Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sathi Leelavathi (1936 film)/archive2

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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13 April 2020 [1].

---

Sathi Leelavathi (1936 film)

Nominator(s): Kailash29792 (talk) 03:52, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

The article failed its first FAC, despite overwhelming support, because I was not able to address the co-ord's closing comments during a brief period of block. Now that I have, and the article has gone through great copyediting, I feel it is more than ready. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:52, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Oppose from Laser brain

I don't think this is ready, sorry. It's evident from the article history that someone went through it, but I still see lots of awkward writing and what looks to be clumsy paraphrasing from sources. Examples:

• "Sathi Leelavathi was launched in 1935." The word "launched" isn't standard English for when a film is released. Did someone choose that word to paraphrase "released"?

Yes, it was Baffle. It was filming that began in 1935 and is implied to have ended in the same year, yet the release was delayed due to the lawsuit. So can I write, "Principal photography began in 1935"? --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Okay, now I've written "Principal photography for Sathi Leelavathi began in 1935". Hope it is good because that's fact. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• "the film was made primarily at Vel Pictures Studio" Meaning principal photography was done at that studio? Or it was edited there?

I guess everything; filming and post-production. So should I say shot or filmed? It seems post also happened at the studio as Dungan said, "the Vel Pictures studio manager, Mr. Ramamurthi, used to clean all the exposed negatives by hand – inch by inch, frame by frame" and narrated another incident involving him and the editor, happening at the same studio. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Okay, now I've written "the film was shot primarily at Vel Pictures Studio, Madras". Hope it is good because that's fact. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• "In a 1994 interview with Ananda Vikatan, Dungan said during the first few days of filming" Not even grammatically correct.
• "Dungan corrected this and advised Ramachandran to deliver his lines naturally" This section constructs a narrative suggesting that a stage actor was able to be coached in "understanding the nuances of film acting" in the span of a few days?

I got the translation from a book I won't use: "During the first few days of the shooting, MGR did not understand the nuances of film acting and was delivering the dialogues aggressively even his acting appeared to be overacting. I corrected and advised him to deliver dialogues with natural acting. He changed his way of acting after that." What do I do? But I do believe "a stage actor was able to be coached in "understanding the nuances of film acting" in the span of a few days" simply by dropping exaggeration and overacting, and acting naturally like he would in real life. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• "Dungan wrote in A Guide to Adventure, his 2001 autobiography, most of the cast were theatre actors..." Not grammatically correct, again.

Blame it on Baffle, don't blame it on me. My original writing before Miniapolis' c/e was, Dungan wrote in his 2001 autobiography A Guide to Adventure that, since the majority of cast members were theatre actors, he was tasked with "subduing [their] voices and facial expressions". The source reads, "As was the case with Sathi Leelavathi, the cast came from the stage. So again I had to take on the task of subduing the actors’ voices and facial expressions." Can I restore this writing? --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

These are just pot-shots from one section. I'd reject this for GA status. --Laser brain (talk) 17:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Quite surprising to see the co-ord making comments when the FAC just opened, and not when it is about to close. Anyway, please don't swiftly archive this. I agree with your comments and will try resolving them, provided you give more. And I expected better from Baffle gab 1978, who did the c/e. Kailash29792 (talk) 01:52, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm commenting here as a reviewer, not a coordinator. I'm recusing. I'm making comments now because I was surprised to see the nomination appear so soon after I commented on the poor quality of writing last time. The article needs a complete overhaul from someone who has access to the sources and can create a more cohesive and well-written narrative. This is not best done during an open FAC nomination. --Laser brain (talk) 18:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Okay Laser, sorry for the misassumption. In the previous FAC, you gave comments only about "Music" and I solved them. You also said the whole article needed rewriting, but not how some sentences needed to be rephrased. That is why I listed it at the GOCE. But if you have issues with the rewritten prose, please don't blame me but Baffle, for it is his edits that you find appalling. And the second FAC did not appear "so soon after I commented on the poor quality of writing last time", but almost a month later, and that too only after the GOCE editing was complete, and when I believed Baffle solved the issues raised by you. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Could you possibly ease up on the hyperbole? It makes working with you fairly unpleasant. --Laser brain (talk) 04:40, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes and apologies Laser, I will no longer make hyperboles as the comments are easily solvable and I have enough time to do so. I do not want us to be enemies, so you please take your own time to reply to my questions above. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. To the matter at hand: It is not GOCE or a copyeditor's job to understand your sources and create a cohesive narrative, nor to recognize awkward paraphrasing. They will go through a polish the text and correct obvious grammatical errors (maybe). I've given examples only, but I believe this article should be withdrawn as it requires a substantial revision from someone working from the sources. You may have to partner with a stronger writer. Fixing my examples does not address my opposition. --Laser brain (talk) 15:43, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

To emphasize a point, I am very disappointed that you continue to drag a good-faith editor's name through the mud (Baffle gab) during this process. Very poor form. --Laser brain (talk) 20:28, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

I participated in the previous FAC, and I will do a thorough read-through of the article to hopefully help as much as possible. I can understand Laser brain's comments, and I agree with the parts that they have pointed out above. Aoba47 (talk) 20:38, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Resolved comments

Lead For this sentence (It is based on S. S. Vasan's eponymous novel that was serialised in 1934 in the magazine Ananda Vikatan), I would link "serialised" to the Serial (literature) article as some readers may be unfamiliar with the concept. I would also flip the last part to have the magazine title first and the year last. I do not think the phrase "eponymous novel" is used correctly because the novel is not named S. S. Vasan after the author. I would just say "novel" instead to avoid this. Right now it reads, "It is based on S. S. Vasan's novel of the same name, which had been serialised in 1934". Outriggr did some c/e. And serial is linked to what you said. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC) For the lead's first paragraph, would it be beneficial to put the plot summary before the listing of the ensemble cast? Since the list is quite dense with information, it may be helpful to inform the reader about the plot first before identifying each actor. I do not believe there is a policy or standard for this as I have seen some FAs on films put the plot summary first and others put the actors first so it is up to you. Just thought it was worth asking. Your suggestion is good and worth discussing at WP:FILMLEAD, but I'm following the example used in most MCU articles: "Para 1: introduce the film, its cast and premise"; "Para 2: Behind the scenes"; "Para 3: The film's premiere/release and reception". Kailash29792 (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC) Understandable. There is not a set standard/policy so it is really up to you. Either way would work for me so the current wording is good. Aoba47 (talk) 05:16, 19 February 2020 (UTC) I am uncertain about the first sentence in the lead's plot summary. The "man named" is a little clunky to me. I would instead go with something like: (Sathi Leelavathi focuses on Krishnamurthy, a wealthy Madras-based man who is lured into drinking alcohol by his friend Ramanthan.). Also, is "friend' the best descriptive phrase for this character? The current phrasing is, "In the film, the wealthy Krishnamurthy, a man from Madras, is lured into drinking alcohol by his acquaintance. Believing he murdered his friend in a drunken stupor, Krishnamurthy flees to Ceylon while his daughter and wife, Leelavathi, are reduced to poverty." Kailash29792 (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC) For the second sentence in the lead's plot summary, I would just say "his friend Parasuraman" as "other" seems rather unnecessary to me as it is common for people to have more than one friend. Also, based on my understanding of the story, this is his real friend as opposed to Ramanthan. Ramanathan is now written as "an acquaintance". Still accurate? --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC) Seems better to me. Aoba47 (talk) 05:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC) I have a suggestion for this sentence (Chettiar initially wanted to produce a film version of the theatrical play Pathi Bhakthi but an adaptation was already being made). I think putting a verb like "realized" before the "an adaption" part would pull the sentence together more. Done: Since this is an Indian film (despite being directed by an American), I've gone with "realised". To avoid ambiguity, can I write, "A. N. Marudachalam Chettiar initially wanted to produce a film version of the Madurai Original Boys Company (MOBC) play Pathi Bhakthi but realised an adaptation was already being made". --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC) For this sentence (Madras Kandaswamy Mudaliar, who wrote the play, later told Chettiar about Vasan's novel, which had the same storyline), I am wondering if the "who wrote the play" part could be removed as it is somewhat cumbersome. Maybe something like (The playwright Madras Kandaswamy Mudaliar...). Also, it may be better remove the comma phrases altogether to say something like (The playwright Madras Kandaswamy Mudaliar suggested Vasan's novel to Chettiar since it had the same story.) instead. Technically, the play was written by Pavalar, but Mudaliar simply rewrote it. So I've gone with you phrasing. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC) For this sentence (Chettiar obtained the rights to make a film version of the novel and Mudaliar began writing a screenplay.), I would add a comma between "novel" and "and". I believe the rule for commas is that if there are two independent clauses joined by "and", then a comma should go before "and". Another example of this is (D. T. Telang and V. J. Shave were the cinematographers and the film was co-edited by Dungan and Sircar.). I am quite bad with commas and punctuation in general so I would encourage you to research this further. Done: It was originally like that, but changed by Baffle. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC) I would reduce this part (the film-acting debuts of Radha, Balaiah, Ramachandran—both of whom were stage actors—and K. A. Thangavelu) to something like the following (the film debut of K. A. Thangavelu and stage actors Radha, Balaiah and Ramachandran) to be more concise. All of them were stage actors. Even Thangavelu was, but with another theatre troupe: Rajambal Company. So can I simply say, "the film-acting debuts of Radha, Balaiah, Ramachandran—both of whom were stage actors—and K. A. Thangavelu"? Kailash29792 (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC) I was honestly trying to avoid the dashes so I think it awkwardly cuts off the sentence. But I would be alright with the current wording, but you would need to change "both of whom were stage actors" to "all of whom are stage actors" since you are referencing more than two people. Aoba47 (talk) 05:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC) I was a little confused by this sentence (Sathi Leelavathi was the first film on which Krishnan worked and his second release.) when I read it at first. Maybe a revision to the following (Although Sathi Leelavath was Krishnan's first film, it was his second release after Menaka in 1935.) would make the meaning clearer. The current phrasing is "It was Krishnan's first film appearance and his second release". Accurate? --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC) I would say "but his second release" to emphasize the difference further. Aoba47 (talk) 05:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC) For this sentence (Sathi Leelavathi explores temperance, social reform, selfless service and the plight of labourers), I would link "temperance" to the Temperance movement in India article to give readers a greater context to the word. Done. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC) I have a few comments for this part (It was one of the earliest Tamil films to become the subject of a court case involving copyright violation; the plaintiffs accused the filmmakers of plagiarising the play Pathi Bhakthi.): I would link "copyright violation" to help any reader unfamiliar with the concept. As I said before, "copyright violation" is the writing of Sodabottle, who seems to have retired. I would prefer to say, "It was one of the earliest Tamil films to involved in a plagiarism controversy" (matching Category:Films involved in plagiarism controversies), what saith thou? Kailash29792 (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC) I agree it seems more like a plagiarism suit so I would go with that wording. Aoba47 (talk) 05:24, 19 February 2020 (UTC) I would clarify what is meant by "the plaintiffs" as it is not immediately clear in the sentence who is suing the filmmakers. According to Wiktionary, a plaintiff is "a party bringing a suit in civil law against a defendant; accusers". So it's clear MOBC are the plaintiffs. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC) I am well aware of what the word plaintiff means. Both of my parents work in criminal law. It is not clear that MOBC are the plaintiffs because the MOBC is not even introduced in the lead. Aoba47 (talk) 05:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC) I am uncertain who is being referenced by the phrase "the filmmakers". Is it the director, producers, screenwriter, some combination? I would clarify this point. Can I write, "MOBC accused the filmmakers of plagiarising the play"? Kailash29792 (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC) The MOBC need to be properly introduced in the lead first to provide an explanation for the acronym. Aoba47 (talk) 05:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC) I would include the title of the Ellen Wood novel in the lead as you have done in the body of the article. Done: It's Danesbury House, dunno why it was removed. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC) These are my suggestions for the lead. I will review the article section-by-section so I can read through each sentence thoroughly and help as much as possible. I am certainly not a great reviewer, but I hope my comments are at least somewhat helpful. Aoba47 (talk) 21:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC) Plot I am a little confused by this sentence (Ramanathan's collaborator is Rangiah Naidu, a corrupt police inspector.). It is not made immediately clear (at least at this point in the story) what Rangiah Naidu is doing to help Ramanthan, and without this clear connection, this sentence seems rather random. Is Rangiah Naidu present at the tea party and helping to persuade Krishnamurthy to drink alcohol? I think a better transition or strong connection with the rest of the paragraph would be helpful here. It seems so. The plot in English reads, "Krishnamurthy, a rich man of Madras is taught drinking by his friend Ramanathan. He is lured into bad ways... made to indulge in harmful pursuits. A mock tea party is arranged to achieve this end and Ramanathan's collaborator in this is Rangiah, a base individual who disgraced the power entrusted to him." Rangiah is not mentioned again until the end. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC) Thank you for the explanation. I was curious about this part because Rangiah Naidu seems to come out of nowhere here, but if there is not further information about this part, then this should be good. Aoba47 (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC) I would condense this part (Krishnamurthy is captivated by Mohanangi, a promiscuous woman with whom he becomes infatuated,) down to (Krishnamurthy becomes infatuated by Mohanangi, a promiscuous woman,). I have a clarification question about this part (and promises to pay her ₹50,000 (about US$18,700 in 1936). Is he just giving her money or is he paying for her to do something in particularly (i.e. sex)? I would clarify this in the prose if the information is available. The plot in English reads, "Krishnamurthi [sic] is made to fall by the wiles of a loose woman named Mohanangi... Infatuated he promises to pay her a sum of Rs 50,000." After this Mohanangi is never mentioned again. But from the looks of it she is indeed a prostitute. --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC) Thank you for the explanation. I was curious if they did anything together or if there was a clearer reason for the payment, but since the source leaves it rather vague, then it should be fine. Aoba47 (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC) I have a clarification question about this sentence (Parasuraman, Krishnamurthy's true friend, tries but fails to reform him.). I am assuming that Parasuraman is trying to stop Krishnamurthy from drinking alcohol? The later parts of this paragraph make it clear that alcohol has become a habitual behavior for Krishnamurthy, but I am uncertain if that is clear at this point so it may be worthwhile to clarify in this sentence exactly what Parasuraman is trying to help his friend with to avoid any confusion. Yes, the pressbook says, "Parasuram [sic], a family friend of Krishnamurthy tries to reform him. His methods prove to be useless." I think it's already clear that Krishnamurthy has become alcoholic. --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC) If it is clear that Krishnamurthy has become alcoholic, then I would be more direct and state that in the sentence as I initially misread the mock tea party as being a one time thing until later realizing in the second paragraph that Krishnamurthy had other experiences with alcohol and developed this problem. Aoba47 (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC) For this part (Krishnamurthy comes home drunk, sees Parasuraman's umbrella, assaults Leelavathi and goes out to shoot Parasuraman.), I would replace the second instance of "Parasuraman" with "him" as it is clear from the context of the rest of the sentence. To avoid repetition of Parasuraman's name, how about I write, sees the umbrella? --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC) That sounds good to me. Aoba47 (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC) Done exactly as suggested. --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC) I am uncertain about this part (a shot is heard and a man lies dead) as it is very dramatic. I think it may be better to be clearer and say something like (a shot is heard, and the servant is killed) or something along those lines. Something about the tone of the original wording does not really fit with a Wikipedia/encyclopedia article. Just wanted to point out that this has not be addressed. You do not need to use my wording, but the "and a man lies dead" part seems inappropriate for a Wikipedia plot summary. Aoba47 (talk) 19:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC) See what I've written now. --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC) For this sentence (When Krishnamurthy comes to his senses, thinks he has murdered Parasuraman and decides to escape, leaving Leelavathi and Lakshmi in the custody of his servant Govindan.), I would revise the start to (After coming to his sense, Krishnamurth thinks...). The current phrasing is not grammatically correct, specifically the "sense, thinks he has" part. Link Ceylon here to be consistent with the lead. Also a link to tea estate may be helpful. Already linked. And doesn't tea estate fall under MOS:COMMONWORDS? --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC) That's strange. It was not linked last time I looked at it, but maybe I missed the link somehow. The tea estate link is up to you. I would not consider it a super common word/phrase but I can also understand why the other side of the coin so it does not have to be linked. Aoba47 (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC) I've even linked tea estate to tea processing as the former redirects to it. --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC) For this part (and replaced it in Krishnamurthy's hand), I would use "placed" instead of "replaced". The word "replaced" does not really work in this context. Yeah, done. Blame it on Baffle. --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC) Not to pile on this, but I have to agree with Laser that it is not a good idea to criticize another editor who was only trying to help. We are all just volunteers and trying our best to contribute and improve the website. Aoba47 (talk) 21:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC) Apologies Aoba47, my bad. Now that I have addressed your comments (please check if I really have), what next? Kailash29792 (talk) 05:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC) Cast Is there a reason why Rangiah Naidu's full name is not used here? Because of WP:FILMCAST, which says to use the character's name as seen in the credits ("All names should be referred to as credited, or by common name supported by a reliable source"). And in the pressbook, he is referred to as "Inspector Rangiah". Thank you for the explanation. I would go by the credits and keep the current wording. Aoba47 (talk) 05:23, 14 February 2020 (UTC) Since Rangiah is identified as an inspector, I would identify Sreenivasan as a detective. Again, WP:FILMCAST. But am I allowed to avoid the "Master" and "Miss" prefixes that appear in the pressbook? The current phrasing should be fine. Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 05:23, 14 February 2020 (UTC) I understand since this is a partially lost film, you may not have the answer for this, but is there any information on Balu and Sesha Iyengar's roles in the film? Later in the article, it is mentioned that there is a "comic subplot", but I do not see it represented in the plot summary. Aoba47 (talk) 22:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC) I cannot even remotely identify what the comedy subplot may have been about. And I would not say the film is partially lost, but predominantly. Those scenes that you see here appear to be behind-the-scenes footage, although the opening credits are also part of it. So how do I solve this dilemma? If the comic subplot is unavailable, then nothing really can be done since we can only work from the sources that are available to us. Aoba47 (talk) 06:34, 14 February 2020 (UTC) Apologies for the amount of comments as a lot of good work has been put into the article. A lot of these points are minor and more nitpicky than anything. Aoba47 (talk) 03:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC) Aoba47, your comments are not as disturbing as Laser brain's (hereafter Laser); I fully agree with them as well as Laser's. I only fear the FAC will be swiftly archived because of his comments. Since Laser was not detailed during the last FAC, I could not identify what to rewrite. Hence I submitted it to the GOCE. Seeing how Baffle gab 1978's edits appear to have worsened the article, I'm baffled (pun intended) since he is among the most experienced editors of the GOCE (no offense, but Miniapolis often does a far better job than him). But if you are going to give further comments, they should be in line with Laser's existing comments and not contradict them. I still haven't lost hope, and believe I can please Laser brain without sacrificing quality. --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:19, 14 February 2020 (UTC) Once my above comments are addressed, I will collapse them and move onto the rest of the article. I do not think I am contradicting any of Laser's points though? Aoba47 (talk) 05:23, 14 February 2020 (UTC) I will wait to add further comments until the lead suggestions are resolved. Aoba47 (talk) 23:27, 18 February 2020 (UTC) Production The first two sentences of the "Development" subsection are in passive voice. It may be helpful to rewrite the second sentence (Pavalar's play was rewritten for the Madurai Original Boy's Company (MOBC) theatre troupe by playwright Madras Kandaswamy Mudaliar, and was staged over 150 times.) in a more active voice to keep the reader engaged. Something like the following could be helpful: (Playwright Madras Kandaswamy Mudaliar rewrote Pavalar's play for the Madurai Original Boy's Company (MOBC) theatre troupe, and this production was staged over 150 times.) Now the para goes, "Pathi Bhakthi, a Tamil play dealing with alcohol abuse and its effects on family life, was written by Te. Po. Krishnaswamy Pavalar during the early 1930s[2] and was successful throughout the Madras Presidency. Pavalar's play was rewritten for the Madurai Original Boy's Company (MOBC) theatre troupe by playwright Madras Kandaswamy Mudaliar, and this production was staged over 150 times". However, I'm beginning to doubt the accuracy of this article as it says, "Balaiah joined Rajambal Company, where he met the famous M. Kandaswamy Mudaliar, father of M.K. Radha. They staged Pathi Bhakthi over 150 times and Balaiah’s performance was greatly acclaimed. Sadly, this company too folded up but Kandaswamy Mudaliar roped him in for a film he was writing and where his son was the hero. This was Sathi Leelavathi". Do you think the source is best removed? Because Rajambal Company was evidently not involved, and MOBC did not dissolve as they sued the makers of the Sathi Leelavathi film. Also, I think the "150 times" applies to how many times the play was staged in its lifetime, even before it was rewritten by Mudaliar. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC) For this part (Mudaliar told him a novel titled Sathi Leelavathi,), I would just say "the novel Sathi Leelavathi" to avoid the "titled" part. Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC) I would link "serialised" to the Serial (literature) article as I recommended for the lead. Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC) For the last sentence in the first paragraph of the "Development" subsection, I would move Reference 10 to the end of the sentence before Reference 11. The current placement awkwardly cuts off the sentence and hinders readability. Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC) I think this sentence (Tandon introduced Chettiar to his American friend Ellis R. Dungan and suggested Dungan direct it instead.) could be cut down to be more concise. Something like the following could be helpful: (Tandon suggested that his American friend Ellis R. Dungan could direct it instead.) Done. Is this a better alternative to show coherence? Chettiar wanted Manik Lal Tandon to direct the film but he declined;[c] Tandon instead suggested his American friend Ellis R. Dungan Kailash29792 (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC) I think that is a better alternative. Aoba47 (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC) Went ahead. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:36, 22 February 2020 (UTC) For this part (but Chettiar was persuaded to hire Dungan because he had worked in Hollywood), I would replace "Dungan" with "him" as it is clear from the context of the sentence who is being referenced here. Done. --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC) If directorial debut is linked here, then I would do the same for the lead for consistency. Delinked, because it should never have been linked in the first place; Baffle linked it. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC) As I suggested for the lead, I would link copyright violation here. The current phrasing reads, "Sathi Leelavathi was one of the earliest Tamil films to be involved in a plagiarism controversy", matching the lead. I wonder if there is a way to revise this sentence (Balaiah, who is credited as Baliah, played the antagonist Ramanathan while Krishnan played the comic character Balu) to avoid repeating "played" twice. Now I've written "appeared as the antagonist Ramanathan". --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC) I am confused by this part "because of production delays caused by the lawsuit, Menaka (1935)" since "the lawsuit" part could be read as a descriptive phrase to describe Menaka and it seems rather abrupt. I think the wording is off here. Could you provide a little more detail on the Menaka lawsuit? I think this sentence as a whole could use a little more work for readability and to help inform an unfamiliar reader like myself of the full background with this situation. I think you got it wrong; Sathi Leelavathi was to have been NSK's debut film. Because the Pathi Bhakthi v Sathi Leelavathi lawsuit caused production delays (the trouble with casting Leelavathi happened after the lawsuit), Menaka became NSK's first release. It's common in South Indian cinema that an actor's first film project is not always their first release; Mohanlal, Sathya and Arya are victims like NSK here. So what phrasing do you suggest? --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC) The current wording seems good to me. Aoba47 (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC) I believe "detective" in this part (Chettiar gave the role of the detective Sreenivasan) should be capitalized as it is done that way in the "Plot" section. This has not been addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC) How is this what I have written? Chettiar gave the role of Sreenivasan to M. V. Mani without Mudaliar's knowledge. I have amended an earlier sentence to According to Ramachandran, he was told he would play Detective Sreenivasan and later Krishnamurthy's friend Parasuraman. It appears Detective with a capital D is indeed a formal prefix (as mentioned in Criminal investigation department), similar to Justice, Doctor and Inspector. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:36, 22 February 2020 (UTC) I was asking about capitalizing detective in detective Sreenivasan, which you have now done. Aoba47 (talk) 19:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC) For this part (Gnanambal, who had retired from acting after her marriage to Radha,), I would remove "to Radha" as it was already clarified in the previous sentence that she is Radha's wife. Done. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC) For this part (Other comic actors were M. S. Murugesan as a Marvadi moneylender), unlink "Marvadi" since it was already linked in the "Plot" section. Done. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC) I would move References 20 and 21 in this part (K. A. Thangavelu, a theatre artist associated with the Rajambal Company troupe, also made his film-acting debut) to the end of the sentence alongside Reference 22 as the current placement awkwardly cuts off the sentence into a long and a small part. Done. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC) I am uncertain about the placement of "uncredited" in this sentence (J. Susheela Devi played an uncredited cabaret dancer.) as the role not the dancer is uncredited. Is this a better sentence? J. Susheela Devi appeared uncredited as a cabaret dancer. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC) I think that is much better. Aoba47 (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC) Done. Followed the same type of phrasing in "Cast". --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:36, 22 February 2020 (UTC) I am uncertain about this sentence (however, he watched the filming and absorbed "the new art form that was cinema"). It seems a little too close to the source's phrasing (But he hung around watching the shooting in Madras and absorbing the new art form that was cinema). I think it may also be better to somehow incorporate information from this part of the source's sentence (which had begun to talk Tamil in 1931) as it adds more context to why he considered cinema a new art form. This still needs to be addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC) The source reads, "While MGR took his bow in it, Chakrapani did not because of lack of a proper role. But he hung around watching the shooting in Madras and absorbing the new art form that was cinema, which had begun to talk Tamil in 1931." That's referencing the first Tamil sound film Kalidas. Since it does not seem to add much (or may be bordering on WP:COATRACK), can I remove the "new art form" sentence and write, "...but was not cast because there was no proper role available. However, he watched the filming"? This is to avoid WP:COPYVIO, a charge I do not want to be blocked again for. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:36, 22 February 2020 (UTC) Apologies for the delay in my response. I would remove the "new art form" part. It does not really add much to that part so I agree with your suggestion. Once this is addressed, I will read through the article again to see if I missed anything. Thank you for your patience with this. Aoba47 (talk) 19:38, 22 February 2020 (UTC) For this part (Sathi Leelavathi was launched in 1935.), I would say "released" instead of "launched". I will not repeat other parts of Laser's comments, but I do agree that the parts that were pointed out need further work. The current phrasing says that "principal photography" began in 1935. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC) For this part (According to film historian Film News Anandan in the book Saadhanaigal Padaitha Thamizh Thiraipada Varalaru, filming was also done in Ceylon), I am uncertain if the book title is necessary since the film historian seems notable enough (since he has a Wikipedia article) to stand on his own. Done, removed. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC) Themes I would change the temperance link to the Temperance movement in India article to be more specific. Done. --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC) I like this part (the Gandhian concept of selfless service) since you clarify what is meant by "selfless service". I think adding the "the Gandhian concept" part to the lead could be helpful. Done. --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC) Music For the first paragraph, I would put Reference 63 at the end of the sentence with Reference 64 to avoid cutting off the sentence awkwardly. I am uncertain about the "with new lyrics" part and I would suggest removing it. A poem really does not have lyrics so it is an odd comparison to make, and since the sentence emphasizes that the melody was based on the poem, I do not think this part adds anything to the sentence. The source says, "It modified a song of Bharati’s! The poet had composed ‘Karumbu Thottathile’ which was on the plight of bonded Indian labourers in Fiji. This was changed to ‘Theyilai Thottatile,’ depicting the problems of the tea plantation workers in Ceylon." So I've removed the "with new lyrics" part since it is understood that he retained the melody and added new lyrics. --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC) For this part (The original poem is about the plight), I would just say "The poem" since you are not referencing multiple poems here. Done. --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC) For this part (the plight of bonded Indian labourers in Fiji and the song explores the problems of tea-plantation workers in Ceylon), I would use "while" instead of "and" to emphasize the contrast in subject matters and add a comma after "Fiji". Done. --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC) For this part (The song, which is set in the Carnatic raga known as Chenchurutt), I would remove "known as". Done. Though many Carnatic ragas have Wiki articles, Chenchurutti does not. If it did, at least a section redirect, would this sentence do? {{set in Chenchurutti, a Carnatic raga}}? --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC) That sentence seems good to me. Aoba47 (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC) Release and reception Is it possible to add a link to "independence-era" in this part (and support by independence-era politicians) to help unfamiliar readers like myself? I guess the author actually means "pre-independence era" since India got independence only in 1947. Would it be better to link to British Raj? Because that's the era he's referring to. --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC) It would be helpful to somehow incorporate the link into the sentence, but if you are having too much trouble with it, then I would not worry about it. Aoba47 (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC) I am uncertain about the repetition of "film's" in this sentence (In its January 1937 issue, the art magazine Aadal Paadal praised the film's social setting and acting.) as it was done in a similar way in the previous sentence. I think you can drop "film's" and just say "the social setting and acting" without losing any meaning. Done that way. --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC) For this part (, a critic of cinema in general,), I do not think "in general" is necessary. Done as suggested. I do not want there to be a mix-up; belief that he was a film critic, but that he did not generally like films. But "a critic of cinema" gives the same impression doesn't it? --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC) @Kailash29792: Apologies for just seeing this now. I see your point. I would say "a frequent critic of cinema" as that would convey that he often criticizes film in a negative way and not in a journalistic or academic manner. Aoba47 (talk) 18:34, 24 February 2020 (UTC) For this part (and in another he indicated his fear by depicting his twitching fingers and feet. ), I would add a comma between "another" and "his". Done, the comma removal was Baffle's doing. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC) I am uncertain about the word "unsophisticated" in this sentence (however, an unsophisticated audience thought the lighting in the first scene was poor and that the film was stuck in the second) as it seems too much judgmental toward the audience. Since these filmmaking techniques were new, it makes sense that an audience may not understand it so I think a better word choice could be used here. Previously, it had been two separate sentence (Sundararajan claimed these techniques not only helped the actors to emote their characters better but also showcased Dungan's talent, yet the audience believed that the lighting was not clear in the first case and the film was stuck in the second. He opined that this reflected the ignorance of the audience), before Miniapolis made them into what you see now. Do I restore this last sentence? --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC) I think the previous wording was much better as it clearly defines the "ignorance" part as Sundararajan's opinion rather than an objective fact. Aoba47 (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC) Legacy For this part (It was the first Tamil film the be successful in overseas markets), I think you mean "to be successful". Yep. Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC) For this part (a documentary about Dungan's career in India that was directed by Karan Bali), I am not sure if the director is important enough to be included here. Aoba47 (talk) 20:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC) Yep, removed and kept the paragraph in balance. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC) Thank you for addressing my comments. I have responded to your questions and pointed out a few areas that appear to be missed. I will do a full read-through of the article again sometime tomorrow. Thank you for your patience with this review. Aoba47 (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience and for addressing all of my comments. I support this for promotion based on the prose. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any input on my current FAC. Either way, have a great start to your week. Aoba47 (talk) 20:40, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much Aoba47, I'll read your article today and post comments tomorrow (please remind me on 27 February US time if I forget). Your support is significant progress in my FAC. My next objective: please Laser brain. Otherwise it will end up like Mullum Malarum's fourth FAC: failing based on a single user's unsolved comments. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:19, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Support from Yashthepunisher

• Support my queries were fixed in the prior nom. Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:04, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Yash. If you can lure more reviewers, including those who can help with copyediting (in a manner that will please Laser brain), I'll be grateful. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:34, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Support from Mr. Smart LION

• Support per above. Mr. Smart LION 04:11, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Support from zmbro

• Support – I supported the previous nomination and my support still stands. – zmbro _(talk) 19:35, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

A note to all co-ordinators: I feel the FAC is going good, and it should not be archived simply because I haven't yet solved one user's (Laser's) comments. I am expecting comments from two more users, and hopefully they will help me solve Laser's comments in the process. --Kailash29792 (talk) 15:41, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Vedant

Hey, Kailash. I just restructured the Reception section to make it flow better. See if you like it, and feel free to go back to the earlier version if this does not read as well.

I am not sure if I'll be able to go through the entire article as such, but I strongly recommend doing away with the Themes section. At this point, it just doesn't carry any weight as such and has a few repetitive points as well. Let me know how you feel about that. VedantTalk 21:19, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Vedant for your recent edits. I agree the Themes section isn't large enough, but is there any way we can transfer its content to other sections of the article? Besides, why did you remove the sentence about the revenue donation to C. Rajagopalachari? I hope you had access to the pressbook while editing the reception section. --Kailash29792 (talk) 03:47, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Ah yes! I'm sorry I forgot to mention that Kailash. The bit about the proceeds going to Rajagopalachari was really breaking the flow of the sentences in the reception section. Let's see how we can incorporate that into the first paragraph of the section that talks about the box office numbers.

As for the Themes, I see Gandhian ideals in the reception section. Let's see what we can do about the temperance and chastity bits. VedantTalk 07:50, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Alright, here's my thoughts on the Production section:

• "A. N. Marudachalam Chettiar of Manorama Films wanted to produce Pathi Bhakthi as a film but to his dismay, a film version was " - "to his dismay" doesn't sound very encyclopediac.

Removed "to his dismay", but the sentence is otherwise the same. --Kailash29792 (talk) 08:42, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

• "To please Chettiar, Mudaliar told him the novel Sathi Leelavathi" - "told him that"? Ideally I would say "told him about Sathi...", but that wouldn't work with the rest of the sentence. See, that's what happens with long sentences. We tend to lose track of what was being said and the grammar just goes for a spin. Let me know how you want to restructure this.

Done: added, "Mudaliar told him the novel Sathi Leelavathi". Kailash29792 (talk) 08:42, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

• "Mudaliar soon began developing the screenplay." - See now here, we don't really have much context as to why Mudaliar began developing a screenplay. Wasn't her the author of the play that already had a film adaptation in the works? When and why was he hired for this project then? The reader might have all these questions.

I don't know why, but we should not overlook the fact that Mudaliar is the screenwriter of Sathi Leelavathi. --Kailash29792 (talk) 08:42, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I've somewhat reworded this section to make it read more smoothly. Hope it helps. VedantTalk 12:23, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

• "Vasan was credited in Sathi Leelavathi's opening titles for the original story in his film debut." - a film debut?

As in, his first tryst with film. What should I write? This source reads, "When Vasan sold the film rights of the novel, it was his first involvement with filmdom." Kailash29792 (talk) 08:42, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

How about: "Vasan, who had never previously been involved with a film project, was credited..." VedantTalk 12:23, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

• "Dungan was new to India and did not know Tamil or much about Indian culture, but was persuaded to hire him because he had worked in Hollywood.[14] The film was Dungan's directorial debut." - Now see this is problematic again. The "worked in Hollywood" bit might lead the reader into believing that he had directed films in Hollywood before, so just to clarify you should add what sort of work de he do in Hollywood?

Most likely cinematography. In this source at page 35, Tandon described him as a "Hollywood-trained technician". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kailash29792 (talk • contribs)

• The Linda Book Records bit could also be better incorporated into the text to avoid feeling like a stray.

It's Limca Book of Records. But see what I've written now. --Kailash29792 (talk) 08:42, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

• "S. Panju, who became half of the Krishnan–Panju directorial duo,", who would later go on to become a part of the..."?

Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:42, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

• "the novel Sathi Leelavathi were based on Ellen Wood's 1860 novel Danesbury House, therefore neither party could claim originality." - "were in turn based on Ellen Wood's 1860..."

Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:42, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

The prose might be lacking in a few places, but the more pressing issue should be the flow of the text and if that improves just a tad bit, the article will start reading a lot better. More to follow VedantTalk 07:25, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

If you need access to the offline sources, I'll give it to you. And please do something that will help solve Laser brain's comments. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:42, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, you should ask them to revisit the nomination at some point and see if his concerns still stand. Maybe after me and Veera and through with out comments. VedantTalk 12:23, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Continued:

• "Mudaliar wanted to launch a film career for his son M. K. Radha, a theatre actor, with Pathi Bhakthi but could not because another thespian, K. P. Kesavan, had been selected for the lead role." - very long and unnecessarily complicated. The grammar falters so maybe split into two and maybe start with the third sentence.

Written, "Radha, an MOBC actor". Can you do the rest of the honours? --Kailash29792 (talk) 17:07, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Haven't gone through the source ms, but would the star vehicle bit be fair assesment of ye situation? VedantTalk 12:21, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

• "Other MOBC actors who also made their film debuts" - It's not clear that Radha was a part of MOBC so the "others" here makes little sense.

Now that I have described Radha as an MOBC actor, this should not be complicated. --Kailash29792 (talk) 17:07, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

• "and Sathi Leelavathi was his second" - redundant. Although if you ask me, the entire bit should be a footnote as the article is not about Krishnan.

I've gone through with this. Really improves the flow.

• The problem with the opening of the second paragraph: "Ramachandran appeared in Pathi Bhakthi as the antagonist's henchman Veeramuthu, but MOBC owner Sachidanandam Pillai did not offer him a role in the film adaptation" is that we as readers didn't know that MOBC had ownership of the film? Is that so?

It is not clear who produced the Pathi Bhakthi film. This source says Chidambaram Chettiar of National Movietone acquired the film rights for the play, but this one says it was the MOBC themselves. One thing is clear though: the MOBC had some level of involvement in the film based on their play. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Maybe we leave out names and simply say that he didn't get a part in the film. VedantTalk 12:21, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

• "for a better role in Sathi Leelavathi" - I thought he didn't have a role.

How about removing better? --Kailash29792 (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

• The repeated use of Pathi Bhakthi to refer to both the film and the play just complicates all of this. We need to find a way two separate these two.

That's why it's better to say "the Pathi Bhakthi film" and "the Pathi Bhakthi play". Kailash29792 (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but maybe the others can pitch in here. VedantTalk 12:21, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

• And again, why does the paragraph become a rather long anecdote about Ramachandran?

I don't know; possibly because he was the only actor from the cast to later attain stardom and matinée idol status (akin to Rajinikanth)? Kailash29792 (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Really seems like the article digresses. If I may, I believe that Ramachandran's humble beginnings (The "Ramachandran was paid an advance of ₹100 (about $37.50 in 1936); it was the first time he had seen a 100-rupee note." bit especially) will fit nicely into the Legacy section. Don't you think? VedantTalk 12:21, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

• And then a stray about another actor and then back to Ramachandran?

Should I put it at the end of the para? Kailash29792 (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

That'll be a start. Also, put the "Despite Ramachandran's reluctance to play Rangiah, his mother was happy he got a "respectable" role and advised him to perform it responsibly." but right after "a role he disliked". VedantTalk 12:21, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Okay, how is it now? --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:57, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

• "because the script required her to be physically abused and mistreated by her inebriated husband" - now there's definitely better ways to write this bit.
• "In desperation, the producer asked" - does the source say desperation?

It says, "In sheer despair the exhausted producer had to request Kandaswami Mudaliar and M.K. Radha to cast Gnanambal (Mrs. M.K. Radha in real life) as Leelavathi." What do you suggest? Kailash29792 (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I am not great with writing plot lines and that's why I will not be much help here. The problem with the odd phrasing about requiring to be physically abused bit, and if you can find a better way to phrase it, the rest should follow. VedantTalk 22:50, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

• "the role and came out of" - but. Also, the "came out of retirement" and "because no other actress would do so" bits are obvious and repetitive.
• "N. Lakshmana Rao as the family servant Govindan, and P. N. Ramakrishnan as a devotee of the Hindu god Shiva. Dhanalakshmi played Bama; Santhakumari played Mohanangi, a promiscuous woman; and M. Chandra Bai played Shanbagavalli." - the names and descriptions mean nothing here. You can simply say: "A, B, C, and D were cast in supporting roles" and avoid cluttering. If needed, these descriptions can be added to the Cast section.
• "Parasuraman's son Chandrakanthan, Ramanathan's servant and Krishnamurthy's master in Ceylon were played by actors who are not credited in the film's opening titles or its official pressbook." - an odd detail to mention.

Someone will ask, "Who played this role?" and I will have to answer them in some way. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

• "Ramachandran's brother, M. G. Chakrapani (also an MOBC actor), approached Mudaliar for a role[46] but was not cast because there was no proper role available. However, he watched the filming." - Same. Did he contribute to the film in any way because otherwise I don't see how this adds anything to the article.

It doesn't add anything, but I guess this somehow helped him later be cast in Iru Sahodarargal (also directed by Dungan). I've removed "However, he watched the filming". --Kailash29792 (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

• Thangavelu and Susheela can be one sentence. The debut bit isn't all that significant since he was uncredited right?

Can Susheela be removed from "casting" altogether? I've transferred her source to "cast". Kailash29792 (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

• This entire paragraph feels unnecessary. There's a lot of irrelevant content and back and forth. Consider this: Why are we suddenly back on Krishnan and his comedic role. Shouldn't it move up at the first mention of Krishnan. The other comidic actors can be merged with "A, B, C, and D were cast in supporting roles" bit itself, followed by the two uncredited actors. Let me know how feel about that.

More to follow. VedantTalk 15:05, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Though I agree with your comments, it will take some time to solve them. --Kailash29792 (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Take your time Kailash, I've left replies for your queries and taken some liberties. Please take a look and let me know what you plan on doing with the bit about Gnanambal.

Also, Why not have M.K. Radha's photograph in the Casting section? There's a nice free photograph on his wikipage? VedantTalk 12:21, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Numerounovedant, there are a bunch of PD-India photographs related to the film here, but are they completely copyright free? And this page says, "Wealthy enough to have his way, and bent upon producing Pathi Bhakthi, Marudachalam Chettiar went after Kandaswamy Mudaliar. The smart playwright had a plan to please Chettiar." See what I wrote under "development". --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Lastly:

• The Filming section could also use some restructuring and a few copyedits.
• "Dungan wrote in his autobiography A Guide to Adventure (2001) that most of the cast were theatre actors and he was tasked with "subduing [their] voices and facial expressions"," is followed up with a statement that says that the actors froze in front of the camera. You can say that they were overdoing and blacking out in such close proximity and expect it to make too much sense for an unfamiliar reader.
• The subduing bit would fit better with the Ramachandran's lack of nuance and you should find a way to restructure here.

And this whole section just continues to go back and forth in the next two paragraphs as well. I really suggest that you read through the sentences and take out the bits that add little to the article. This could be easily condensed into two paragraphs of three crisp ones at the most. I suggest you address all the comments that me and tye others have left and then invite Laserbrain to reassess his oppose, which was fair IMO as this did (and probably still does with the few unresolved comments) require considerable work. Let me know if you have any queries Kailash VedantTalk 16:13, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Not that many Vedant. Please read my earlier queries (including what to do about the difficulty with casting Leelavathi episode) and tell me how I can solve them or solve them yourself (I will put thank anyway). --Kailash29792 (talk) 17:20, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Tick tock Vedant, I think the FAC may fail if the comments are not addressed within two months since its opening. And I repeat, please read my earlier queries. --Kailash29792 (talk) 18:38, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Kailash I'm not sure how I can be of any more assistance. That's mostly because the problems that I see in the article after all of this are mostly just related to translation of the sources or the incorporation on the information into the text. The Filming bit will read so much better if you could find someone who can rephrase (or give it a shot yourself) the direct quotes from the sources and better present some of the information. Especially in the first paragraph. The rest is mostly just rearranging so the text does not feel too disconnected (I'll try and make a few edits to help with the flow once there's some copyedits here). I'm sure if you invite Laserbrain to take a second, they will be more than happy to give another quick readthrough.

I think you can use the photographs and if I haven't replied to any of the comments, I'm probably satisfied with the changes or am not sure on how to help with the same. Let me know if you still have any queries.VedantTalk 22:50, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Vedant, I've re-added the photographs of MGR and MR Radha (should the captions be ammended?), and seem to have addressed most of your comments. Please strike them out if they have been addressed, or put them within a template like Aoba did. Don't forget to revise the article once more. Also, I don't think "star vehicle" is the right word here since it was MK Radha's film debut and he was not yet a star. Wiktionary defines star vehicle as "A movie, play, TV series, or other production that enhances an actor's career", so suggest a better phrasing. Or can I simply say Mudaliar intended to launch his son in film? --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:22, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Kailash, I have struck the comments that have resolved. I do believe that the Filming section can use some restructuring and copyedits. Let's ask Laser brain to revisit? I insist on doing so because at the end of the day, you will need to address his concerns and the FAC has been open for a good 7-8 weeks. The sooner you ask for a reassessment, the easier it will be for all the parties. VedantTalk 08:37, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Vedant, if you believe you need just access to the offline sources to restructure the filming section, here they are: Starlight Starbright by Randor Guy (1997) and Memories of Madras also by Guy (2016). Laser brain, would you please see if the article has improved? Further comments may be in your section. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:40, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Support from Krish

• Support: A well-written solid article that meets all the criteria for FA. Kudos to Kailash29792 for tirelessly working on old Indian cinema film articles and making them FA-worthy. I know how hard it is to work on these old articles. Keep it up.Krish | Talk To Me 07:15, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Support from Veera Narayana

I didn't find anything much problematic, but the Themes section is somewhat unnecessary. What all you tried to communicate through that section, can actually be part of the writing process. That the writers incorporated the following themes into the script. I made some edits to the Filming section and shall return tomorrow for further review. Veera Narayana 05:42, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Veera. Numerounovedant and I are already trying to find ways to transfer the "Themes" content to other sections. You are welcome to make suggestions. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:01, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I hope everything is fine there Veera. Now I have incorporated "Themes" into the "development" section (mirroring Spider-Man 3's comments on Eddie Brock's journalism style). Owwizit? Also pinging Vedant, and hope everything is fine for him too. --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:55, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I apologise for the delay. I read the article again, found it better now. I support the candidate's promotion. Veera Narayana 12:10, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

Reading through now -- I decided to take a look because of the high number of supports along with an unstruck oppose. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:54, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Oppose. Given that Laser brain only looked at one section, and there have been multiple other reviewers since, I took a look at the edits since Laser brain's review. Quite a bit has been smoothed out since that point, but I do still see problems. Just jumping around randomly:

• In the legacy section, four short paragraphs, three of which start with the film's title; this is clumsy.
• Plot section: Ramanathan's collaborator is Rangiah Naidu: "collaborator" is not the right word.
• Cast section: "Additionally" is unnecessary at the start of the last paragraph.
• Casting: "thespian" is an odd word to choose; it has connotations of pomposity which I think is not what you intend. And "initially" can be cut in that same sentence.
• Filming: One scene required Ramachandran to ride a bicycle but he did not know how to ride one. Unnecessarily verbose.
• Music: The music composer of Sathi Leelavathi...: what other kinds of composers are there?

-- This is not a complete list of the problems I saw, it's just some examples. About half the sentences I read could be improved (I didn't read the whole article). I saw nothing ungrammatical, but finding this many problems so quickly is a bad sign. I see the review has been running a long time, so I'm sorry to oppose, but I don't think the prose is ready. It needs work from someone who can do more than simply make each individual sentence grammatically correct; it needs a run-through by a good writer who understands the material. And looking back at Laser brain's oppose, I see he made exactly the same point. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:12, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Coord note

Okay it's time to close this and ask that we pls act on the above recommendation re. another writer versed in such articles, after which I'd suggest a formal or informal PR prior to a new FAC nom. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:52, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, 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) 23:52, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

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