Wikipedia:Peer review/59th National Film Awards/archive1

59th National Film Awards

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has got potential to become a FL. If reviews goes well, I wish to push this article for WP:FLC. I would appreciate if senior editors can review the article accordingly, considering its goal.

Thanks, - Vivvt^Talk 17:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the lead supposed to be restricted to four paragraphs? It looks like it needs to be condensed quite a bit before presentation.

Done - Vivvt^Talk 03:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It also has to be trimmed. The Dadasaheb Phalke award is mentioned thrice in different paragraphs, while it could be made into a single sentence. Adding to that, the sentence "Deool became third Marathi film to win the honour after Shyamchi Aai (1953) and Shwaas (2003)" is heavily WP:UNDUE here. Secret of success (talk) 11:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. My bad earlier. - Vivvt^Talk 13:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Entries of dubbed/revised/copied versions of a film [...] before January 17, 2012." and "For feature and non-feature films sections, films made in any Indian language [...] the Central Board of Film Certification." - The given source does not seem to verify these. Or am I wrong? Secret of success (talk) 16:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is mentioned in the Regulations for submission listed under External links: Official websites. Do you want me to put it as a part of references as well? - Vivvt^Talk 03:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure if it would find a place in the references, but now that it has been proved to be verifiable, there should not be any issue. Secret of success (talk) 11:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thats Good then. - Vivvt^Talk

I not a specialist of FL, but some observations:

Awards section is too long. Split [Reworded] --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- by award category (prefer): Dadasaheb Phalke, Feature films, non-feature films, best writing
- jury and awards

Can you elaborate more on this? - Vivvt^Talk 03:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Section is too long. Split into different 4 sections by award category IMO. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Vivvt^Talk 13:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Enajori.com incident is not part of selection. Separate into "controversy" or something

Done - Vivvt^Talk 03:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is /- needed after all prize money amounts? Remove

Done - Vivvt^Talk 03:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Awards not given: is it known if entries were suited for each of the categories?

--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DFF publishes list of entries submitted for the awards like done earlier for 56th NFA. But this year, it was not published for some reason. Again, till now, they have never published the suitable entries/considerations for the awards. - Vivvt^Talk 03:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments On the first look not bad, but after reading one section I believe it needs a good copyedit. One issue is that you are using repetitions, for example in "Awards not given" (where you use "given" in each sentence and even in the head). In some places the prose is awkward. Check whether it meets WP:IG. Also it is more an article than a list as it has more prose than list, but I am not quite sure either. Regards.--GoP _T ^C _N 16:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree! Will work on copyediting and rephrasing. However, as Vivvt and i have worked on this article from quite a good time our minds (at least mine) are not able to find any phrasing issues. Will still try, but it would be nice if you all could give more examples. Regarding WP:IG; image accompanied with the text is good. But adding images besides the tables would congest it. Articles like 82nd Academy Awards, 57th Filmfare Awards, Tony Award for Best Featured Actor in a Play are quite spacious even after contextual image usage. Whereas here we don't have space. As to being an article or a list i couldn't find any previous discussions related to awards. There have been similar discussions somewhere for List-of-episodes with no definite conclusion. But still majority of such pages are under lists. I could not find any year-wise award related page under "article". Even if the content has more prose, the basic page is a list of awards. But if consensus is different i am okay with categorizing it that way. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 09:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]