- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by PumpkinSky talk 14:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
M. S. Shinde
edit- ... that for the Bollywood classic film Sholay (1975), M. S. Shinde edited 300,000 feet of reel to 18,000 feet?
- Reviewed: Norbert Murphy
Created/expanded by Neelkamala (talk), Dharmadhyaksha (talk). Nominated by Dharmadhyaksha (talk) at 08:41, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- New: Good. Length: 1790. Policy: There's definitely some close parapharasing here, especially with the statement about his "payroll". The creator or nominator should go back through the article and edit passages to be more distinct from their sources. Abyssal (talk) 16:52, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Have rephrased it now. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Looks good, then. Abyssal (talk) 20:09, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Not only do the key facts, the 300,000 and 18,000, not have inline citations immediately after the sentences they contain, as required by DYK rules, but some of the statements in that paragraph do not jibe with the source. For example, "The film now hinted at violence, but showed no blood." This is cited to the Chopra book, page 141, which is presumably meant to cover some of the earlier information as well (though by DYK rules each sentence relevant to the hook needs its own citation). However, the information about the results of violence and blood cuts is on page 142, and indicates there was plenty of violence left, if a lot less blood (but no indication that the blood was completely gone, as only most of such scenes had been removed): "excised most of the bloody scenes" and "Despite all the violence in Sholay". The book also gives the figure of "approximately 21,000" for the initial cut, rather than 20,000; if you wish to use 20,000 another source that uses it must be specified. I can't see page 141, which is not offered in the Google books preview, but 142 is available, and is what I've based my comments on. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- I have now moved the citation to the hooked line. Have also rephrased the violence lines. And thanks for pointing out the 21K and 20K difference. That was my mistake. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Now that my concerns have been addressed (I did make edits to the violence sentence, as there were some language problems and it wasn't quite congruent with the source), restoring Abyssal's approval with AGF on the not-completely-available source. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)