Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pather Panchali (film)/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:03, 20 August 2008 [1].

Pather Panchali (film)

edit
Nominator(s): Dwaipayan (talk)


Pather Panchali (Song of the Little Road) is the debut film of Satyajit Ray, and the first film of the Apu Trilogy. The article is one of the core articles of WikiProject Films.

The article has undergone film peer review and a successful GA nomination. I believe it meets all the FA criteria. Dwaipayan (talk) 23:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Comments

Reply to Juliancolton
  • The dead link has been replaced by an alive link. The page was moved to the new URL. Thanks for catching it.
  • Screen (magazine) (website) is an Indian film weekly published by the The Indian Express (website) newspaper group. It is notable and widely circulated film magazine in India. So it should be considered as a reliable source.
  • The Internet Encyclopedia of Cinematographers link, although seemed an RS, has now been replaced with a book reference (Ettedgui, Peter (1999), Cinematography: Screencraft, Focal Press, ISBN 0240803825) which discusses cinematographer Subrata Mitra's craft, alongside the crafts of other noted cinematographers of the world.
  • The title for the ref mentioned has been written in small case now.
  • Thanks for the comments. Please review. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 00:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Kensplanet
1. In Production#Novel, there's no need to repeat [2] again and again. Only an apppended [2] will do.

The novel Pather Panchali by Bibhutibhushan Bandopadhyay is a classic bildungsroman in Bengali literature.[2] It first appeared as a serial in a periodical in 1928,[2] and was later published as a book in 1929.[2] To a great extent, it was based on the author's own early life.[2]

It should be

The novel Pather Panchali by Bibhutibhushan Bandopadhyay is a classic bildungsroman in Bengali literature. It first appeared as a serial in a periodical in 1928, and was later published as a book in 1929. To a great extent, it was based on the author's own early life.[2]

2. REF2 cites these sentences The novel Pather Panchali by Bibhutibhushan Bandopadhyay is a classic bildungsroman in Bengali literature.It first appeared as a serial in a periodical in 1928,> and was later published as a book in 1929. To a great extent, it was based on the author's own early life.
I have found the book on Google Books having the same ISBN (http://books.google.com/books?id=u9jdfLG8FwIC&pg=PA71&vq=Pather+Panchali&dq=Satyajit+Ray:+The+Inner+Eye:+The+Biography+of+a+Master+Film-Maker&source=gbs_search_s&sig=ACfU3U3Sydm-hhZ6rnGo4MQzX-6hpFhtWw#PPA74,M1)

Can you clarify how does it source the unstriked claims?

3. Same deal with the sentence Satyajit Ray read the novel for the first time in 1943, when he was doing the illustrations for a new edition,[15] and started to think about the possibility of making a script around 1947–48.[15] as in 1. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 10:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Kensplanet
  • Ok, moving that ref supercript to the end of the paragraph. However, someone may ask for the citation of individual clauses/sentence fragments of the paragraph, that's why the superscripts were used multiple times.
  • The novel Pather Panchali by Bibhutibhushan Bandopadhyay is a classic bildungsroman in Bengali literature. For what do you need a reference in this sentence? To qualify "classic" (that has been stated in the Robinson book), to qualify "bildungsroman"? (that can be cited from a different reference, in fact, I am providing it soon), or, to qualify something else?
  • and was later published as a book in 1929. Fine, if you want a ref for that, I am providing that, stat!
  • Okk, again , will move the multiple superscripts to a single one at the end of the pertinent section.--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - overall it looks very good, much as it seemed when it left PR. (Although I must admit being slightly disappointed not to see this at A-class review... :)) Looking back over your references in more detail, however, I feel as if there is a great deal of worthy material which has been omitted. Most notably, with regards to the production of the film, the circumstances of which were far from average and therefore probably demand more exceptional detail. Another point - the Ettedgui book's section on Mitra has some interesting content about storyboards and crew environment, as well as some excellent behind-the-scenes photos and drawings which may be appropriate to the article. Since Ray did the storyboards himself, this may merit some mention. I also found a discrepancy - Mitra says that production was 4 years long and was halted for 18 months, while Robinson says less than three years, and halted about a year. Is there any reason that might explain this? If not, I'm inclined to favor Robinson, since he clearly has done the research and Mitra's memory may have been flawed in the four decades between production and the interview, but since he was there, it may merit some investigation, since perhaps they mean different things. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, many details had to be excluded in order to maintain summary style :( It was tough to decide what is worthy and what is not, and I tried to mention those in extreme gist - as much as I could. Anyway, I shall again go through the pertinent sections of the books once, and see if something more can be added.
Ok, I shall try to kinda investigate that (the duration and the break), although it seems, as you have pointed out, Robinson is a better source.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess what I'm trying to say is that this wasn't a typical production where they entered a soundstage and shot from X date to Y date - this was a protracted shoot, fraught with problems, incidents, and anecdotes, and it went on to become perhaps the most influential and important Indian film ever. Given these facts, the enlarged bibliography they tend to create, and the lack of a contemporary trivia-driven PR machine which typically has a low signal-to-noise ratio with regard to encyclopedia article prospects, I think we can afford to use our sources more liberally, especially the scholarly, well-researched, and in-depth ones. In short, given the current poverty of detail, I'd encourage you to indulge. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okk, got you. Will try, definitely.--Dwaipayan (talk) 08:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at the first few paragraphs. "Some commentators" is a peacock term. Needs to be removed. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nichalp for pointing out this fault which somehow we missed earlier! Reworded, to remove "some commentators".--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overall this is an excellent article and has come a long way in the last few months. My only complaint would be that there appears to be some repetition in the critical reception and legacy sections in which the "one of the most stunning first films in movie history" seems to be over emphasised and unneccesarily repeated. I'm not sure whether something could be merged and whether a legacy section is all that necessary as it generally falls under reception. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 21:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree some quotes, and the mention of the film by different magazines in the all-time lists can be moved from "Legacy" to "Critical Reception and Awards" (I'd rather make the section title "Reception and Awards" in that case, how's that?), removal of the "Legacy" section altogether would not be good, I guess. The Apu Trilogy is better explained in "legacy", and also, the further journey of Ray fits better in Legacy. Moreover, the impact of the film on Indian film scenario, and, the whatever world impact it had, need to be in Legacy too, rather than Reception. What do you think?--Dwaipayan (talk) 00:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would have to agree that keeping the Legacy section is fully justified with a film that has an exceptional place of influence and importance in the history of world cinema. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree I was more concerned about the repetition of several quotes. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 11:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But there is no repetition of quotes. Well, you can say some quotes in "Legacy" section are thematically similar to those in reception section. We can move such quotes from legacy to reception. However, I don't see any repetition. Can you please explain, if I am missing something?--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Newsweek critic, Jack Kroll, reviewed the film as "one of the most stunning first films in movie history in the reception section .and Philip French of The Observer has described Pather Panchali as "one of the greatest pictures ever made" in the legacy seems to be pretty much giving me the same piece of information twice. If you are to keep the two sections which is probably advisable, I just feel is needs to be altered slightly in the recption section tso it doesn't appear to cover old ground in the legacy section. Perhaps remove or replace a quote or two. As long as the reader gets the impression that a critic has considered it one of the greatest films of all time without having to read that another thinks this later on in the article. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 21:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Will move/remove soon. Please allow 2-3 days (sudden pressure of work, unable to do major edits). Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is that really that same though? One is saying it's one of the greatest debut films ever, and the other is saying that it's one of the greatest films, period, ever. I do see why this is being raised, and maybe it's just a question of context and paraphrasing vs. quoting, but I don't think that these are equivalent statements, although they are both exceptional praise which place the film's greatness beyond their own era. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm one could argue both ways I agree, but I guess it is a matter of interpretation. If however you are to discuss it being the greatest film in whatever context I believe this should be together and not mentioned again. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 10:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update Tried to group thematically similar quotes, as pointed out by Blofeld, in Reception section. Please see. and I am extremely sorry for this inordinate delay in response :( Too much real life work pressure. Could not do some reading from the main source books, so could not address Giro's concern yet :( Sorry.--Dwaipayan (talk) 01:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images All three images have appropriate rationales (I changed the train one slightly to provide a direct article link - not absolutely necessary but helpful). However, I'm concerned on their use within the article - these can be fixed, but not trivial: (the title card image is fine).
    • Image:Apu Pather1.jpg talks about this "Wide open eyes" motif through the trilogy, but it is not mentioned in this article at all. But when I flip to the image's rationale, I see that the rationale for its use in "Culture of India" spells out that this is one of the most poignant and most famous scenes from the film. If this is the case, either this aspect, or the "wide open eyes" motif needs to be discussed to support the use of the picture. This likely can be done in the Legacy section.
    • Image:Patherpanchali 1.png talks about a 'discovery of train' scene but there is no mention of this directly in the text -- is this the scene right before they find their dead aunt? There needs to be a better tie in as to what this image represents in terms of the plot. Or if this is like the above image, a famous scene from the movie, it needs to be attached to some text that states that.
  • Both I think are fixable but need it to be before this can go on to FA. --MASEM 13:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—1a.

  • "However, other similar translations of the title have also been used, such as"—Why "also"? Why, for that matter, "However"?
  • Same deal here: "He earns a meagre living as a priest, but dreams of a better career by writing scholarly plays and poetry"—why "but"? That word means that you're detracting from or contradicting what has just been said. You need "and". Please audit throughout for these false contrasts.
  • "he even cannot muster the courage"—Nope; "he cannot even muster the courage".
  • Grammar doesn't work: "although his family is in dire need of money towards household expenses"

Now, I've read enough to tell that this needs high-level copy-editing. Too much of the language is not natural, and not grammatical. There are problems of logical flow. Please buzz me when it's ready; or you could withdraw, fix it, and renominate. Tony (talk) 11:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Pather_Panchali_(film)/archive1&oldid=1141484865"