Nominator(s): VedantTalk 15:50, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about an Indian film starring Kalki Koechlin. This is my fourth attempt at FAC for an Indian film. The artcile was reviewed by Yashthepunisher at GAR and was copy edited by JimHolden. Looking forward for constructive criticism. VedantTalk 15:50, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For this part (is a 2014, Indian drama film directed by), the comma is not needed.
For this part (who moves from New Delhi to Greenwich village), the “village” part should be capitalized.
Please provide ALT text for the image in the infobox.
For this part (she moves to Greenwich village, Manhattan with her orthodox Maharashtrian), the “village” part should be capitalized. The same comment applies to the image caption for the Greenwich Village image.
For this sentence (She has sex with Jared on one occasion, only to regret it immediately.), I am not sure if the “on one occasion” part is necessary. I would remove it.
Please use Shonali Bose's full name when you first mention her in the body of the article and link her.
Please make sure that the images have ALT text.
For this part (The latter was shooting for Yeh Jawaani Hai Deewani.), please add the year in which the film was released. I was also make it clear in the prose that this is a film.
For this part (Set in the neighbourhood of Greenwich village, the second half of Margarita with a Straw), unlink Greenwich Village as you already linked it in the plot summary and corrected the captilization issue.
In the “Critical reception” subsection, you mention there was some criticism, but this is not addressed in the lead.
Great work with this as a whole. I will support this for promotion after my comments are addressed. Have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 05:37, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've (hopefully) addressed all your comments Aoba47. Thank you for taking a look, you're always the first at all FACs! i really appreciate the help. VedantTalk 09:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything, and great work with this article. I support it for promotion. If possible, I would greatly appreciate it if you could provide some comments on my current FAC (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/All Money Is Legal/archive1). Either way, good luck with this, and have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 17:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Aoba47, I'll take a look at your FAC soon (Probably in a day or two). VedantTalk 08:36, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Produced by Bose in partnership with Viacom 18 Motion Pictures - in the film credits, did you manage to read who produced the film under Viacom 18?
Not really.
Viacom 18 Motion Pictures may be removed from the producer field in the infobox, since it belongs in the studio field.
In January 2011, Shonali Bose conceived the idea - remove her first name since she has already been introduced, and there is no-one else here named Bose.
Exactly how much English is spoken in the film to warrant its inclusion in the infobox? Per Template:Infobox film, "Insert the language primarily used in the film [...] Only in rare cases of clearly bilingual or multilingual films, enter separate entries with ((unbulleted list))." The article itself doesn't mention English being a prominent language in the film.
Comply with WP:FILMCAST, since none of the actors in the cast section are sourced. Several of the film's cast members with their character names are listed at Rotten Tomatoes.
Try splitting the section "Development and casting" since it is five paras long. I've always followed the concept of "Development", "Casting" and "Filming" being separate sections under "Production".
Principal photography for Margarita with a Straw began in 2013 - this is optional, but do you know which month or time of the year? If you can't find out, never mind.
I couldn't find anything concrete.
Upon release, Margarita with a Straw garnered positive reviews from critics and audiences alike.[51][52][53] This appears to be a case of WP:CITEKILL. One of these sources is Rotten Tomatoes, and you must place it at the end of a new sentence that describes the film's RT score.
You may want to add Baradwaj Rangan's review since he is one of India's finest critics.
I've fixed everything Kailash, all but one (I'll try and incorporate the review). Looking forward for the rest of your review.
Don't straightaway mention the film, like "Shonali Bose began working on the story in January 2011". The film has to be introduced somehow, perhaps like "In January 2011, Shonali Bose began working on a story, on what would have been her son's seventeenth birthday." Somewhere in this section, you can write that the story eventually became Margarita with a Straw.
Idk Kailash, I think this would just complicate the prose and could be counterproductive. VedantTalk 20:54, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed all of the above now. VedantTalk 17:01, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support: All my comments have been addressed. Just see that the cast in the infobox, lead and cast section are consistent. ----Kailash29792(talk) 10:16, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for all your help Kailash. And not just with the review but throughout! VedantTalk 14:18, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 40: You use the "publisher=" field for Rogerebert.com, which is the website title. The publisher is EbertDigital LLC
Similarly, with refs 43, 44, 46 and 56, "publisher= " should give "Rediff Movies" rather than the website title
Refs 58 and 76: India Today should be italicized.
According to the external links checker tool, all such links are working. Sources are of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 12:59, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the sources Brianboulton, thanks for taking up the review. VedantTalk 17:50, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do get the Bose image reviewed by an administrator at commons. Other than that, all the images look fine and have alt text. — Ssven2Looking at you, kid 14:55, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the image review Ssven2, I'll get to the image. VedantTalk 20:55, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would eliminate the link of screenplay from the lead; it's quite a common word and does not need linking.
"Bose had auditioned actors with cerebral palsy for the role but was unable to come up with desirable results" - never seen audition used that way. "Audition" is used only for performing an audition, but in this case Bose had actors audition for the role.
"initiative during post production" - post-production not post production.
"The film released theatrically in India on 17 April 2015, to critical acclaim" - unneeded comma.
"Commentators praised most aspects of the production, with particular emphasis on Koechlin's performance and Bose's direction" - too wordy. Better as "Commentators praised most aspects of the production, Koechlin's performance and Bose's direction".
"Margarita with a Straw performed moderately well at the box office grossing over ₹74 million against a production budget of ₹65 million." Maybe cut the "performed moderately well at the box office" part and let the figures speak for themselves. FrB.TG (talk) 18:06, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Since there were no actresses with cerebral palsy in India, she decided to audition for the role" - who decided to audition for the role? It seems you are referring to Bose, but it implies that she auditioned to play the role.
"The latter was shooting for the Imtiaz Ali's romantic comedy Yeh Jawaani Hai Deewani (2013).[6] Due to a clash in schedules" - when was she shooting for YJHD? Was it while Bose approached her? This should be clarified.
"Bose went on to audition other actresses, looking for a substitute for Koechlin, but felt that "something was missing" in each one" - this makes no sense. One auditions to play a role; "audition other actresses" makes no sense. Also, the "looking for a substitute for Koechlin" part is pretty redundant. I think that is implied when you say she searched for other actresses.
"She underwent a six-week training workshop with actor Adil Hussain. The workshop aimed.." - you should tweak a little to avoid the repetition of "workshop".
"To prepare for the role, Gupta stayed Blindfolded" - why have you capitalized blindfolded?
"She also attended classes at the National Association for the Blind, where she learned basic Braille" - braille does not need capitalization. While we're at it, can we briefly describe braille without having to click on it?
"William Moseley was cast as Jared, a British student in Laila's class who develops a friendship with her." Here you say he develops a friendship with Koechlin's character, while elsewhere you say he played her love interest.
Down to the end of the casting section. More soon. FrB.TG (talk) 12:13, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've (hopefully) fixed everything. VedantTalk 19:03, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Other students from the university were cast in the roles of the members of a local band; the band also included Dalha and Dwivedi" → "...a local band, which also included Dalha and Dwivedi"
"At one point, the van that was used to carry Koechlin in her wheelchair broke down and had to be manually stabilised during the shoo." Do you mean "shoot" at the end (because the usage of shoo makes no sense here)?
"The lyrics for the album were written primarily by Prasoon Joshi, with the exception of the tracks, "I Need a Man", and "Don't Go Running Off Anytime Soon", the latter featuring English lyrics written by McCleary." Might read better as "The lyrics for the album were written primarily by Prasoon Joshi, except for the tracks, "I Need a Man" and "Don't Go Running Off Anytime Soon", which features English lyrics written by McCleary."
"Artists such as Sharmistha Chatterjee; Sonu Kakkar; Anushka Manchanda; Rachel Varghese; Vivienne Pocha; and Rajnigandha Shekhawat provided vocals for the album on various tracks." Not sure why you are using semi-colons when commas equally or more appropriate.
Was done during the copy-edit.
Well, I see no reason for using semi-colons here. I think using comma is more appropriate in this case. FrB.TG (talk) 20:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"The first track to be released, the soft rock number "Dusokute", was originally composed" - I would cut "to be released".
It implies that the track was the first to be released, not the first in the album (which is also the case but not being addressed here).
"he former appreciated Barua's "energetic vocals" in "Dusokute" and the "desi yet classy" number" - desi needs linking or at least a translation.
"Daily News and Analysis praised the duo for their respective tracks describing them as "unusual" and "candid" respectively" - redundant use of respective(ly) twice.
Down to the end of the Soundtrack section. I have to leave somewhere now, but will get to the rest soon. FrB.TG (talk) 14:36, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. You can take your time FrB.TG, thank you for all the help so far. VedantTalk 18:44, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"the latter said that she was overwhelmed by the response and, "loved to see the audiences cry and laugh with the movie"." Unneeded comma here.
"Margarita with a Straw had its American premiere at the 2015, Palm Springs International Film Festival." Same issue.
"Srinivasan Narayan, organiser of the Mumbai International Film Festival elaborated that while the Indian film festivals have grown" - not sure you need the second "the" here.
"these showings were variously attended by Amitabh and Jaya Bachchan; Aamir Khan; Kiran Rao; Vidya Balan; Anurag Kashyap; and Shraddha Kapoor." Same thing. I think using comma is more appropriate. Using semi-colons in a case like this should be used when there are too many commas or and's.
"The film was positively received at the time, with Bollywood personalities including Khan and Hrithik Roshan going on to host separate special screenings for the film." Not a fan of this sentence, especially the "with noun going on".
"Koechlin obtained widespread attention and acclaim" - too wordy. Just "Koechlin earned widespread acclaim" should suffice.
"While Subhash K. Jha praised Bose for directing with a "luminous austerity", Gupta wrote that she, "blows it all out in the open with warmth and empathy"." The comma after "she" is unneeded.
" The Economic Times reviewer, Tasneem Balapurwala, was appreciative of the restraint evident in Bose's direction" - no commas here.
"Criticism focused on the change of tone and hurried narrative in the latter half of the film and was made by such critics" - I know that the "made by" part refers to the criticism, but if you read this literally, "the change of tone hurried narrative" were made by these critics. I don't know, maybe it's just me.
"Pal ascribed her screen appeal to her lack of acting pretence: she commended "the lack of artifice in her expressions" as truly remarkable." Not sure why you need both "acting pretence" and "the lack of artifice in her expressions". One of them needs to go IMO.
"Venky Vembu of The Hindu made paid detailed attention to Koechlin's" - "made paid"?
""understated artistry" saying that, "she lends such verisimilitude to her portrayal.." - unneeded comma, again.
"The supporting cast of the film also received largely positive reviews for their respective performances." If you cut "for their respective performances", the sentence would still have the same meaning.
"Additionally, she had garnered nominations" - no had. FrB.TG (talk) 20:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed everything, hopefully. Thank you for taking a thorough look FrB.TG. VedantTalk 09:00, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Some final (or at least I think) observations:
"Commentators including Shilpa Jamkhandikar of Reuters and Mihir Fadnavis of Firspost we're critical" - were not we're.
"The lyrics for the album were written primarily by Prasoon Joshi, exception for the tracks" - except not exception; not sure if I suggested so above.
"Margarita with a Straw had Revathi, Kuljeet Singh, and William Moseley play supporting roles." Why are you mentioning the supporting roles all of a sudden? This should be moved somewhere near the sentences, where you mention the plot and Koechlin's role.
"Shonali Bose began working on the story in January 2011" - this is mainly Kailash's (also one of the reviewers here) concern, but I agree with what he has said above and at User talk:FrB.TG#Margarita with a Straw.
I think that's it. This might benefit from further reviewers giving it a thorough look, but from my point of view, this nearly meets criterion 1a. FrB.TG (talk) 16:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've made the required changes, FrB.TG, thank you again! VedantTalk 10:09, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Just these comments need addressing, and we're there. See below. FrB.TG (talk) 15:25, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Pre-production work began when Koechlin was cast in the role of Laila; Bose had intended to cast an actor with cerebral palsy for the role, but failed to find desirable results." When Bose cast Koechlin in the role, when was it that she intended to cast an actor with cerebral palsy? Was it before or after casting Koechlin? Maybe the "intended" part should come first, and then the casting of Koechlin. Also, "actor" in this sentence should probably become "actress"; I don't assume for Bose, it didn't make a difference if the actor with cerebral palsy was male. Unless she implied that or explicitly stated it, then leave it as is.
"She completed the screenplay with co-writer Nilesh Maniyar and the advisory council of the Sundance Institute." I would remove "Nilesh" since he's been mentioned above in the lead. FrB.TG (talk) 15:25, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've reworked it a bit. The article was also copy-edited by another user earlier today. VedantTalk 15:54, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think Galobtter's edits have made the article much stronger. I don't see any obvious improvements to be made. Support. Good work. FrB.TG (talk) 16:06, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You've really gone the extra mile here, I really appreciate the help! VedantTalk 17:09, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support: The article is stunning and amazingly witten by Numerounovedant. It deserves that bronze star. Congratulations!Krish | Talk 17:50, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Krish!, I appreciate you taking a look. VedantTalk 05:04, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@WP:FAC coordinators: Hey guys, the article has been reviewed by 6 users here, has had a source review, an image review, and has been copy-edited by two other users not involved at FAC. I was wondering if you guys could take a look. Thank you. VedantTalk 16:01, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, apologies for a tardy response to your query. I can see a good deal of useful commentary above but scanning the article I'd feel more comfortable with another set of eyes on it. We twice use the expression "desirable results" in relation to the search for an actress and it reads oddly to me in the context; also finding a stray space between a word and full stop in the last sentence of Development suggests further attention to detail might be warranted. I wonder if say John or Mike Christie could go through before we look at promotion? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:38, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's alright Ian Rose, I think another set of eyes would only help. It'd be great if either of the editors that you've pinged or Krimuk2.0 (as he has extensively worked on the film related articles) could take a look. Thank you for the response. VedantTalk 06:56, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've also (hopefully) fixed the instances pointed out earlier. VedantTalk 07:14, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I copyedited the lead and have a couple of comments from that and from looking at the related text in the body.
she took six months off her filming schedule to prepare for it: what the sources say is "it took her some six months to get into the character" and "I practised on the wheelchair for at least two hours a day for six months". It's likely that she wasn't working on any other films during that time, but unless the source actually says something to that affect I think this should be reworded. Similarly the lead has "to adapt to the physical movement and speech patterns of the people with cerebral palsy" which is not really in the sources.
Criticism focused on the hurried narrative in the latter half of the film: this makes it sound as though this was the main focus of criticism, but in the body only two critics are cited. We need to avoid general statements unless we can source them directly or we can be certain we've seen all significant commentary, which is rarely possible.
I then jumped down to the "Critical reception" section, since I think that's the hardest part of a film article to write well. Here are some problems:
"garnered" is review-ese; readers will see it as a jargon word. I wouldn't oppose an article for using it, but you're better off sticking with simpler language; "received" would be invisible to the reader, which is what you want.
obtained widespread acclaim: "obtained" is an odd verb to use in this context, and "widespread acclaim" is overstated. She got positive reviews.
I'm not a fan of building the Rotten Tomatoes ratings into the prose; again I wouldn't oppose on this basis, but can you imagine an encyclopedia article in a printed book mentioning it? It might put the score in the informational listing about the film, and similarly we could put it in the infobox or a table or an external link to Rotten Tomatoes.
There are some odd or unnatural phrases in the section. A sample: "equated the film to a life-like experience", "Gupta also made note of the film's treatment of", "Her appraisal of the script was laudatory, claiming that it was without any superfluity", "He elaborated that".
The paragraph structure of this section looks like a good start; it seems to be (1) general praise and impact; (2) commentary on the disabled character and cinematography (a bit of an odd juxtaposition there); (3) criticism; (4) Koechlin's performance.
Oppose. This does not meet 1a. Glancing quickly through the rest of the article, I don't see as many problems; I suspect the reception section is what needs the most work. Ping me if this gets another copyedit and you would like me to take another look. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:14, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck the oppose; will read through again if I have time, but this looks better now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Mike. Kurimuk2.0, FrB.TG, and I have tried to move things around and reword the Reception section. Can you take a look again and see if there's anything that needs more work? Thanks. VedantTalk 09:09, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't finished with it yet. Give me a couple more hours, and I'll get it done. Cheers! Krimuk2.0 (talk) 09:13, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why exactly was the RT score removed? No explanation was given in the edit summary, and while most reviews were positive, RT too showed a fresh rating, not a rotten one. So the 82% score didn't look inaccurate or biased. --Kailash29792(talk) 10:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Kailash, Mike does not seem to be a fan of the idea of the RT score being mentioned in the prose as he said above and would rather have it as an external link. I do not necessarily agree with the idea, but since Indian films are not extensively covered by RT I am fine either way. VedantTalk 10:42, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's a personal opinion; with my editor hat on I would argue for keeping Rotten Tomatoes scores out of the body of the article, but I don't think it falls under the FA criteria and wouldn't oppose on that basis. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:46, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Mike. The section and the lead have been reworked. Could you take a look? VedantTalk 09:09, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through, again just reading the lead and critical reception sections. I'm going to leave the oppose standing for now, but this is definitely improved. I've copyedited a little. Here are some more example issues.
who spent six months learning the movements and speech patterns of people with the disorder: can you give the source text that supports this? I see she spent six months preparing, but as written this sentence seems inaccurate, unless I'm just not looking in the right place.
I have removed the six months bit in context with speech and movement tarining. For the rest you can look at Ref 10: Pacheco (2015) and Ref 11: Singh (2013).
That fixes the problem. The issue was that the "movements and speech patterns" line in the source says nothing about how long she worked on those aspects of the role; all we know about the six months is that she spent time in the wheel-chair getting used to the limitations it created. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
to critical acclaim: still seems too strong to me.
Do you mean the phrase in general? or is it not substantiated well enough?
It's a stronger claim than just saying it was praised, and I think it should be avoided unless there are good secondary sources talking about the extent of praise. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
which she felt lacked superfluity: a very unnatural phrase.
While Subhash K. Jha praised Bose for directing with a "luminous austerity", Gupta wrote that she "blows it all out in the open with warmth and empathy". The Economic Times reviewer Tasneem Balapurwala was appreciative of the restraint evident in Bose's direction, as well as her expert use of emotions and moments. These are related in that they all refer to the direction, but the flow is disturbed by the need to mention the names of the reviewers and the publications. Sometimes a reviewer or publication is prominent enough to be worth mentioning, but if neither is well-known or authoritative in film criticism, cut them out of the sentence. You do need to cite the source directly after the closing quote if you do this, so the reader can easily see what the source is. For example, these sentences could be recast as "Bose's direction was praised for its restraint and its "luminous austerity", although it was also described as full of "warmth and empathy", and praised for its expert use of emotions and moments". This is friendlier to the reader -- knowing that it was "Economic Times reviewer Tasneem Balapurwala" who commented on the restraint in Bose's direction leaves the reader no better informed, and dulls the impact of the real information in the sentence. I'm not saying you have to cut all in-text attribution in the whole reception section, but you could try putting the section in a sandbox and cutting most or all attribution phrases to see how much more readable it becomes. For example: "The NDTV reviewer ascribed the film's appeal to its "emotionally arresting and startlingly revelatory story". He liked the honest depiction of disability and was pleased with how Laila's handicap eventually ceases to matter. This view was shared by others, with the film described as "wonderfully liberating" and "an achievement [for Indian cinema]"."
While I do not necessarily agree or diagree with this, it may lead to a lot of seemingly questionable claims and says who tags. Anyway, here is what I have tried. Could you take a look and let me know if it an improvement by any standards. To me it readability can be subjective. There are readers who might prefer to know whose words are being quoted. For all we know, readers accustomed to the current style could very well be left more confused. Also, per WP:RECEPTION "the basic two goals are: vary sentence length, and vary between direct, indirect and summarized comments", and "If six reviewers say X, you should report that X was a widespread opinion, but there's no need to quote or name all six", we could remove attribution for similar comments for the sake of as flow as you suggested and yet leave the unique claims intact with their writers?
Yes, readability is definitely something that varies from reader to reader; a lot of prose issues are subjective to some degree. I also agree with your point that we should leave the more interesting claims attached to their writers; it's often sensible to give names for writers who are quoted most, too, since that can tie the viewpoint together for the reader. And I agree with the quote from WP:RECEPTION that the variation needed for good flow sometimes makes the attribution natural. Having said all that, I think you'd agree that most readers of reception sections don't care about the name of a reviewer they've never heard of writing for a magazine they've never heard of. They're reading that section because they want to know what reviewers said about it. Re the "says who" tags: if they're right next to the citation that answers the question, I'd remove them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Glancing again through the rest of the article I see a couple of slightly clumsy or wordy phrases: "Nonetheless, he was appreciative of McCleary's command over the English compositions", "elaborated that", "but concluded by saying that owing to". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:47, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
{Hopefully) Fixed the rest, Mike. I appreciate the amount of time and work that you've put into the artcile. VedantTalk 07:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for the comments Mike! It was great listening to a new and fresh perspective. I'll keep them in mind from now on. VedantTalk 10:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, 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) 13:19, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.