Talk:Vanaja (film)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Vanaja (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi. I'm gonna review this. Intothewoods29 (talk) 02:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Howdy. I fixed up a lot of the grammer on this page, but I want a second opinion. Some recommendations/thoughts:

• Are all of the refs from reliable sources, like indieWire? (this is primarily for the next reviewer)
• Is everything clear and does the prose flow(per GA criteria point #1)?
• The phrase "downward progression" at the end of paragraph 2 in Plot bothers me. The downward progression of what?
• The plot might need some touching up... we'll see.

If I can help in any other way, talk to me! :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 02:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Considering indieWIRE's About page stating it's a community content site, I don't think it's reliable per WP:RS unless the author of the piece cited has been asserted as reliable (eg. by writing for a known reliable source). The other comments seem fine. The prose flows OK, though a plot touch up couldn't hurt. My second opinion. —Giggy 09:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• I really appreciate the comments given above. Regarding reliability of sources, I'd like to add here that in all my previous GA nominations I've made sure that I worked in sync with WP:RS. However with respect to this particular film article, there was hardly a reliable and a good source for the director's interview in the media. It is quite despicable that this film was hardly covered in the media given that it was favorably critiqued by many. Despite these shortcomings, I've tried my best to make this article well-cited. Regarding the other comments, I'll work on the prose shortly. Thanks for reviewing! Mspraveen (talk) 14:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
• Just to add a little bit more regarding indieWIRE: PBS lists indieWIRE in its list of resources for indie fans and filmmakers. I'm not sure, but I felt that this might lend a bit of authenticity to the source. I tried to spruce up the plot section a bit. I hope it is more presentable. Mspraveen (talk) 17:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed this article listed at WP:GAN and thought I'd weigh in. The article currently uses a screenshot in the Plot section, and I don't think the fair use rationale is up to par. Per WP:NFC#Images, screenshots are appropriate only for "critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television". The Plot section is basically a descriptive claim of the primary source, the film itself, so it can't be considered commentary or discussion. I think what would work better is a screenshot that would signify an aspect of the film's production so it is the target element of any critical commentary in the "Production" section. My personal example is Fight Club (film), where I use reliable, third-party, published sources to support the non-free images in the article. I think that this kind of rationale would be more indisputable. :) Another, smaller suggestion: Can the "Cast" section be unbolded? Boldface is usually implemented for significant prose following each bullet, like at Sunshine (2007 film)#Cast. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Hello Erik, thanks so much for your suggestions. Locating such third party published sources for this film was kind of difficult for me. Hence, I dropped the screenshot for now. I look forward to resource this into the article when I work on improving it further on quality. Next, I've unboldened the cast section. Thanks for pointing that out. I hope I've addressed all that you've raised concerns upon. Thanks once again! Mspraveen (talk) 05:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• No problem! I hope that you can find additional resources that would warrant including an image. It's best to fit an image that really fits so its placement is indisputable. One place that could use an image is how filmmakers transformed Bobbili to look different for the sake of the film, so if there is a screenshot of that, you could take it. (If you don't know how, Google for instructions... I just figured it out myself yesterday when adding two relevant images to Doomsday.) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• Sure! I'll try to find some images on similar lines to your suggestions. Thanks! Mspraveen (talk) 14:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist concerns over a paragraph

I was just skimming (very quickly!) and found a content-technical issue/prose issue. Specifically, the paragraph "To evoke pathos in the background score, Domalpalli used Carnatic music with a violin played by B. S. Narayanan. Narayanan also composed the Jayadeva ashtapadi and Sa virahe, a couple of musical formats, in the Rāga Bihag mode. Within the intent of including folk songs, Domalpalli and his crew traveled to towns and villages in rural Andhra, recording "janapada geetalu" or folk songs."

1. I think the "to evoke pathos in the background score" needs a source, or should be phrased a little better. Maybe a missing comma?
2. Let's compare the rest of that sentence to the following one. "The director used Chinese music with a trumpet played by Mary Poppins." To put it lightly, that's not good prose. As it is, Domalpalli's English in his interview was certainly not up to par. It's sufficient to be simple and restate the source to say: "For the background score, Domalpalli used Carnatic music."
3. I think it's important to include the fact B S Narayanan is a student of T. N. Krishnan - he's considered a very notable musician (violinist) in Carnatic music. Obviously, there's not that much content there...(yet).
4. Sa virahe is a "famous" Jayadeva Ashtapadi. An ashtapadi is basically a type of composition, like a kriti or gitam. Jayadeva's ashtapadi's are considered famous because they're composed by Jayadeva (sort of logically). Sa virahe is one particular ashtapadi composed by Jayadeva. Obviously, there is a conflict by saying that a violinist composed an already composed song. So, either B S Narayanan, (or more likely, T N Krishnan), tuned or re-tuned the composition in Behaag raga, perhaps for the film. I'll probably have to look at my own notes to see if it has been sung even before the film was released in Behaag, in which case, the "for the film" part I just noted would be false. So to play it safe...
5. Next sentence: "In particular, the violin was played by B. S. Narayanan - a disciple of the late Carnatic violinist, T. N. Krishnan whom/whose music Domalpalli admired. Domalpalli also included "janapada geetalu" (folk songs of Andhra) in the film, and together with his crew, travelled to towns and villages in rural Andhra to record the songs."

Sorry to drag out one paragraph through such an exhaustive discussion...but does that clear up my concerns for that paragraph alone? Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Hello Ncmvocalist, thanks for raising your concerns on this. I wasn't better equipped to answer this, but I tried to dig my sources to phrase this paragraph in a way that, I hope, will avoid any potential conflicts. Please let me know if there is anything else that needs my attention. Cheers! Mspraveen (talk) 05:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• Still not quite there with the factual inaccuracy - I'll fix it, but let me know if you have any objections. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• Not at all! I'd greatly appreciate it if you can fix it. I don't doubt your knowledge on this subject :) Thanks for chipping in. Mspraveen (talk) 14:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

So...

Do you think you can fix these issues soon... or do you want to withdraw the nom for the time being, Mspraveen? No rush :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 00:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• Not that I'm in any hurry, but I believe that I have addressed the concerns for now. Would there be any further concerns that I might be able to address? I'd be more than happy to work on them. Thanks for your reviews till now! Mspraveen (talk) 05:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Good job it's a lot better, particularly the plot section. I have just two little things that could be problems (like you haven't had enough to do already!):

• In the Plot section, you write that Shekar is an insecure young man. I'm worried that "insecure" is not NPOV. Is it obvious from the movie that he's insecure. Same thing for later in the Plot, it says that Vanaja's superior intellect humiliates Shekar. Is that neutral? Again, this could just be me being overly-sensitive!
• Second thing: In Cast, and later in Filmaking ("selected two from a shortlist of five to play the roles of Vanaja and Lacchi."), you name quite a few characters that aren't mentioned in Plot. Should they be mentioned in plot if they're important enough to be in Cast? Again, you might want to consult someone who is an expert on the MOS for movie articles.

That should do it for this GA nom. If those things are fixed, I see no reason why this shouldn't pass, unless there's something I missed (which there might be; I'm not too smart ;) Thanks for all the work you've done on this Mspraveen! Intothewoods29 (talk) 22:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello Intothewoods29. Thanks once again for your comments and review :) Thanks for being so patient!

• I've added a little bit of detail to the plot in the first paragraph to set up the tone for the plot.
• I agree with the "insecure" part - I've removed it now.
• About "Vanaja's superior intellect" - I don't quite think it is my POV, because it is plainly put as is.
• I certainly agree with the mismatch in the cast and the coverage in the film making section. I've addressed this now by adding text in the plot to strengthen the mention of a couple of cast members.

I hope I've addressed your comments appropriately. Even if you have additional comments, I'd welcome that! :) Mspraveen (talk) 14:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Why did you feel it necessary to remove the image which identifies the main characters of the article? Personally I thought it was encyclopedic and significantly adds to the article. Let me guess. User:Erik?? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 19:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Great! I think this article meets all of the criteria for GA status! Good work!

1.well-written, flows
2.refs are reliable
3.stays on topic
4.NPOV
5.stable
6.pictures have tags

Thanks for putting up with all of our opinions! Does anyone oppose the nomination? anyone.... okay it's settled!

As for the second image that Blofeld is talking about, I went on the image policy page that Erik cited, and I found this:

"...images that are used only to visually identify elements in the article should be used as sparingly as possible. Consider restricting such uses to major characters and elements or those that cannot be described easily in text, as agreed to by editor consensus. In general, using zero, one, or two images of major characters is likely acceptable, while using more than five is likely unacceptable"

In my opinion, the picture is appropriate because it illustrates the kind of dancing in the movie (the basis of the movie), and shows two major characters. Both of these things are vital for articles about movies. However, I could very well be wrong, so if you're going for FA, I'd definately ask more people.

Once again, thanks for all your work! Intothewoods29 (talk) 19:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thats what I thought as this is what the film is about. There is currently a discussion about it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 21:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Question re Plot - I apologize if I'm not posting this in the right place. I watched this movie a couple of days ago and the plot contains a few mistakes. I wasn't sure if I should go ahead and fix them, or if I should first discuss them. For example, the events leading up to the rape are out of sequence (the shower scene happens much earlier and has nothing to do with the rape scene, etc.). Thanks.--Smalek (talk) 20:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

minor error in story

The story uses Telangana dialect of telugu language in a coastal backdrop.....this seems inconsistent....is there any explanation to this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.83.42.132 (talk) 13:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Vanaja (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110417201145/http://www.riverrunfilm.com/news/pdf/2007_04_22_award_winners.doc to http://www.riverrunfilm.com/news/pdf/2007_04_22_award_winners.doc

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)