Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sholay/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 00:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC) [1].

---

Sholay

Sholay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Sholay/archive1

Nominator(s): User:Bollyjeff, User:Dwaipayanc

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it is a high quality, comprehensive account of what is widely considered the greatest of Indian films. I would like to promote it and have it featured in this 100th anniversary year of Indian cinema. You may be surprised to learn that it is like a Western film. Please have a look. BollyJeff | talk 22:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment Perhaps Ref 45 needs to be updated. The current link gives a general search results for all articles by same author in Chicago Reader.--Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 01:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. The original link showed the date and author of the article, and gave a link, whereas this one does not, but it is certainly better to show the actual content directly. BollyJeff | talk 02:14, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment I have changed some of the words to their British English spells, I hope that is all right. The words in the quotes, names etc I have not changed. I was not sure with multi-starrer. Should it be changed to multi-starer? In the Soundtrack section, all the words for a given title starts with capital letter, while as Gabbar singh has s small in singh. In the reference cited only first word start with capital letter. Should 'singh' be changed to 'Singh' or others changed to small letters?--Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 02:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I am not British, my spell checker flags American spellings. I am pretty sure that Singh should have a capital S though; fixed, thanks. BollyJeff | talk 02:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I am also not British (Indian) and also I have configured my computer for American English. But since in this case it was specifically mentioned to use British english, I copied the entire article into my word process (iWork Pages) and changed setting to British english. However I confirmed each spell with online Cambridge dictionary.--Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 03:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much; I changed it to "multi-star" to avoid the confusion. BollyJeff | talk 12:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Another comment Recently I had seen in Kaun Banega Crorepati, Amitabh Bachhan mentioned their plans to change the ending of the film at the time of its launch due to poor response. In the planned new ending, Jai was supposed to live. Should this be mentioned in the article?--Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 02:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

That is already mentioned in the first paragraph of the Box office section, where it discusses the initial reception. BollyJeff | talk 02:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Support Absolutely. Covers all of the needed points and very well researched, great effort.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support - I had my say in a talk page review, this looks solid. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 19:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Image check mostly all OK (fair use, own work). 2 points:

• File:Ramdevarabetta.jpg - caption: the second part ("This location was also used ...") is trivia (and unrelated to the article's topic). Remove.
• File:Sholay_CD_cover.jpg - Fair-use should be OK for an extensively discussed soundtrack with no own article. However the "purpose of use" in the image summary needs a rewrite (it's not in the main infobox, and it's not the article topic, just the soundtrack as one important aspect of the main topic in a single section). It would also help to add some information about the cover design (who designed it? what is depicted? why was this cover design chosen?) to the soundtrack section. GermanJoe (talk) 14:04, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The trivia has been removed. I updated the album cover fair use; don't know if it's good enough. I have as yet been unable to find details of the cover design. BollyJeff | talk 16:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

All Done, thank you. If you happen to find some more info on the cover design, it would strengthen fair-use even more. But if no info is available, it's OK. GermanJoe (talk) 11:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support My concerns were addressed in PR. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support: Excellent article on one of the most important films of Indian cinema. --smarojit ^HD 04:13, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Support Intersting and well-written. The article meets FA criteria. Good work.—Prashant 16:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support: A very interesting and thoroughly written article about a very iconic Hindi film, and easily one of the best articles Wikipedia has ever produced.----Plea$ant 1623 ✉ 07:48, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't go that far, but thank you (and everyone else) for the kind words. BollyJeff | talk 20:05, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• Source review and spot-check:

• Formatting and quality of sources looks good. No problems found by citation and external link checkers.
• Ref 7:

• Article text: "Sholay was also influenced by the westerns of Sam Peckinpah, such as The Wild Bunch (1969) and Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid (1973); and by George Roy Hill's Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969)."
• Source text: Supports claim.

• Ref 23:

• Article text: "As of 2010, a visit to the "Sholay rocks" (where much the film was shot) was still being offered to tourists travelling through Ramanagara."
• Source text: Supports claim.

• Ref 60:

• Article text: "It was remixed for the 2010 Malayalam film Four Friends"
• Source text: Supports claim.

• Ref 85:

• Article text: "On the film's 35th anniversary, the Hindustan Times wrote that it was a 'trailblazer in terms of camera work as well as music,' and that 'practically every scene, dialogue or even a small character was a highlight.'"
• Source text: Contains given quotations.

• Ref 95a:

• Article text: "It was an early and most definitive masala film"
• Source text: Supports claim. --Laser brain (talk) 13:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Delegate comment -- Just on a quick scan I'm still not entirely sure about the prose, e.g. "best ever Indian films" doesn't sound very encyclopedic ("best" alone is enough surely), and shouldn't "sadist cruelty" read "sadistic cruelty"? I'd like to see another editor give it the once-over for prose. Andy, since you've been kind enough to run the spotcheck, how would you feel about that? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:28, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll look at the prose today. --Laser brain (talk) 12:45, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose, 1a: Unfortunately I have oppose based on awkward writing. I waded into the "Themes" section and found strange turns of phrase in each of the first four sentences. There are odd word choices, missing articles, and other anomalies that are usually typical of ESL writing:

• "Koushik Banerjea, a sociologist in the London School of Economics, notes that Sholay allows for a sympathetic construction of rogue masculinity through the likeable outlaws of Jai and Veeru.
• "He writes that the film is an epic representation of the conflict between 'established hierarchy' and 'violent usurpers', in which the moral boundary between criminality and legality is gradually erased under the demand of the plot.
• "Film scholar Wimal Dissanayake agrees that the film brought to Indian screen 'a new stage in the evolving dialectic between violence and social order.'"
• "Film scholar M. Madhava Prasad argues that Jai and Veeru represent a marginalised population who are realigned into mainstream as 'proxy agents of an feudal hierarchy'."
• "The character of Gabbar Singh"

Please get a strong English speak to copyedit the article. --Laser brain (talk) 20:23, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

A strong English speak? Hmm. Why do the supporters (or anyone else) not notice this until so much time has passed, and we are at the bottom of the list? This process is very demoralizing. BollyJeff | talk 20:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah the irony. Speaker. --Laser brain (talk) 21:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi thanks for the comments. I guess this is yet another example in which, despite our best efforts, some "Indian English" usages are used, which are, at times, strikingly different from standard UK or US usage. Hmmm, I sincerely believe that such occurrence won't be a lot, since the article was reviewed by at least two native English speakers(as far as I know) -- Dr Blofeld and Crisco. Of course, human errors occur, and it may not be possible to read through all sections of an article with equal scrutiny. Apologies for the errors.

Can you suggest anyone for the job? Also, some sections may tend to have such errors more than other section, such as theme (which you saw), legacy.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:13, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, where can we find not an English speaker, but a professional English writer, which is apparently what it takes to get the job done for an FA. I am also a native English speaker and college graduate, and I don't know how to fix these problems. I also had another FA fail for prose, even though it had just been edited by a WP:GOCE member. BollyJeff | talk 00:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I reworked the Themes section with the help of my son, who just got a perfect score on his AP English exam. I hope it is acceptable now. BollyJeff | talk 02:00, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, yes, Featured Articles should have professional-quality prose. Please try not to take criticism as impugning your work or that of other copyeditors. No single editor can catch all the issues, which is why FAC is a consensus-driven process. I will look it over again tomorrow. --Laser brain (talk) 05:11, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I have stricken my opposition after making a few more changes. The article seems much improved. I watched the director's cut today and it was very interesting—I thank the editors and nominators for exposing me to this film. --Laser brain (talk) 04:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I am glad that you enjoyed it, and thank you for re-visiting the article. BollyJeff | talk 09:52, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks everyone, at this stage I just plan on leaving the nom open a day or two longer to let the article "bed down" after the recent copyedit... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:34, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks User:Laser brain for watching it. Such should be one purpose of good film articles, to give rise to curiosity among the readers!--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Agreed there. It always pleases me when people tell me they read a book or watched a movie because of an article I've written. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:53, 16 July 2013 (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) 22:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

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