Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Keechaka Vadham/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

Keechaka Vadham edit

Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because it is my intention to take it to the next level. Keechaka Vadham is the first ever Tamil film and silent film in South India. Constructive comments are most welcome. Thanks,  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 10:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47 edit

  • Please add a comma after the close parenthesis of the English translation of the title in the first paragraph of the lead.
Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 11:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last two paragraphs of the lead seem rather short and could be combined together.
Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 11:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure what you mean by the phrase “Despite being a silent film” in the lead and in the body of the paragraph. The phrase appears to present a contradiction where there is none. I do not see how the fact that this is a silent film impacts its identity as a Tamil film. I would suggest removing this phrase in the lead and in the “Production” section as I do not understand what you mean, and I do not believe it is necessary.
Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 11:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You use the word “film” a lot in the lead. Please add variety by using different words.
Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 11:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a clarification question, but you only have two characters listed in the cast section and I want to make sure there are only two characters and actors in the film?
@Aoba47: There is no definitive proof that there were others besides the two. The story, however, focuses mainly on the episode featuring their characters.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 11:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add an ALT description for the image.
Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 11:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can just say “equipment” as the “entire” part is unnecessary and sounds odd.
Done. As asked. Thought as much.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 11:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure what you mean by “thereby making his debut in the film industry”. Just because he bought a camera and a printer, that doesn’t mean he made a debut in the film industry as I would consider that occurring after releasing a film or other project. Please clarify this.
Done. Removed that portion of the sentence. I've already stated that he "launched his maiden film titled Keechaka Vadham" in the 2nd paragraph, so that should suffice.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 11:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add a comma after “At the time” in the “Production” section.
@Aoba47: Um, since the article is in Indian/British English, is it alright if a comma is placed there? I have placed it there for now however. Do let me know about whether a comma should be there. Thanks.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 11:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest looking this up. I am American and use American English so this is what I am familiar with, but if the comma is not necessary for Indian/British English, then you can remove it later. Aoba47 (talk) 11:35, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you think that it would be better to move some of the information from the “Production” section into a “Plot” section before the “Cast” section. You could use the two sentences about the plot. However, this may not work and it may be fine as it currently stands, but I just wanted to give you something to think about for now.
I initially thought about doing so, but on seeing another FA, Si Ronda (1930), which also incorporates the plot into the "Production" section, I decided to model Keechaka Vadham based on that.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 11:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense; thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 11:35, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Quick question: If you are using Si Ronda as a model, do you think it would be best to incorporate the "Cast" section into the "Production" section as well? It does look somewhat odd to have such a short "Cast" section in the very beginning of the article so this may benefit that. Aoba47 (talk) 11:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: Done by a good friend and fellow editor.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 12:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The phrase “maiden film” is not correct and should be revised and replaced with something else. I have never heard this phrasing before.
Done. Changed to "directorial debut".  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 11:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am assuming that the final sentence in the “Production” section is referring to the film reel itself. I would clarify this in the sentence to make it more obvious.
Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 11:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the “Release and legacy” section, it should be “returned” on “return”.
Done. Fixed. Good catch that.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 11:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the film was supposedly released on January 1918, then why does the infobox say otherwise? Make sure everything is consistent.
Done. Changed the sentence to " Keechaka Vadham was released at the Elphinstone Theatre".  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 11:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revise the sentence about the son’s death to as follows: “In 1923, the death of his in a fire which also burned his entire studio led Nataraja Mudaliar to retire from filmmaking” to remove unnecessary words.
Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 11:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You repeat the word “revered” twice in close proximity in the “Release and legacy” section. Please revise this to avoid that and add variety.
Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 11:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure the two films in the “See also” section are really necessary. I understand the inclusion of the list, but the two films are only indirectly associated with this.
@Aoba47: Um, both those films are significant as Raja Harishchandra inspired Mudaliar to make this film, and Kaildas was the first talkie in Tamil cinema. Both those films made giant steps in Indian cinema just like how this laid the foundation for South Indian cinema.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 11:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ssven2: Great work with the article; it is a very interesting. These are my suggestions for improvement and I look forward to see this at FAC. If possible, I would greatly appreciate if you could leave some comments at my FAC for Russell family (Passions). Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 10:55, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just so you know, the bot related to the peer review process has been down for a while (at least several weeks by the time I post this message) Aoba47 (talk) 10:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: Thank you so much for your comments and your time, Aoba47. I have resolved most of them. I'll have a look at your FAC and thanks for the heads-up about the PR bot. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 11:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Anytime and good luck with getting more comments/reviews for this. Aoba47 (talk) 11:35, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: God willing. [[File:|18px|link=]]  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 12:33, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FrB.TG edit

Will get to this when Hrithik Roshan is complete. - FrB.TG (talk) 15:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tintor2 edit

The article looks in good shape but I would avoid those links to Google books since I have often been talked there are some copyright issues like that. Also, if possible add the page number of some of those books. Good luck.Tintor2 (talk) 16:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tintor2: The page nos are already shown in the references/citations. Thanks for the inputs, Tintor2. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 17:28, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ssven2:, I see. By the way, I'm curious. Is the plot too small to have a section?Tintor2 (talk) 23:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Tintor2: It is a lost film and not much sources are there regarding the plot except that it is a mythological tale about an episode in the Mahabharata featuring Kichaka and Draupadi. I don't think it would fit in the 400-700 limit anyhow.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 06:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Numerounovedant edit

Will go through the article later today. NumerounovedantTalk 09:09, 7 January 2017 (UTC) Sorry for the delay, here are some suggestions: Lead[reply]

  • IMO the lead should atleast mention the initial release year if not any particular date.
@Numerounovedant: There is no "initial release". The exact release date (dd/mm/yy) is not known. Historians and critics point the date at around 1916-1918.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:32, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and Jeevarathnam as Draupadi, the female lead." - the mention of "the female lead" is rather undesirable as there is no such mention of who or what character is the male lead either.
Done. Removed "the female lead".  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:32, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first "silent film"? What other kind of films came before that?
@Numerounovedant: What kind would you expect? Talkies? Lumiere Brothers? Georges Meiles? :-)  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:32, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This was a curious comment. XD
  • Maybe a line regarding the film's legacy as well?
Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:32, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Production

  • The second sentence is colloquial, as it names the director twice linking two rather distinct facts. They could be split to form individual sentences.
Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 08:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At the time cinematographers from Britain" - at the time of what? the buying of the camera? or the developing of interest in films? you may have to rephrase this if you decide to split the previous sentence which you really should.
Done. Tweaked the sentence.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 08:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we have any details on the meeting between the director and Stewart Smith?
@Numerounovedant: No. Other than the fact that Mudaliar learnt the basics of film-making from Smith.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 08:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "allowing them to invest in the production house" - not sure if that's the best choice of words. why not simply say associates, who invested in the production house?
Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 08:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some of Nataraja Mudaliar's relatives objected to it as they felt that it was not a proper story for his debut venture."- Do we know why? This seemed to be a rather ambiguous fact.
@Numerounovedant: Not really. He did make the film however. They might have objected to a woman's honour (Draupadi) being taken advantage of, but that is not mentioned in the source.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 08:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which was then considered high." - you may want to rephrase here as well.
Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 08:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "began in 1917, and was shot" - "and 'the film'" was.
Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 08:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "cast was filled with" - odd choice of words, maybe say Since the cast was predominantly Tamil?
Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 08:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Release and legacy

The section looks good to me.

Great work on a difficult article, let me know if you have any queries regarding my comments. Good luck. NumerounovedantTalk 17:58, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good to me, you may still want to add the year of the earliest release is you have a source. Good luck with the article. NumerounovedantTalk 16:10, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Numerounovedant: Thank you so much, Numerounovedant. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 17:47, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt edit

  • "The film is based on an episode from the Hindu epic Mahabharata focusing on the characters Kichaka and Draupadi; it stars Raju Mudaliar as Keechaka and Jeevarathnam as Draupadi."It strikes me that this could be shortened by not mentioning that it focuses on the two. After all, it's implied.
Eagle-eyed editors will be like, "which episode?", which we will have to answer to. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Touche.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "had owned a Williamson 35 mm camera and a printer purchased in England." maybe "had purchased a Williamson 35mm camera and a printer in England". I would pipe "printer" to an appropriate article to avoid confusion.
  • You should probably say when Lord Curzon was viceroy. And does a viceroy "reign"?
  • "got introduced to" "got" is an issue. I would replace the three words with "met".
  • "Renaissance of Tamil Theatre" why the caps? Do we have an article?
  • Since we are short on images, possibly add depictions of the characters from Commons.
  • " to woo and marry Draupadi before she reports about it to Bhima, who kills him" this isn't very clear.
  • "coach artistes" artists or female artists? In either case, practice these days seems to use "artists".
  • "in a span of five weeks.[4] Pradeep Madhavan of The Hindu Tamil, however, says Keechaka Vadham took 37 days to complete" this seems a very modest discrepancy. I wonder if it could be shortened.
On an unrelated note, I think the writer meant "roughy five weeks" since he did not mention the exact amount of days. So yes, this sentence can be shortened. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any possibility of finding an ad for the film in contemporary newspapers?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If there was, we would have included the ad before the article went for GA. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: All of your comments have been resolved, Wehwalt. As far as images go, would it be alright to use Raja Ravi Varma's paintings of Keechaka and Draupadi?  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 10:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why not. I'll look the article over again when I get a chance but it may not be until the FAC due to time constraints. Very well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Keechaka_Vadham/archive1&oldid=1138562625"