Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kahaani/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 promoted by Ian Rose 10:05, 15 June 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Kahaani

Featured article candidates/Kahaani/archive1

Nominator(s): Msrag, Dwaipayan, Pleasant1623, Karthikndr

I am nominating this for featured article because the article, currently a Good Article, underwent a significant peer review, with excellent contribution from Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs) and Redtigerxyz (talk · contribs). The article is on a Bollywood film, noted for its woman-centric theme,and also for being a surprise hit. Please have a look. Regards.Dwaipayan (talk) 22:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I'm very sorry to have to do this, as I think the subject is worthy and the coverage unimpeachable, but it's just not written in idiomatic English. I'm not going to list a few examples, as all that happens then is that they're fixed, I list a few more, they're fixed as well, and ultimately I end up having to copyedit the whole article. The bottom line is that this article needs to be copyedited by a native English speaker. Malleus Fatuorum 22:19, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, you have correctly described the knee jerk reaction style copyedits that articles, in particular articles developed primarily by non-native English speakers, undergo during FAC. I apologize for the lack of idiomatic English; yes, we Indians tend to use a form of English prevalent in India (sometimes called Indian English) which is not really well-defined.

Since you have found extensive non-idiomatic English use, we can withdraw this nomination, and work on that aspect. As you have said, a native English speaker (preferably British English user) will need to do a copyedit. The problem is finding someone who would do that. Since you have read parts of the articles I guess, would you be kind enough to at least guide us in the copyediting? Time is not a factor at all. You can take as long as you wish.

Finally, thanks a lot for stating that coverage of this article is sufficient; at least one aspect of A criteria is met :) Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't withdraw it just on my say-so, I could be completely off base. Wait and see what others think. Malleus Fatuorum 17:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I personally think this is ready to go, but I'll defer to Malleus on this one regarding prose quality (not opposition) as I may be too close to the matter. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC) edited 12:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this should be withdrawn either, especially as the nominators and I are working together on improving the prose, which is why I struck my oppose. Malleus Fatuorum 12:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose and images per my comments at the PR. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:42, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review: A number of issues require attention:

27 returns "page not found"

Done. Now url is live.

30 - no public access to this video

I do not know what to do with this. The interview happened, I saw it, and it was earlier available for public viewing. Shall I remove the URL (and keep the reference)?

Add a note to the ref (login required) Brianboulton (talk) 21:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added the note.--Dwaipayan (talk) 23:09, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

34 - add OCLC for this book: 18309970

Added.

39: Yahoo is not a high-quality reliable source. Surely another sources for this information is available?

For now, I have removed the sentence and the ref.

44 returns "page not found"

Updated url. The reference number now is 43. The url is live.

67 goes to a login page, not an information source

Ref 66 now; not yet addressed.

Removed. The sentence is well supported by other references present.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

68 returns "address not found"

Ref 66 now. Updated url. The new url is live.

89: publisher missing, but this is another Yahoo page - see 39 above.

Now ref 87. Added publisher. This is a film review, done by someone in Yahoo. This source, when mentioned in the text, has been in text attributed to Yahoo India, and the other instance of its use to support the rating the film received in this review. I think, although not high quality, in this particular instances, this source is reliable, especially since this has in-text attribution.

Well. if other reviewers are satisfied I will accept this. Brianboulton (talk) 21:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

97 has wrong title

Ref 95 now. Fixed.

98 has wrong title

Ref 96 now. Fixed.

101 returns "page not found"

Removed this reference. The fact (earning in first week) is supported by the other ref (Box Office India).

109 returns "unable to find page.

Now ref 106. Replaced with a new reference from Bollywood Hungama.

118 goes to a login page, not an information source

Now ref 116. Not addressed yet.

Removed. The sentence is supported by the other ref present.

122 has wrong title

Now ref 120. Fixed title.

Ref 118 now. Title already fixed.

Brianboulton (talk) 19:35, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez, that's so embarrassing ! I mean. I should have checked these thoroughly. I apologize for these mistakes. I will rectify these within next 24 hours ( slightly busy right now, so please give me some time). Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have adressed the source issues. In one instance (Yahoo film review) I managed to have the courage to differ from your point. Please have a look. Thanks a lot.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Responses generally OK, no further issues. Brianboulton (talk) 21:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Some of the issues that I had, were raised by other editors, and have been fixed. I personally feel that the article is well written, comprehensive, and a very interesting read. Well done Dwaipayan. --smarojit ^{(buzz me)} 12:53, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The lead says "who co-wrote the film with Advaita Kala. " But I see no mention of Kala in the infobox credits...♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Stalker comment) Hey, Blofeld, the infobox credits Advaita Kala under the "Story by" column. --smarojit ^{(buzz me)} 13:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see. When I came to edit it I was put off by the referencing on multiple lines, I understand the response will be mixed on that but I think it looks untidy and unnecessarily makes the article long in the editing space. Is there are guidelines which consider line formatting?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The multiple line format o references was done by some other user (I forgot who). He converted all of the references to multiple lines. I did not have any problem with that though. Also, I am not sure if there is any guidelines in favor of or against multiple line reference formatting.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:30, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Sorry, I was away from Kolkata for a while so I could not participate in the FAC. Talking about the article, I agree with Smarojit that the article is very well written, comprehensive and very interesting to read. I support the FAC.----Plea$ant 1623 ✉ 07:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Images - all OK. Fixed a fair-use template and one license. ~~Please make sure, all FUR-parameters are filled with detailed info and images have valid US-copyright (in addition to their source country)~~. GermanJoe (talk) 08:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks GermanJoe for your kind help. I think, thanks to your edits, the fair use image (poster) now has the detailed info, and the image of painting has US license alongside other licenses. Hope this is ok.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator note Hi! I would be travelling for about two weeks, with very limited access to internet; so, responses may get delayed. Meanwhile, some other editors interested in this FAC might keep an eye. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 23:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'll follow this. --Tito ↂ Dutta 01:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spotcheck of sources

FN32 -- I'm not sure that a comment in passing about filming your lead actress walking among an unknowing crowd quite supports the contention that the director "often" user guerrilla-style techniques. Can you buttress this contention with an additional source?
FN49 -- Okay.
FN64 -- Article: "Critics set their expectations low". Source: "critics also set their expectations low". Not a huge deal but I think we could rephrase without losing the meaning.
FN71 -- Okay.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:32, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FN64 done. Trying to find alternative of FN 32. --Tito☸Dutta 12:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FN32 supported by adding FN33. BollyJeff | talk 14:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those changes'll do. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:23, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to know it worked.--Tito☸Dutta 15:02, 14 June 2013 (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) 14:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --Tito☸Dutta 15:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Ian Rose!----Plea$ant 1623 ✉ 15:05, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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