Talk:Raja Harishchandra/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Squeamish Ossifrage (talk · contribs) 15:15, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm happy to be the reviewer for this article about an important piece of silent cinema. There's quite a bit here, but I'll be sure to ping once I've gotten through it. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:15, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Prose

Fair disclosure, I'm an American, and only really comfortable with the minutiae of American English. If I make a recommendation to change something that's actually accepted in Indian English, just let me know.

Squeamish Ossifrage, I don't know if Vivvt is currently active, so I'll try addressing the concerns. Indian English is closer to British English, and since the Indian English script rarely works, I gone with the British script. Can the hatnote "This article is about a feature film made by Dadasaheb Phalke in 1913. For a short film made by Phalke in 1917, see Satyavadi Raja Harishchandra. For the feature film made in Calcutta in 1917, see Satyawadi Raja Harishchandra." be rephrased? --Kailash29792 (talk) 03:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Lead

• I think "as recounted" would read better than "recounted".

 Done --Kailash29792 (talk) 03:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

• "Mumbai, formerly known as Bombay". Actually, it was Bombay at the time, as this was firmly within the period of the British Raj. I suggest just calling it Bombay, but linking it to the article so that people unfamiliar with the pre-1995 name can have context. This is an issue throughout.

 Done I've written "Mumbai, then known as Bombay". --Kailash29792 (talk) 03:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

• Phalke Films Company doesn't need to be in quotes here. Or anywhere. This is an issue throughout.

 Done I don't know why Vivvt put them in quotes. --Kailash29792 (talk) 03:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

• "...the first and last reels of the film are preserved at the National Film Archive of India. Some film historians believe..." I might actually connect these with "although" or "however".

 Done

Plot

• Is there a better link target for Trigunashakti? From the plot text here, the three powers seem like they are characters, or at least... personifications of ideas, but the target article for guna isn't much help. Maybe a gloss would help me here?

Added footnote. - Vivvt (Talk) 11:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• "...by releasing three powers": Assuming these are the same three powers, this should read "the three powers".

These are three different powers so will keep it as is. - Vivvt (Talk) 11:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• "Domb". Our article spells that without a b?

I've written it as Dom. The base article does not mention "Domb". --Kailash29792 (talk) 03:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Squeamish Ossifrage, can you please proof-read the section? The sources for the plot are page 17 of this book and pages 76–80 of this book. That way you may suggest the removal of any potentially incorrect plot detail. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Cast

• Since the "other artists" list is just a set of unlinked names, I think you can list them in prose rather than breaking them out into a bullet-pointed list.

 Done see how it is now. --Kailash29792 (talk) 03:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Production

• We don't have an article for perforator machines, sadly. Consider piping a link to Film perforations.

 Done Kailash29792 (talk) 03:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

• "selective individuals" - Should be selected.

 Done Kailash29792 (talk) 03:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

• "Since he was making a silent film, Phalke allowed mute artists to audition." This sentence strikes me as very odd. For one thing, in 1911, all films were silent films. But perhaps mostly... was there a sufficient number of mute artists to make this relevant? I'm inclined to think this can be cut unless the source provides some better context here.

Added as a footnote. Let me know in case of any disagreement. - Vivvt (Talk) 18:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• Let's talk about various currency values. First, it's ahistorical to refer to values with the modern rupee sign (₹), which has only been a standard since 2010. I'd suggest using the period-appropriate Rs here. In any case, the first use needs at a minimum to be linked to the article for the currency in question. Also, regardless of whether you opt for the old-style abbreviation or the modern symbol, be sure you format all your uses the same (for example, currently you have "₹ 40" but "₹10").

• Also ideally, these would be footnoted with inflation-indexed current equivalents; however, the inflation template doesn't handle Indian currency from before 1953, so I won't consider this a requirement at the GA level.

• "passable appearance" - It's not clear to me whose voice this is. Actually, a lot of this sentence reads awkwardly to my ear, not the least of which the mistress/master use in the project's voice.

Removed.

• Missing a space after the first sentence in §Pre-production.

 Done Kailash29792 (talk) 03:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

• "Since working in films was a taboo...". It was? This feels like it needs some context. There are 40 people working in his studio, but the job is taboo?

Thats correct. Thats why Phalke advised them to tell others they were working in the factory of a man named Harishchandra. The film Harishchandrachi Factory (Harishchandra's Factory) also depicts this scene. - Vivvt (Talk) 18:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• "The film had an all-male cast as no woman was available to play female leads." Disagreement in number. Probably should read "no women were".

 Done

• "Phalke's wife, Saraswatibai." She's been introduced previously, so you can probably drop "Phalke's wife" here.

 Done --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:36, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

• "where hung up" - were.

 Done --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:36, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

• "made the acquaintance of" - consider just "met".

 Done --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:36, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

• " palace, jungle, mountains, fields, caves" needs an "and"

 Done --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:36, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

• "Painter Rangnekar was hired for the monthly salary of ₹60." This reads oddly, coming right after a sentence saying that Phalke did the set painting himself. Maybe some clarification here?

 Done

• Link Vangani.

 Done

• Link dacoit.

Already linked. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:36, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

• Presumably Bhalchandra recovered? Might be worth mention.

I dont have any sourced information about his recovery. However, page 62 of Watve, Bapu (2012) [2004]. Dadasaheb Phalke, The Father of Indian Cinema. Translated by Virkar, S. A. National Book Trust. ISBN 978-81-237-4319-6 mentions about his involvement in another Phalke movie so we can assume that he recovered. - Vivvt (Talk) 18:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• "six months and 27 days" - MOS:NUMBER requires that comparable values be handled in the same manner, and that numbers from one to nine are always spelled out, so this needs to be "twenty-seven days".

 Done

• Any explanation available for what the trick shot actually was?

Added.

• I'm not sure why the character names (Sutradhar and Nati) are suddenly italicized here.

 Done I've de-italicised Kailash29792 (talk) 03:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Release

• I'm not sure a list of unlinked names of people helps the reader understand who was invited. Can you summarize this or give their roles or something? Thsi is sort of a problem through this subsection. Am I supposed to know who Bhalchandra Bhatavdekar is or why his complement is important?

Done

• "But, the invitations had already been sent and the theatre was available only on 21 April, Phalke could not change his decision." Ungrammatical. There are a couple of ways to fix this ("as the invitations", "so Phalke", etc.).

Changed.

• " Manager of Coronation Cinema, then called Coronation Cinematograph and Variety Hall" - Again, we want the prose to be historically accurate. I'd just call him "the manager of Coronation Cinematograph and Variety Hall", but pipe a link to Coronation Cinema.

 Done

• You can drop the duplicate link here. I didn't do a duplicate links check, because that's not an expectation at the GA level, but these are in really close proximity.

 Done

• "Tip-Top comic items". I don't know what this is. Any chance there's something to link here?

This seem to be some local art show and thus unencyclopedic. So no links available. - Vivvt (Talk) 18:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• "₹ three" Beyond the rupee issues above, don't mix currency symbols with prose numbers.

 Done

• "The Bombay Chronicle in its issue of 5 May 1913 mentioned..." This bit feels really out of order here. It was a response to the first theatrical showing, not to the road tour.

 Done

Legacy

• "where the [g]od appears"

 Done

• "Yajna-kund" Earlier, you italicized yajna as a foreign term, which is probably correct. That needs to happen here, too, I think. Also, it's not clear to me what yajna-kund means, especially as that's different from the earlier use.

 Done

• " Dilip Rajput of the National Film Archive of India notes that the film's scenes appear to run faster because of the current projector speed of 24-frames-per-second as compared to 16 to 18-frames-per-second speed of the projector that was used for the film." This feels like there's missing context. Was there a showing of this film in the modern era that this refers to?

This is a general observation made about the survived prints of the film. The source does not mention anything about modern era show so would not prefer to add it. - Vivvt (Talk) 18:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to think that §Legacy, §Extant prints, and §Classification as first full-length Indian film could be edited into a single section (probably titled §Legacy).

 Done

• I'm a little concerned that there's a NPOV issue with the whole "first full-length Indian film" debate here. Obviously, the government position is clear, but our article on Shree Pundalik seems pretty definitive that film scholars disagree? In general, when we have two articles making definitive, but contradictory, claims, that suggests there's a problem.

References / Bibliography

• Strictly speaking, print-format books that are accessed via digitization links don't require access dates.

I can't find any. I must have removed them. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• Dharap could use an ISBN, if available, or ideally an OCLC otherwise.

I found this book, but I'm not sure if it's the right edition. Vivvt, is it? --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Thats the correct one. I have added oclc. - Vivvt (Talk) 15:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• "p. 24–26" needs to be "pp." when multiple pages. There are several of these.

 Done --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• The Indian Horizons source is a perfect example of WP:GBT. This is actually a journal, not a book, and should be cited appropriately. I don't have much visibility to it via Google on my end, but I can try to help if you don't have a physical copy of this source to reference. Be aware that the correct citation here is going to look very different (probably an article title, very likely an author, volume/issue, etc.).\

Replaced. - Vivvt (Talk) 14:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• Mittal's title should read History Of Ancient India (A New Version): From 7300 BC to 4250 BC. Google mangled this pretty badly. Also note that you need |volume=1 here; this is a multivolume work, and you're in volume 1.

Vivvt has solved this. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• I'm not certain what's going on with the list-indented second source on reference 34 / 46 / 59. I'm not saying this is wrong, just wanting to understand the use here.

I think the list-indented sources have been delt with. Please see. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Vivvt: I may make another pass after some of this has been addressed. There are certainly some issues, but nothing that makes me think this won't be promotable with a little work. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:48, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

@Kailash29792: Thanks for addressing some of the issues. I will work on rest of them. - Vivvt (Talk) 08:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Squeamish Ossifrage, on this day which happens to be the film's 106th anniversary, can you please resume the GAR? I am planning on taking it to FA, but that is possibly only after the GAR has ended. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Ssven2, in case you forgot. --Kailash29792 (talk) 10:58, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

No I haven't, Kailash29792. Been a bit busy with real life. Tomorrow it will be completed as I see Squeamish has done majority of the pointers for the review.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 15:15, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Guest review by Ssven2

Vivvt and Kailash29792, since Squeamish hasn't made an edit on Wikipedia since March 2019, I'll finish the GAR on his behalf.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 07:36, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

• "The film premiered at the Olympia Theatre, Bombay on 21 April 1913, and had its theatrical release on Saturday, 3 May 1913 at the Coronation Cinema, Girgaon." — Why is there a "Saturday" for the theatrical release but no day of the week for the premiere?

Removed

• "Harishchandra unwittingly interrupts Vishvamitra in the midst of his yajna by releasing three powers." — Shouldn't it be "releasing the three powers" or just "releasing the Triguna Shakti".

Changed

• Reference The Times of India at first instance (ref no 41) and remove all subsequent reference links to it afterwards.

I prefer not to link any publisher/newspaper/magazine in the references to avoid overlinking. I have followed the same practise in all my previous FLs and GAs. I would like to continue the same as it is not mentioned in any MOS.

• Ref no 53 should be The Times Group instead of TOI.

Done

• Remove links to The Indian Express on ref nos 69 and 72.

Per above.

@Ssven2: I have addressed your concerns. Please review. - Vivvt (Talk) 08:29, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall: Passed, my queries were met and solved by the nominator.

   Pass or Fail:

Thank you for addressing the above comments written by Squeamish and me, Vivvt and Kailash29792. Congratulations, the article has passed.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 09:34, 9 June 2019 (UTC)