Talk:Pushpak

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indian cinema, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Indian cinema. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
More information about this article... ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

	This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Unknown This article has not been rated on the importance assessment scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.

[edit] The 'Reception' section of this article

I believe this section could be omitted, and for two reasons: (i) there are repetitions (the imaginative use of the silent film form is already mentioned in the introduction), (ii) and the statement about it being received critically at the Cannes Film Festival needs qualification (if not, it appears as an unsubstantiated point of view or subjective impression). Also, a link is lacking to IMDB where it is shown that the film has obtained a 9.6 out of 10 ranking. Splashprince 05:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• The guideline published by the Films project advices a reception section, which is in any case the sort of thing a reader would want to find at an encyclopaedia. The introduction is supposed to summarise information from the main body of the article, so there may be some overlap with the rest of the article. I'm looking for a source for the Cannes comment, but this is difficult since I've forgotten whether it was me or someone else who inserted that comment. The link to IMDB is in the infobar. Loom91 12:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I think until some credible source for the Cannes statement is found, it is not appropriate to include that statement. Moreover, the statement appears subjective, and adulatory of the film's lead actor. With regard to the inclusion of the IMDB average ranking: the fact that the IMDB average rankings can be inputed by almost any visitor of IMDB, and is not the judgement of a recognised film critic/figure, means that little of value could be gleaned from the rank magnitude apart from the fact that it is perhaps popular amongst some group of people (to illustrate using an extreme, a little known movie could have an average ranking of 10 if only one viewer has watched the film and had decided to give it a rank of 10 on IMDB, and so on). I think it is sufficient to retain the weblink to the movie's profile and ranking at IMDB, from which interested readers could make their own judgement. Splashprince 09:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Request for a Review of this Wikipedia film Article -- The Issue of Article Conciseness

I'd like to request for a consideration of this Wikipedia film article in terms of conciseness and the credibility of the information contained in it.

As a starting point, the review of readers and editors is requested of the following two versions of this article:

1. 20:10, 13 September 2006 Loom91 (Talk | contribs) (revert unexplained removal of large chunks of undisputed text!)
2. 09:39, 12 September 2006 Splashprince (Talk | contribs) m (Reworded text)

(go to article history link at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pushpak&action=history)

It would be appreciated if feedback could be provided on how this article could be improved, especially from the standpoint of conciseness and information credibility.

For a brief overview of one of the problems suffered by Indian film articles, see under Convention at the WikiProject Indian Cinema page [[1]] Splashprince 07:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)