Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mr. and Mrs. Iyer/archive1

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 00:45, 14 March 2008.

[edit] Mr. and Mrs. Iyer

Check external links

Nominator. This article is on an award-winning Indian drama feature film depicting the journey of the lead characters (belonging to two different religions) in a bus through a sectarian violence-stricken land. This article gained Good Article status recently following a detailed GA assessment (available in its talk page).

The article was massively improved and upgraded to GA status by the User:Mspraveen singlehandedly. There may be some issue with the images. However, the two non-poster images used in the article are for (1) Depicting the two lead characters, and (2) A critical moment in the film. Please express your opinion, and help this fine article gain featured article status. Thanks. Dwaipayan (talk) 11:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comments: The first two images must have better caption, introducing the characters like, Rahul Bose and Konkona as Raja Chowdhury and Meenakshi Iyer respectively in Mr. and Mrs. Iyer moreover the sound track section can be in the form of a table rather than in list form. Other wise the article is good, well referenced and follows other rules of a FA. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 11:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Amartyabag Hi! Excelent suggestions. Have improved the image captions. Please see if it suffices. Will work on the table later (won't be difficult :) ) Thanks.--Dwaipayan (talk) 12:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comments:
  • "They begin interrogating passengers about their identities and when in doubt of a passenger's religious identity, they even check if circumcised." may need citation as "Plot summaries do not normally require citations; the film itself is the source, as the accuracy of the plot description can be verified by watching the film. An exception to this rule may be films containing plot details that are unclear or open to interpretation, in which case the different interpretations should be sourced to reliable sources." fromWikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines
  • "It is not recommended that the phrase "award-winning" be used in the first sentence of the lead: it provides insufficient context to the reader, and subsequent paragraphs in the lead can detail the major awards or nominations received by the film."--Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Redtigerxyz: The circumcision sentence has now been referenced, along with an explanatory quote from the source. "Award-winning' has been removed.--Dwaipayan (talk) 12:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• comment - I haven't had a chance to read it all through thoroughly yet it looks a good article but offhand it looks like it needs a copyedit and general polishing. For one I don't think the block quotes are necessary here and the cast section isn't in the style that WP:Film has set as a general guideline. See films such as KANK for a cast section. It looks tidy but I believe it was agreed before it is best to leave cast sections open. Even in the intro the sentence "it was met with widespread critical acclaim upon release, and won several national and international awards" needs to be exercised with caution. What is widespread? India and United States? and it might help to mention some of the most notable awards it won initially. Just glancing at the references most of the sources seem adequate and reputable but may need filling in a but more with details on date published on the various sites etc. There did however seme to be a couple of sources which may not seem all that reliable, offhand Redhotcurry.com. and "Village Voice" -I don't know whether these are noted sources but they looked out of place compared to some of the other mainstream sources. I've just given one or two sentence a bit of a copy edit. It is important to make sentences flow and construct them in the best way possible -avoiding short stubby sentences. I would also frown against a section encompassing both Filming and music. The paragraph on music should be moved to the soundtrack section I think unless it is specifically connected to how the director made the film and the filming process. Has this been peer reviewed before the nomination? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 12:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Blofeld Thanks Blofeld for pointing out the shortcomings. Those will be taken care of. Please visit the article again soon. Missing the publication dates is a bad fault. Will do that first. And de-tabling the cast section will not be difficult. Thanks for pointing out the KANK article.

Now, the copyedit. I will try. Please improve anything you think necessary.--Dwaipayan (talk) 12:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Blofeld contd Added names of 2 awards in the lead. The Award for best film on national integration deserves mention. But the Hawaiian Film Festival award, I don't really know how notable it is. Please feel free to replace with some other award if you feel so (if at all needed). And to answer your query, no, the article has not been peer reviewed.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Support Article is very well written, with extensive details, all the images are as per wiki standards and above comments are being resolved quickly on this page. Article is very stable with no controversy (even though the film is on very sensitive subject, atleast in India). One suggestion: Rupees 7.3 million as its box-office collections is mentioned way below in article and one has to scroll down to see the figures. I think the infobox is provided for this very purpose and these figures should in infobox to give the reader a quick update. gppande «talk» 14:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply Box office collection added in the infobox.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Shahid

• The casting section says, "Konkona Sen Sharma's abilities, as a sensitive actress, fetched her the role of Mrs. Meenakshi Iyer" seems to be a bit POV, and we have to remember that her mother is the director of the film actually.
• The film is more of an arthouse picture. I think it should be mentioned.

Will go through it now and comment further. Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Shahid—"Konkona Sen Sharma's abilities, as a sensitive actress, fetched her the role of Mrs. Meenakshi Iyer", this sentence is based on an interview of the director Aparna Sen in Rediff.com, and the interview has been cited. So, I think, this does not amount to be a POV of the author. --Dwaipayan (talk) 16:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Yes I saw the link, but she's her mother you know. I would suggest you to quote Mrs. Aparna, so that nobody questions its neutrality. Anyway, I personally agree with that statement, she is amazing, only that I don't want new accusations.
• What about the film being an art film? It's a neo-realistic film, and in India, as you know, it belongs to the parallel cinema genre. I think it's worth a mention, especially considering Indians always have that difference in mind.
• Most importantly, from our own experience, we have to assure that all the links apply the WP:RS conditions. Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose by Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC) - I was the GA reviewer of this article, and clearly stated that this article was not ready for any grade higher than a GA. As the main member of the WikiProject India Assessment Dept., I cannot endorse this as the best work of WikiProject India, or indeed, as Wikipedia's best work. FA is the highest grade that can be achieved, and articles that achieve such a grade need to be outstanding, featuring professional standards of writing and presentation. My main concern was that the prose is not up to the professional, brilliant engaging standard that is expected of FAs. I was excited at the article being merely well written - good - but it certainly is not the best, nor at the peak of its potential. Comprehensiveness is a criteria that was gradually indirectly being addressed, although, is it comprehensive like other FAs? I will leave that to another reviewer to consider. "Aparna Sen said that they both were good friends and after their correspondence regarding his role, he got into the act" - is this brilliant, outstanding, engaging, professional prose you would expect to see in an encyclopedia? Of course not!

It is perhaps ironic that after an article achieves GA status, the most distinguishing features of an FA are the prose and comprehensiveness. One could go so far as saying that after GA, these two criteria make up the essence of an FA assessment. The fact that these criteria cannot be properly addressed overnight suggest that these are also the most difficult criteria to satisfy. While I have always been optimistic of the potential this article would have with the time that was invested in it to begin with, this is certainly not Wikipedia's best work yet, or up to the stand of a FA, especially with respect to these criteria, especially prose. For these reasons above, I oppose/object. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply - I'm sorry, but "this is certainly not Wikipedia's best work yet" is not part of the featured article criteria. As for comprehensiveness - it seems to be comprehensive, and prose, could you please give more examples of bad writing? We cannot base ourselves on "it is not brilliant!". I think it's better to say, "it's not brilliant because...." so that we can reach a FA status. Regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Ncmvocalist Thank you Ncmvocalist for your comments. Since you did the GA review of the article, you are much more aware of the status of the prose than I am. So I request your help. The particular example of the sentence you gave definitely falls short of excellent prose. And it is our fault we could not improve it. Thanks for pointing it out. Will change not only that sentence, but many more, as the authors go on copyediting. Since you have the ability to use a professional level of English I'd like to request you to point out more faults/improvable language, as you find. Meanwhile. we'll try to improve the prose status. Please review the article once again after a few days.

Regarding comprehensiveness, IMO the article is fine. We'll try to find out more info that may be added.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Shshshsh I'm sorry, but it seems you do not know what an FA is beyond its attributes. Perhaps relook at the link you have given and read what is above the attributes. The prose is not brilliant because it generally (sometimes on rarer occasions, other times more frequently) is vague and unprofessional for the standards of a FA. This is why I time and time emphasize that editors who wish for an article to be an FA, should try to look through other FAs, to have a feel for what to expect (even though there are occasions where certain other FAs get through when they shouldn't, which is also the case with GAs). But usually, a peer-review sorts a lot of these issues out instead of being stuck here.

Reply to Dwaipayanc Thanks. As I have stated even before I began the GA review, I am of the opinion that this article has the potential, but the gap between a GA and FA is relatively large. As with many GA reviews I conduct, I indirectly ask editors to begin satisfying FA criteria to make the job seem slightly less tiring when they are ready to nominate FA. There is an issue with references - although I noted that they were satisfactory for the purposes of a GA, whether they are for an FA (Wikipedia's best work), is another concern I have. I don't know if you should have worked towards shortening the lead, as the previous introduction was apt as I noted somewhere (probably in the GA review). The reviews section of the article also is rather disorganized in comparison to the reviews you might see in FA cinema articles, don't you think? Comprehensiveness I still have doubts over. I will have a look again after a couple of days or so, as you have requested.

Prior to nominating any other articles for FA status, please ensure that such candidates are peer-reviewed. This often eliminates a lot of the trivial issues, and again, helps in addressing some of the FA criteria, without having to go through some of the more basic issues including references/referencing, and images, and you may even find more to write on. While a peer-review isn't essential, it means you wouldn't have to put an excessive amount of work in a limited span of time and the issues are dealt in a much more detailed way. If no one responds to a peer-review request and it is erroneously archived as being completed, it wouldn't be a bad idea to try to find and request editors who have previously peer-reviewed other articles, to do yours. Still, it is encouraging to see your enthusiasm in improving the article - I wish you all the best in meeting this end. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Prose definitely not up to snuff. I've spent a little time on it just now, and some of it is improved, but the entire plot summary section is a thicket I don't want to tackle by myself. Relata refero (talk) 19:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Ncmvocalist - I definitely agree that the prose is not brilliant. But please relook my message to you, and you will see that I just asked for examples. Regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - entirely based on prose issues, for example:

• Mixes American English spellings ("traveler", "traveling", "rumors") with Commonwealth English ones ("criticise", "rancour", "analyse"). Should all be in Commonwealth English, India's official variant.
• Inconsistency of italics: Mr. and Mrs. Iyer' should be italicised for the title (it isn't always) and in roman for the character names (they aren't alwas).
• Dashes. The choice is spaced endashes or unspaced emdashes. This uses spaced emdashes.
• Ellipses. Usage needs checking against MoS.
• Some strange phrasings. Example: "A detailed review by The Hindu analysed that".
• Comment: missing definite articles ("the"). It's common to drop these in Indian English but not in standard English. I don't have strong views on this either way.
• Needs a close copy-edit by an univolved editor.

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply to ROGER DAVIES

Thanks for the excellent review and pointing out the mistakes.

• American English has been removed, as far as I could do. There may be some instances of American English still left. Those will be removed as further checks are done.
• Italics use has been made consistent.
• Dashes. emdashes without space, or, endashes with space (in the "Cast" section) has now been used properly.
• Ellipses. Here I had some trouble understanding the MoS. Tried my best. Please have a look at the Review section. In case you see some faults, please let us know.
• Some strange phasing. Yes, there may be some strange phasing, as the main authors are not native speakers of English. Please let us know in case you see more of such strangeness.
• missing "the". Hmmm, have tried some. As you have noted, it's common to drop that in Indian English; so, there may still be many instances. I hope it won't amount to major objection.
• Close copyedit by uninvolved editor. Relata refaro has done wonderful job. Hope to rope in some others, too.

Thanks once again for the detailed review. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at this. I'll wait until copy-editing issues have been fully addressed before re-visiting my opposition. Good luck, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 15:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Strong support. A very good article on a very important Indian film. It looks like the more serious prose concerns have already been addressed. The fair use concerns are not fair comparing this to other comparable movie articles, let's not be paranoid. You can't replace these images with free images because they don't exist (unless you can convince the movie companies to release them, good luck). NTK (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The criteria are clear - just because another article has overlooked it, does not mean that all articles can overlook it. If there is a valid criteria based concern, and it has been raised here, then it needs to be addressed. If it isn't (based on your reasoning or the like), then your 'vote' would be disregarded. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

NTK, please read WP:NFCC. Replaceability is one of eleven checks for Fair Use, all of which must be satisfied. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 04:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks NTK for your support Mspraveen (talk) 05:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I am well aware of the criteria for fair use. Two low-res images of promotional material and two very low-res screenshots within an exposition of the film are not even close to exceeding fair use. It is unfortunate that your objections led to removal of helpful fair use images where no free alternative exists for the subject matter. I agree with the policy of not using fair use images where free ones exist, but this is not such a case. NTK (talk) 15:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Strong support. As the prime contributor, I'd strongly support the article now with the vast amount of prose improvements. I've further ensured comprehensiveness to the article. I don't deny that there can be further additions later just as there are/would be for present FAs, but the article has extensive coverage. Along with Dwaipayanc, I'd be more than happy to address any further concerns. Cheers! Mspraveen (talk) 07:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose The reference formatting needs work (News India-Times, Times of India, and The Hindu should be in italics). There are a lot of redundant interwiki links (English, Tamil, Brahmin, Muslim). Most importantly, though, this article has major copyedit issues. Just in the lead and the first sentence of the body, I've found the following:

• "Zakir Hussain, an Indian tabla maestro composed the background score and music for the film" - add comma after maestro
• "The film features Aparna Sen's daughter, Konkona Sen Sharma (as Meenakshi Iyer) and Rahul Bose (as Raja Chowdhury) in the lead roles." - add comma after Iyer)
• "Mr. and Mrs. Iyer premiered at the Locarno International Film Festival, Switzerland" - ...Film Festival in Switzerland
• "The film opened to the Indian audiences on July 19, 2002." - to Indian audiences
• "and won several national and international awards, such as Golden Maile award at the Hawaii International Film Festival and Nargis Dutt Award for Best Feature Film on National Integration in India." - and won several national and international awards, including the Golden Maile award...and the Nargis Dutt award
• "The film begins with an audio-visual collage of news reports of contemporary wars and terrorism." - no reason for awkward of..of; change second to on
• "Reports of major incidents from the September 11, 2001 attacks, murder of Daniel Pearl, Iraq War to the 2002 Gujarat violence and terrorism in India flashes across the screen." - Reports of major incidents from the September 11, 2001 attacks, the murder of Daniel Pearl, the Iraq war, the 2002 Gujarat violence and terrorism in India flash across the screen.

This article needs exhaustive copyediting. Maralia (talk) 07:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed review. Well, I have addressed all your above samples. Please tell us about other points as well. Regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 07:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Maralia for the review, and thank you Shshshsh for the rapid response. However, I understand from Maralia's review that merely correcting the highlighted points won't be enough, right? We are trying to get a fresh pair of eyes for exhaustive copyedit. And, Maralia, if you have time, we'd like to request you also to do as much copyedit as possible. Thanks a lot for the scrutiny. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Update Reference formatting done (all newspaper sources and website sources are in italics; all available publication dates mentioned). Excessive interwiki links reduced (have retained "Iyer" and some other not-so-global terms a few times, so that the reader does not have to go up to find the link while reading a particular section). Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 09:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't commit the time for an exhaustive copyedit right now; there are nearly 50 FACs open and reviewers are scarce. To be frank, I personally would not have passed this article at GA due to basic grammar and punctuation concerns. I can see that a lot of work has been put into it, and I really appreciate the constructive manner in which you're all taking criticism, but given that it's been written by non-native English speakers, it would really be wise to take advantage of all the review processes available. Highly suggest putting it through a peer review at WP:FILMREV, and applying to WP:LOCE for a copyedit. Best of luck! Maralia (talk) 01:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Has the great "Is the Internet Movie Database Reliable" debate been settled in favor of it being reliable?
  • Is http://www.ibosnetwork.com/default.aspx a reliable source? Others I'm not sure about include http://www.mybindi.com/index.cfm, http://www.thecia.com.au/ and http://www.italkies.com/Overview.aspx
  • The references for the current footnotes 51 and 13 are duplicates except for the date of access. Ealdgyth | Talk 21:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Ealdgyth

• Once again, the big IMDb debate :) Per Wikipedia:Citing IMDb, "IMDb can be considered an acceptable source for things such as release dates, technical specs, credits, and anything else of this nature." In this article, IMDb has been used for such information only (the production company, and the rating for teh film in Germany). So, I'd like to request teh reviewers to consider its reliabilty in this perspective. If it is not acceptable in this case, it will be removed.

Thanks for educating me. (All of my work is either on horses or with English medieval bishops and history, so you can see that the IMD isn't exactly something I use a lot...) Ealdgyth | Talk 16:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• thecia.com.au—replaced.
• mybindi.com—This is a website on South Asian community, headquarterd in Toronto. This site is not very popular though (Alexa entry). An interview of Aparna Sen in this site has been used as source. The question is, it is an interview of the director in a lesser-known website. It's not a review or commentary or blog. So cannot this interview be regarded as acceptable source?

I didn't have an issue with the review, I thought (and my brain my be misremembering so feel free to thap me with a trout) that mybindi was used for something else. Can't see it now though. Ealdgyth | Talk 16:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• ibosnetwork, and, italkis—Will reply/replace.
• Footnote duplication—fixed.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I looked at it again, and I'm afraid my view hasn't changed. I do acknowledge that there has been significant improvement though, but still not enough. In any event, please (somehow) peer-review articles before bringing it here as an FAC in the future. Still, I wish the involved editors good luck with improving the article. Regards - Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! You say, "but still not enough", and that's fine, we can keep working. You are already talking about the next FAC, and in doing so, you automatically invalidate the chance to reach a FA in this FAC. I'm not the editor of this article, but I definitely believe in its potential, and much of work has gone into it. I believe, with some detailed comments of bad prose and problems, it can reach FA status here in this very FAC. My request is thus, could you pease give some additional examples? it will help us. Best regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 06:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

...much of this would've/should've been resolved had it been peer-reviewed, and perhaps, this would've been the FAC in which it achieved FA status. However, this is not the case, and the criteria upon which the article failed cannot be satisfied overnight, as I noted earlier. With the question-mark existing over comprehensiveness, and prose still in need of copy-editing, like I said, it needs to be peer-reviewed and copy-edited. Bring it back after this, ensuring that it is closer to the FA standard, and especially myself among other editors would gladly agree to awarding the article the FA grade for reaching its potential, and representing Wikipedia's (and WikiProject India's) best work. For these reasons, even after reviewing my decision to oppose, my objection has not changed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. I took a look, and unfortunately, I dont think the prose is great. It really needs to be improved before it can get close to FA status. For one, a lot of the paragraphs seem to be badly organized, in that the sentences within them seem out of place or disjointed. Then, there are tiny uses of adjectives or places which earn a risk of being construed as POV. More important than teh POV is that these sentences lack information. Also, more background information about the shooting and the creation of the movie could be added. Overall, prose, prose, prose. ^T/_@Sniperz11_edits^sign 06:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

"Also, more background information about the shooting and the creation of the movie could be added" - prose and comprehensiveness - the two criteria upon which I based my objection. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - as per above discussion, it would be pertinent to note that WP:CIMDB was rejected (as the page itself says), and a quick perusal of the talk page will show that the consensus was that it generally was not to be regarded as a reliable source in any regard, due to its content submission processes. As for the prose issues, I would strongly suggest having a long look at this page. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 11:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Object per 1a. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 03:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - prose issues per Roger David and Maralia, +RS issues (there are still 2 IMDB citations??), mean this is not up to FA standard. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 07:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

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