Wikipedia:Peer review/Mullum Malarum/archive2

Mullum MalarumEdit

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because the article has failed four FACs in a row. I want to know what is wrong and rectify it before I attempt FAC for the fifth time. I know this article can pass FAC because my other articles did, and I am trying very hard to avoid the same mistakes I made in them. Thanks, Kailash29792 (talk) 13:30, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47Edit

  • In this sentence from the lead (It marks Mahendran's directorial debut and is partly based on Uma Chandran's novel of the same name, which was serialised in the Tamil magazine Kalki.), would it be helpful to include the year that the novel was serialized? It may be a useful reference point for readers.
  Done it's 1966. --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:09, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I would change this part (and developed the screenplay as he wanted, making a visually-focused film without formulaic Tamil cinema conventions he disliked such as melodrama, overacting, excessive dialogue and duets.) to something like (and developed the screenplay for a visually-focused film without formulaic Tamil cinema conventions he disliked such as melodrama, overacting, excessive dialogue and duets.). Something about the "as he wanted" sounds a little odd to me, because I think readers would assume he would develop a screenplay to fit his interests/tastes unless told otherwise.
  • For this part (Since he had no previous directing experience, cinematographer Balu Mahendra,), clarify that the "he" is "Mahendran" to avoid any potential misreadings.
  • I am uncertain about this phrasing (establishing cinema as a "visual medium") in this sentence (The film received praise primarily for Rajinikanth's performance, Balu Mahendra's cinematography, Ilaiyaraaja's music, Mahendran's writing and establishing cinema as a "visual medium"). The sentence has a structure of "The film received praised primarily for X's Y" until this part somewhat throws it off. I am wondering if this part could flow better.
  • I am a little confused on what this part "establishing cinema as a "visual medium"." means. Film is inherently a visual medium so how did this particular film establish it in ways that previous ones did not? Are you just referring to Tamil cinema or cinema as a whole? Some clarification here would be helpful. Maybe, it would work better as an independent sentence.
Please look here. --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:09, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
I have looked at this source and it seems like this film established film as a "visual medium" specifically in terms of Tamil cinema because it showed a film could be made "without melodrama, fights, duet songs or excessive dialogues, and with realism integrated in it". I cold be misreading it though so take it with a grain of salt. My issue with saying (and establishing cinema as a "visual medium".) is that it is a rather bold and broad claim hat I do not think makes sense without further context. Again, film by its very nature is a "visual medium" so how does this film establish that in a way other films, either in Tamil cinema or any cinema throughout the world, does not? Aoba47 (talk) 01:25, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
I cannot use a book that was rejected during the very first FAC because its other chapters (not this one) copied from Wiki extensively. But I guess Mahi's intention was to make the film a visual experience, rather than a photographed stage play like many earlier Tamil films. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:19, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Understandable. I was not suggesting that you use that specific source, but I was just trying to figure out what that pat meant. I think it is important to clarify the film's impact on Tamil cinema. Your clarification/explanation makes sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 04:31, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I am not entirely certain I understand what this sentence (Kali seethes at displays of unfeelingness.) means.
  • For this part (Valli feeds them, shelters them for the night, and talks to Kali about allowing them the use of the vacant house next door.), I am wondering if it could be (Valli feeds and shelters them for the night and...) would be better to avoid repeating "them"?
Wrote "feeds and shelters them". Dunno why the Fowl Knight made the earlier edit. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:19, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • This is more of a clarification question. In this sentence (this culminates in Kali chasing Manga all the way to the river where they frolic, before Kali rushes back to work), do you literally mean that they "frolic" or is a euphemism for sex? Just wanted to make certain.
I've rewritten what really happened. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:19, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • There should be a comma in this sentence (The following day Kumaran suspends Kali from his job for ten days for gross misconduct) after "day".
Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:19, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I have a clarification question about this sentence (Later that night, Valli wonders aloud if Manga might make a good wife for Kali, a possibility to which he gradually warms up.). It was already established in a previous sentence that Kali has feelings for Manga so why is he only "gradually warm[ing] up" to the idea of marrying her? I would have thought from the plot summary that he would be more excited about it.
  • For this sentence (When he accuses Valli of neglecting him because of his handicap, Valli is filled with guilt and rushes into his arms, sobbing.), the second instance of "Valli" can be replaced with "she".
Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:19, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • For this part ( his ego having been assuaged, he offers his blessings for the marriage.), I would replace the comma with "and".
The sentence goes, "Although his dislike of Kumaran lingers, his ego having been assuaged, he offers his blessings for the marriage". It is the writing of Fowler, so I guess there's nothing wrong in the grammar. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:19, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I am glad that you are still working on this article. I admire your perseverance. I have provided some suggestions and comments for the lead and the "Plot" section. I hope that they are useful as I would like to help you as much as possible to get this to FA status. I will look through the rest of the article later in the week. I will avoid the "Themes" section until the "under construction" template is removed. I hope you are having a great week so far, and I hope that I am not a pain with these comments. Aoba47 (talk) 04:26, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Here is the Plot that I had written. It had more than 700 words, so Kailash29792 reduced it, but in doing so introduced a number of errors, some of which you have pointed out. Unfortunately, this seems his pattern of behavior. He could have told me, and I would have reduced it without introducing false descriptions. They weren't frolicking, for example. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
@Aoba47: Actually, I have issues with all the sections after the Plot, and probably will with the lead as well once they are resolved. So, honestly, I'm not sure, why he has requested a peer-review at this stage, without informing me. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:22, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • @Fowler&fowler: Thank you for the messages and the link to your version of the "Plot" section. I will refrain from adding any further comments and suggestions until the work on the article has settled down. I hope that I was not imposing on or interrupting anything. I am just trying to help. Please let me know if there is anything I can do. I am complete outsider with this topic as I have not seen this film before so I trust your judgement as you have more knowledge about it. Aoba47 (talk) 05:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Okay Fowler&fowler, I apologise for my earlier actions caused due to stress. Can we try making peace? But your comments are too hard to understand, let alone fulfill. You may rewrite the plot again, but please keep it within 700 words. If you feel Cinemavum Naanum is unusable in some places, can you please tell me where all to remove it? I thought it was an example of WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:35, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • @Aoba47: No not at all, you weren't imposing. I too was a complete outsider to this topic until I began to review the article at FAC, ..., which led me to view the movie with English subtitles on YouTube, ... and the rest is history. Yes, I understand you are trying to help, and thanks for that. I pinged you because I didn't want your helpful comments to go waste as a result of the text being altered and new issues cropping up.
  • I greatly appreciate that so thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 05:53, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • @Kailash29792: Such issues can't be resolved overnight. I'll have to figure out what other sources there are. I am busy. I will be able to attend to this only now and then. I think your plan for putting it back at FAC in one month's time is unrealistic. I'd say put this on the back-burner, without rushing yourself and rushing me. It will get there eventually. Consider for example, Mandell Creighton. It is in much better shape than this page. I nominated it at FAC a number of years ago but realized a week into the candidacy that the article was too dependent on one source, and withdrew. ... I finally found another source last month. After I've read it and absorbed it, I will eventually renominate it, but I'm not going to stress myself doing it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:51, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Okay, the FAC will be opened once your comments are solved no matter how long it takes. I initially said I'd open the FAC a month later because I believed all issues would be resolved in the PR itself, and Ssven's exams end in October, so only then he can commit properly. And please let me know if Cinemavum Naanum is still a good source. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:09, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Mid October to be precise. Until then I'd probably be not around here much.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 10:31, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments from VedantEdit

After going through the Frontline' article on Mahendran's body of work, I feel like there a large part of the story that is missing from the Development section, the background of the script writing in particular. Without it, I feel, most of section reads incoherently (as has been the complaint of few editors). I think if we pick it up from the very beginning of Mahendran being disillusioned with his own work "mainstream" cinema and take it from there, things will get much clearer. It will also put his belief of the script being unfit for production in context if we make his dislike for certain elements of the Tamil cinema clear from very beginning. Let me know how about it Kailash, I am trying to restructure the beginning in my sandbox and will get back to you once I see something shaping up. VedantTalk 21:08, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Kailash, Ssven2, take a look at this and see if it makes any sense to you guys. I just feel that the current version leaves a lot to the imagination of the reader. Was just trying to put things in perspective. Let me know how feel. VedantTalk 06:20, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Nice start Vedant. But it seems you didn't take everything you could point from the Frontline source. And I'm waiting for Ssven to return. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:40, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
You're right, Kailash. However, until now, I had knowingly limited myself to the translated page from the Mahendran source that you provided at the talk page because I can't that the Frontline article was more about Mahendran's artistry. I did find interesting points in the it and will see how much we can use without making the section entirely about the filmmaker. Feel free to add/change as per your liking. You're anyway the best person to work on the article. VedantTalk 21:16, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Hey Kailash ,I took your advice and used some information from the Frontline source to add more perspective to the film's development. Can you take a look and see if you like the direction that the section is headed into now? VedantTalk 14:15, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it's great. Sorry for the delayed reply, just fill in the first blank which goes, "which he criticised for its obsession with commercial success and _________". I'm pretty sure the value to be filled in is already mentioned in the Frontline source as "routine melodrama, excessive dialogues, overacting, duets and a typical climax, all of which he was always highly critical about since he made that speech in front of MGR during his college days." --Kailash29792 (talk) 10:31, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Done, Kailash. I'm not too familiar with the plot of the novel so try an fill the other blank too. You can then make any other required changes and then use the section in the main article. VedantTalk 19:44, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Numerounovedant, see how the section is now based on my editing. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:48, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
It looks okay Kailash, let's wait to hear from others as well. VedantTalk 20:00, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Numerounovedant, if you are free, you may return to helping. This and this may have the answer to the "visual medium" comment that often confuses commentators. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:36, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to go through this today. VedantTalk 07:21, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Kailash, the visual medium bit still remains ambiguous and we might have to get more information for expansion. The current sources might be questioned at the FAC again and while the Film Companion refs are more descriptive they do not directly address MM while talking about the technical aspects of the director's work. We might have to dig deeper here. VedantTalk 11:05, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Numerounovedant, it was never about using the FC sources (though the FC article written by Baradwaj Rangan may be considered). It was about clarifying what Mahendran meant by cinema being a "visual medium". After searching high and low, I came across this, does it answer anything? I say it does. Also pinging Aoba47 if you're still active, and equally confused by the "visual medium" comment. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:03, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Hey Kailash, I just wanted to point out that I understand the "visual medium" bit from all the reading. However, that doesn't solve the problem because the article simple throws the word around every now and then without much explanation or background (of Tamil cinema and it's focus on dialogue over visuals). And we cannot expect the reader to do the secondary reading on Tamil cinema and "films as a visual medium" to understand the usage. Neither can we add all the context here either because it will just go out of context real quick. From a reading of the article though, the key seems to be in the Mahendran source that has been used to source the entire thing. Can you help with understanding what exactly the source says in that aspect? We'll have to use the same source to simplify the entire thing. VedantTalk 15:27, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
If you have an in-depth understanding of WP:PRIMARYSOURCE and WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD, that will decide if the Mahendran source should even exist in the article at all. I hope the book is still usable. By tonight, I should have all the important details from the Mahendran source typed and ready in a text file to share with you. Now the "visual medium" comment is the least of my worries since I have sources explaining its meaning and I can add footnotes here as help. Our main aim is now solving the "problems" pointed out by Fowler&fowler during and after the FAC. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:36, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Having read the guidelines, I was comfortable with the Mahendran source being used for the Production section to source some basic information. However, I do not like the idea of using it for the Reception and Legacy sections at all. That's where the problem begins. The beginning of the Legacy section is mostly just a repetition of what's already been said in the Reception section. And I'm not too sure if it even deserves to be in the article, considering the fact that we use the Mahendran source at both occasions. How do you feel about dropping the entire visual medium bit altogether? Or finding a better source and explanation for it. Because the more I read the two sections, the less I like them and it's mostly to do with how they start with a certain piece of information and then abandon it altogether (probably) because there is no (or insignificant) secondary commentary on it. VedantTalk 19:08, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Numerounovedant, sorry there were delays in presenting the complete typed version to you. I promise I'll have it ready by tonight. Meanwhile, Sathi Leelavathi needs more reviewers and you're welcome to comment there. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Here it is. If you can't view the docx file, this txt file should be viewable. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:50, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Numerounovedant, I'm back. Can we resume? Did you read the txt file? Kailash29792 (talk) 04:13, 21 January 2020 (UTC)