Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nil Battey Sannata/archive1

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 promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 08:49, 18 June 2017 [1].

---

Nil Battey Sannata

Nominator(s): NumerounovedantTalk 12:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a 2016 Bollywood film, which was an independent production that incidently got the backing of a big distribution house. The article has been listed a GA, and was recently copy-edited by an independent user to ensure neutrality and the prose issues that might have been overlooked earlier. Looking forward to constructive comments to improve the article, thank you.

Note : As I said, this was a low-budget independent production, and bevause of the lack of coverage for such productions in the newspapers and media, the article might not be as detailed as the ones concerning some of the Bollywood blockbusters. Still it is thorough with the subject and covers all the important aspects of the film. NumerounovedantTalk 12:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. It sounds like a wonderful film. - Dank (push to talk) 16:56, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits Dank, and yes the film is a pure delight! I am glad you could make that out after reading this. NumerounovedantTalk 19:25, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

• I have received this note in previous FACs and even GANs, but make sure that all of the works and publishers are consistently cited in all of the references, and not just for the first use.
• I would add the year of the release for the Tamil remake in the lead (the final sentence of the lead's final paragraph).
• Just a clarification question, but I am assuming that not all of the characters in the film have their full names given (i.e. Dr. Diwan and Sweety). I just want to make sure that is the case.

Yes, that is just how they are addressed throughout.

• Makes sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 20:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• Would it be useful to link "pre-board" in the "Plot" section to the article on board examination, as this is a concept that I am unfamiliar with and readers from other parts of the world may not have a familiarity with either? This is more a question, so feel free to say no to this.
• I am not sure what you mean by this phrase "that the subject becomes easier if it is understood well". Could you provide some clarify on this, particularly the "if it is understood well" part as it seems somewhat vague in this context? I am sure any subject would be easier if you can understand it better.

Couldn't agree more, it was really vague. I have rephrased here, and although it's practically impossible to translate what the film wanted to say about math as such into words here, I hope the wording works better.

• It is clearer to me now; thank you for the clarification on this matter. Aoba47 (talk) 20:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• This is a nitpicky comment, but in the description "quiet and shy", I believe you could could just cut one of the two adjectives as it seems a little repetitive (you don't hear of a lot of loud shy people lol).
• Would it be better to revise the phrase "too soon in her career" to "early in her career" just to make it more concise?
• I would revise the sentence (Because "the story stayed in [her] mind", she agreed to the project.) to (She agree to the project because "the story stayed in [her] mind"). Something about starting with the dependent phrase in that context sounds a little off and breaks the flow of the paragraph in my opinion.
• Did her friends provide any further reasons on why the role would be "career suicide"?

It's mostly because a household help, and mother of a 15 year old isn't the glamorous role, and if course the age difference bit had a lot of role to play. But, I chose to omit this because (a) it's mostly implied and never really quoted directly in the sources, and (b) the age difference bit will lead to repetition.

• Makes sense to me; thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 20:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• For the phrase (Joginder Tuteja's mixed review for the Bollywood Hungama), I would revise it to (In a mixed review, Joginder Tuteja of the Bollywood Hungama) as it seems a little odd to say that the "review" did something when it was really the reviewer/writer of the review.
• I would revise one of the instance of "first look" as you repeat it twice in close proximity to one another.
• You say the trailer earned positive reviews from critics and viewers. Do you have any information on what exactly from the trailer earned positive reviews?

I added a tiny little "review", but i don't want to get into a whole new conversation about sources with putting a more general statement regarding what aspects were praised. I am a 100% sure that there will be no source good enough to substantiate such a claim.

• I do not believe the "pleasant" and "catchy" quotes are necessary in the "Soundtrack and reception" section and I would cut them as there are a lot of quotes being used in the article and it is always better to go with less if possible.
• In the sentence (While Gautaman Bhaskaran of Hindustan Times gave it 4 stars out of 5 and remarked that the film "is a powerful and honest work", Shubhra Gupta of The Indian Express noted that, "the film relies on keeping things real".), I do not believe "while" is the best start/transition as it implies that the two reviewers have contrasting ideas and I do not believe that is the case here.
• The topic sentence for the second paragraph of the "Reception" section is about the mother-daughter relationship, but the actual content of the paragraph seems to focus more on the message of the film. I would make sure the topic sentence matches the content of the paragraph.
• I am not sure the information about the remake belongs in the "Reception" section. Maybe make it into its own section and add any information on the comparisons between the original and remake? This is just an idea so feel free to say no to this. I can restore i, if you like the version.

That is how it was before the GA, but the reviewer was really insisted on this version. I, for one, liked it before as well.

• I think that I will leave this up to more experienced FAC reviewers to decide. Aoba47 (talk) 20:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• Wonderful work with this article. The film sounds very motivational and positive, which is always good to hear. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this. Aoba47 (talk) 16:44, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Thanks for taking out the time for the review, all your comments really improved the article. I have (hopefully) fixed everything, and left comments wherever required. Let me know if you have any more concerns. NumerounovedantTalk 20:26, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for responding to my comments. You have done a wonderful job with this. I will support it. Good luck with getting this promoted. Aoba47 (talk) 20:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks again for the review. NumerounovedantTalk 06:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Kailash

Right now I don't have anything to say, but when I do, you'll know. I'll make some minor c/e and hope they look satisfactory to you. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. NumerounovedantTalk 08:32, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Vedant, how is it that the film was released in April 2016, but principal photography commenced in May 2016? Also, actors cannot be linked in "Plot" and "Production" sections at the same time, as it borders on WP:OVERLINK. --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:26, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing the mistake Kailash, fixed the year. I also removed the repetitive links form the plot section.NumerounovedantTalk 08:14, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Here are some other comments by me:

• Swara Bhaskar started? Or starred?
• Be consistent in the usage of crores and millions. I'd prefer the latter, based on MOS:COMMONALITY.
• Perhaps you could mention in the lead that Tiwari also directed the Tamil remake?
• The film's title translates to "Zero Divided by Zero Equals Nothing", and is a slang for "Good For Nothing" - Among the two sources supporting this statement, source 1 does not use the exact phrase and instead reads, "Nil means zero. Bata/ Battey is a word for division. And `sannata’ is, of course, silence. Or ‘shoonya’. Zero divided by zero is equal to? Yep. Zero." source 2 says it is "slang for a good-for-nothing person". Perhaps you could replace them both (in this instance only) with this source which uses both the exact phrases? And do remove the "}}" which you intended to put in the lead but missed.
• "Bhaskar stayed with professional domestic helpers from Agra, where the film is set" - You could write "Agra, Uttar Pradesh" here instead of the upcoming "principal photography" sentence.
• "Principal photography for the Nil Battey Sannata commenced in May 2014 in the city of Agra, Uttar Pradesh. The filming was completed by the end of November" - the Nil Battey Sannata?! Besides, the supporting source does not use the terms "May" and "November". But this November 2014 source (which is already in use) mentions the film "took off in May this year", so you could cite it again, after the sentence "end of November".
• "Chanda Theme" has lyrics by Nitesh Tiwari, yet it is an instrumental? Over here (Eros Now's official YouTube channel), the song is not mentioned as having any lyricist, just "Music: Rohan & Vinayak" (lyricists for the other songs are credited though).
• Please re-arrange the tracklist as per the CD cover or any reliable source with all the songs (the above-mentioned link may help).
• The image under "Marketing and release" may have "L to R" in its caption to denote who's who.
• "The film was declared a "hit" in its second weekend as the modest collection continued" - by who? Perhaps you could write it officially became a commercial success in the second week.
• All the Times of India archives have been negated due to robots.txt. Please replace them with archives from archive.is. --Kailash29792 (talk) 17:08, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Fixed everything but the last. Don't quite follow you there, the links seem to be working fine. NumerounovedantTalk 17:59, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Will that be all Kailash? NumerounovedantTalk 19:27, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Some refs are not archived (please do so using the Bot), and whenever I click an archive.org TOI archive, it says "Page cannot be displayed due to robots.txt". You may see yourself, then replace them with working archives from archive.is. And as discussed at Trisha filmography, it may be a good option to link the publisher/work field in every reference if they have a Wiki article. I think that's all the comments I have, the rest is just c.e./overlinking related which I'll take care of. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:25, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@Kailash29792: Fixed everything (hopefully). Also, Kailash do the images look okay? NumerounovedantTalk 16:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Support: All the best for this FAC's success. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:20, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments from AffeL

Support Looks good, great job with this article. A minor problem is that their does not seem to be any sources in the cast section. - AffeL (talk) 11:14, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@AffeL: I've added one. Thank you for taking out time to review this, I really appreciate it. NumerounovedantTalk 16:55, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Yashthepunisher

• At ref 38, International Business Times India --> International Business Times.
• At ref 48, Bangalore Mirror Bureau --> Bangalore Mirror.
• Again, I don't feel Koimoi is a reliable source, atleast for a FA-level article.
• Remove the third external link, since its a non-RS.
• Fix these green links.

Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@Yashthepunisher​: Thank you. I hope all the comments have been addressed. The TOI links seem to have no issues on my server, and i am not sure what's​ wrong there I corrected all the other links. NumerounovedantTalk 20:03, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support. Yashthepunisher (talk) 14:25, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look. NumerounovedantTalk 13:18, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments from JM

• "Swara Bhaskar essays the lead role" Odd verb choice
• "The film was declared a "hit" after its second weekend." I don't really know what this means; if it's a direct quote, it should be cited. Does it definitely belong in the lead?

Well that's just how movies are rated as agar as BO figures in India go, bit yes I agree that it's not the best choice. I've rephrased to make it clear.

• "She steals the money that Chanda has been collecting to pay for her tuition" The "her" is a little ambiguous, here.

replaced with "the math", as there is already a reference to it previously in the plot.

• "for companionship ... not hard-earned". I'm guessing these are euphemisms; why not spell it out?

Done

Thanks for taking a look Josh, I appreciate it. Looking forward to hearing from you. NumerounovedantTalk 09:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

• @J Milburn: Do you have any more comments? NumerounovedantTalk 18:37, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes- thanks for your patience. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:40, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
• "The screenplay and the dialogue for the film was written by Iyer, Neeraj Singh, Pranjal Choudhary and Nitesh Tiwari." A little clumsy; also, would the screenplay not include the dialogue?
• I do think the production section could be a little smoother; perhaps it'd be worth going over a few times to iron out any creases? Sorry if this is a little vague.
• "Bhaskar stayed with the domestic help from Agra, where the film is set" This needs to be reworked a little. "stayed with professional domestic helpers from Agra", or something.
• "She agreed to the project because" Agreed to participate in the project, perhaps? Also, this paragraph feels slightly repetitive.
• "After a thorough search, Ria Shukla was selected for the role after auditions in Lucknow" After after
• "Principal photography for the Nil Battey Sannata" The?
• Repetition of link to Agra
• "a course of the next seven months" This doesn't work
• "The editing process began immediately after, and was done by Chandrashekhar Prajapati of the Pixon Studios" Is done really the best word?
• final cut is a dablink
• "for the Bollywood Hungama was" Why the? Also, is this a review of the soundtrack or the film?
• "The release of the first look of the film" What does this mean?

Well, here in India the earliest of the promotional material (stills, posters, teasers) are referred to as the first look.

• "In an interview with The Indian Express, Iyer said that "the story of Nil Battey Sannata is relevant as well as inspiring"." It's not clear to me that this belongs where you have put it.
• Are you italicising the names of websites or not? There seems to be some inconsistency.

I believe everything is appropriately italicised, certain sites Bolywood Hungama and Rediff.com are not to be italicised if that's what you mean.

• "titled Amma Kanakku, which released" was released? I'm inclined to think that the discussion of the remake belongs elsewhere in the article, perhaps even its own section. I don't really see why it belongs in reception. Perhaps, too, the discussion could be more than two sentences?

It did have a separate section, but the GA reviewer insisted against it. As Aoba47 too suggested a separate section, I have restored the earlier version.

Hope this is helpful. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:40, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Fixed everything (hopefully). NumerounovedantTalk 22:54, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments

• "also known as" - wouldn't​ "released internationally as" work better, that is how i see them in other articles?
• "Swara Bhaskar played the lead role" - "Swara Bhaskar started as" - A lot less words, and no repetition of "played".
• "performances of the cast, including Bhaskar" - do you mean "Bhaskar in particular"?
• The plot reads beautifully, no problems with the flow at all.
• I went through the production section and it looked mostly fine to me. There's already been a lot of commentary on how to improve it, and I think it's good enough the way it stands at the moment.
• I have a feeling that the film went to a number of other film festivals too, if you decide to add them, the part from the first look's release can be a separate paragraph.

I have just added the two film festivals that were already present in the sources. I do think that I might have missed out on a couple more, but there aren't any reliable sources to substantiate them.

• I couldn't help but notice some of the prominent reviews being left out. Fir instance, The Hindu. You could look through the archives and maybe add a couple more, atleast the really significant ones?

Added the Namrata Joshi review in the section, also added the year end list bit, though that too is by Joshi, I tried to incorporate the bits together in best possible way together.

• I am not sure about the table structure here, why not follow the traditional one. The date is really not adding much expect for column space to the article. I'd rathers have the conventional structure.

I have restructured the table (to a more conventional one). Let me know how you feel about it now.

I am sorry, I haven't been around much. Really good work though on the article. It was a lovely film as well. Callietorres (talk) 15:15, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Made changes in the lead, going through the rest. NumerounovedantTalk 09:10, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

@Callietorres: Fixed everything (hopefully) Thanks for taking out time for the review, I appreciate it. NumerounovedantTalk 10:33, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

In that case, I can support this nomination. Good luck getting this promoted. Callietorres (talk) 14:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Image review

All the images are properly liscened and have appropriate alt descriptions, but make sure you are consistent with the use periods in the captions. Callietorres (talk) 15:40, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: Unless I've missed them somewhere, we still need an image and source review. These can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Also, I'd just like to check if J Milburn has any further comments to make? Sarastro1 (talk) 20:56, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Please don't hold up the review on my account; I neither support nor oppose, but can't promise I'll be back for another look soon. I do think the article has improved since my first look! Josh Milburn (talk) 21:23, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

@Sarastro1: The source and image reviews have been done. Can you take a look? Thank you. NumerounovedantTalk 16:00, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

@FAC coordinators: Although I believe that the article has received enough commentary, including an image and source review, I think it would be great if you guys could take a look. IndianBio has offered to do another source review if you feel necessary. NumerounovedantTalk 14:29, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments from IndianBio

• In the production you have used an image of Bhaskar where she is looking away from the article. MOS:IMAGES guides us to "place images of people so that they "look" toward the text. Do not achieve this by reversing the image". We have enough image to chose from in commons.
• There is an empty notes section now without anything displaying in it.
• The instrumental notation for "Maa Theme" and "Chanda Theme" are under Lyrics and singer, which is incorrect. It should be just in braces along side the music name.
• The em-dash in the awards tables for the categories, those should all be en-dash.

That's all I could see. This is a nice read and I will support once they are addressed. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 06:09, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for looking at the article, I greatly appreciate your comments and kind words. I believe Ssven2 has addressed all your comments. NumerounovedantTalk 08:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I am glad to support this article now. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 08:25, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

IndianBio Can you also do an image review? Thanks a lot again. NumerounovedantTalk 13:20, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

@Numerounovedant: I see that an image review was already done above. Sarastro1 mentioned a source review was also needed. Do you want me to look into that? —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 12:16, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me IndianBio, Kailash did go through the sources once, but if you have some spare time you might as well take a look. NumerounovedantTalk 14:12, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 08:49, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.