addressed them. In general the prose was good. Pass.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass, no issues here.
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.	Pass, no issues.
	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).	Sources are generally high quality. Relies quite a bit on Filmfare, but it's a well-established magazine so no issues there. Rediff is similarly ok with those bylines. Pass.
	2c. it contains no original research.	None found - pass.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Nothing found by Earwig or manual spot-check. Pass.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	No other major aspects found checking sources and elsewhere. Pass.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	In-depth and with plenty of detail, but not excessively so. Any minor issues can be trimmed out during prose review. Pass.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	I modified a couple of phrases in the prose review to improve neutrality and I believe it is now at the GA standard. Pass.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Generally stable, but there's an unresolved question about the runtime on the talk page. Can you explain why there's a discrepancy? Issue addressed, pass.
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.	Only image is a well-used fair use poster. Pass. New image checked - looks good, pass.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Article could be better illustrated. Perhaps an image of each of the three lead actors in the Production section? We seem to have images available for all of them. Kumari's image could also go under Legacy/Influence so they are spread out through the article more. Issue addressed, pass.
	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)

The discussion above 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.

Ref errors

@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)