Talk:Sathi Leelavathi (1936 film)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ssven2 (talk · contribs) 06:26, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article. Thank you. — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 06:26, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"Chettiar initially wanted to produce the Madurai Original Boy's Company (MOBC) theatre troupe's play Pathi Bhakthi as a film, but MOBC had already decided to do so without his involvement." — Can be rephrased as "Chettiar initially wanted to produce a film adaptation of the Madurai Original Boy's Company (MOBC) theatre troupe's play, Pathi Bhakthi, but MOBC had already decided to do so without his involvement." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssven2 (talk • contribs)

Done

"Both men approached Vasan, who gave them the film rights to the novel." — Can be rephrased as "Both men approached Vasan, who gave them the rights to make a film adaptation t to his novel."— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssven2 (talk • contribs)

Done

"The case was resolved when Vasan revealed in court that both Pathi Bhakthi and Sathi Leelavathi were plagiarised from Ellen Wood's 1860 novel Danesbury House." — How was it resolved if both were plagiarised from another novel? I see you stated in the "Release and reception" section that "therefore neither party could claim originality." You can make it clear to the reader who might not get it at first glance (both in the lead and the Release and reception section). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssven2 (talk • contribs)

Added "therefore neither party could claim originality".

"Krishnamurthy pursues Parasuraman; a shot is heard, and a man lies dead." — Is there any reference that lists or determines the dead man's identity or has Parasuram been wounded by the bullet Krishnamurthy shot and recovered from his injury? I'm thinking it must have been the servant whom Ramanathan sent that was shot as he was in the guise of Parasuram. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssven2 (talk • contribs)
"real Parasuraman in court as an old man, who discloses his true self" — Can be rephrased as "real Parasuraman in court disguised as an old man. Parasuram then discloses his true self" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssven2 (talk • contribs)

Although the film is lost, this book has the synopsis in both English and Tamil. I've taken all I can from the English plot, but the Tamil plot seems more comprehensive. Perhaps you can suggest rephrasing based on that? --Kailash29792 (talk) 17:06, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was right, Kailash29792. I read the Tamil synopsis and it was indeed the servant, but there's a little twist here too. Ramanathan was secretly following Krishnamurthy and, in his drunken stupor, Krishnamurthy fell unconscious near the temple, dropping his gun. As soon as the servant came out, Ramanathan picks up the gun and shoots his own servant and places the gun back in Krishnamurthy's hands, making it look like Krishnamurthy murdered Parasuraman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssven2 (talk • contribs)

So basically it is a twist that is to be written at the end of the plot section in past tense, right? That's just what I did, so see now if the placement is right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kailash29792 (talk • contribs)

"It dealt with the evils of drinking and the impact drinking had on family life." — "impact it had", to avoid repetition at close range. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssven2 (talk • contribs)

Written that way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kailash29792 (talk • contribs)

"To please him, Mudaliar revealed there was a novel called Sathi Leelavathi that was being serialised in the weekly magazine Ananda Vikatan, and had the same storyline as Pathi Bhakthi.[6] The novel began serialisation in 1934.[7]" — Can be rephrased as "To please him, Mudaliar revealed there was a novel called Sathi Leelavathi that was being serialised since 1934 in the weekly magazine Ananda Vikatan, and had the same storyline as Pathi Bhakthi.[6][7]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssven2 (talk • contribs)

Written that way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kailash29792 (talk • contribs)

"Chettiar wanted Manik Lal Tandon to direct the film, but he turned down the offer.[b] Instead, he introduced Chettiar to his American friend Ellis R. Dungan and recommended he be given the chance instead." — Can be rephrased as "Chettiar wanted Manik Lal Tandon to direct the film, but he turned down the offer.[b] He then helped Chettiar by introducing him to his American friend Ellis R. Dungan and recommended that Dungan direct it instead." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssven2 (talk • contribs)

Written that way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kailash29792 (talk • contribs)

"Though Sathi Leelavathi was the first film Krishnan signed," — Can be rephrased as "Though Sathi Leelavathi was the first film Krishnan worked on,"
Antagonist's "sidekick" sounds a bit informal, maybe "henchman"?

Written that way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kailash29792 (talk • contribs)

"Since 1930s Madras did not have a facility to pre-record songs" — Any better substitute for "1930s Madras"? Maybe "Since there was no facility to pre-record songs in Madras at the time"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssven2 (talk • contribs)

Written that way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kailash29792 (talk • contribs)

"It also highlights the evils of alcoholism." — Try and reword the sentence better as it looks more like a "copy-paste" from the reference you have used for it IMO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssven2 (talk • contribs)

Replaced evils with ills. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kailash29792 (talk • contribs)

"The case was resolved when S. S. Vasan revealed in court" — Is it Madras High Court? If so, please do mention it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssven2 (talk • contribs)

No source reveals which court, but it doesn't matter which court it was, just that the case was resolved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kailash29792 (talk • contribs)

"watched Sathi Leelavathi and praised it for its Gandhian ideals" — "appreciated" instead of "praised" would do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssven2 (talk • contribs)
"Playwright and retired sub-judge Pammal Sambandha Mudaliar praised Radha for having acted a "difficult part very creditably" and added that the music was given its proper place." — "commended" instead of "praised" would do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssven2 (talk • contribs)

Written that way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kailash29792 (talk • contribs)

Ref nos 37, 38, 44, 57, 58, 63 and 65 need translations.

That's about it from me, Kailash29792. This definitely has the makings of a future FA article which it can become with more polishing. — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 06:44, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments Ssven2. Is the plot good now after I amended it per your suggestions? Did you do any proof-reading for all the online sources? This source is used only once in the article, but do you see if it can be used any further? And even though the film released in March, there are a few reviews dated February (perhaps press screenings, so don't call it erroneous). Kailash29792 (talk) 06:53, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing much from the source you mentioned other than what has already been posted/written in the article (its mainly about the plagiarism case anyhow and you seem to have covered it). Now, please resolve my last comment on the references I mentioned that need translations, Kailash29792. I have highlighted the numbers in case you didn't notice them. — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 08:09, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

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:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
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:
Overall: Passed, my queries were met and solved by the nominator.
Pass or Fail:

Thank you for addressing my comments, Kailash29792. Congratulations, the article has passed. — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 06:36, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]