Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Keechaka Vadham/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 via FACBot (talk) 00:29, 24 March 2018 [1].

Keechaka Vadham

[edit]
Nominator(s):  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 09:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC); Kailash29792 (talk) 09:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Keechaka Vadham, a 1910s Indian Tamil film directed by R. Nataraja Mudaliar, regarded as the father of Tamil Cinema. The film is known to be the first silent film in all of South India. A special note of thanks to Dr. Blofeld for reviewing the GAN and to my fellow editors who peer reviewed it. This is my fifth FAC attempt and my second collaboration with Kailash29792. Constructive comments here are most welcome.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 09:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Yashthepunisher

[edit]
  • Archive this green link.
  • You can rephrase the second sentence as, "Based on an episode from the Hindu epic Mahabharata focusing on Keechaka and Draupadi, the film stars Raju Mudaliar and Jeevarathnam as the central characters.
  • Remove oxford comma from the last sentence of "Origin, scripting.." first para.

That's it from me, great work on the article. Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:11, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have hopefully resolved your comments, Yashthepunisher. Do let me know if there's anything pending. Thanks.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 11:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, Yashthepunisher. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 13:18, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

All sources are archived and can be read online in google books, making them accessible to every reader, so I'll give it a pass'

Other than that, I would suggest expanding or merging paragraphs because their sizes. By the way, I need help with this FAC. One editor opposed due to the prose which to the nominator to copyedit as much as his could. If you have time to voice your opinion there, I would appreciate it. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review, Tintor2. I'll look at the FAC sometime soon. Cheers.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 11:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

[edit]
  • In the lead’ first paragraph, I would link the first use of the word “epic” to the article Indian epic poetry.
  • I would revise this part (Since the cast members were from Tamil Nadu,) to (Since the cast was from Tamil Nadu,) to make it somewhat more concise.
  • In the lead, you alternative between referencing the director as either “Nataraja Mudaliar” or “Mudaliar”. Please consistent with one format. The same comment applies for the body of the article.
  • I would revise this part (watching the films of Dadasaheb Phalke.) to (watching films by Dadasaheb Phalke.) for more concise language.
  • I would revise this sentence (During the administration of Lord Curzon as Viceroy of India from 1899 to 1905, cinematographers from Britain filmed a documentary about him.) to (British cinematographers filmed a documentary about  Lord Curzon during his administration as Viceroy of India from 1899 to 1905.) as I find the current wording to be a little awkward.
  • You mention and link the name of the episode/segment in the body of the article (i.e. Virata Parva) and it would be helpful to have this mentioned and linked in the lead too.
  • For this sentence (Some of Mudaliar's relatives objected, feeling that it was an inappropriate story for his debut venture.), could you expand on why they felt the story was “inappropriate”? If this information is not known, then I understand and it is fine as it currently stands, but it left me wondering about this point.
  • I think it would be helpful to move this sentence (The episode follows the attempts made by Keechaka, one of the generals of King Virata, to woo and marry Draupadi. Keechaka's misbehaviour with Draupadi prompts her to tell Bhima about it, and Bhima kills him.) directly after this one (Mudaliar sought advice from his friend, theatrical artist Pammal Sambandha Mudaliar, who suggested that he depict the story of Draupadi and Keechaka from the Virata Parva segment of Hindu epic Mahabharata.) to put the summary of the episode right next to the first mention of it to help readers who may not know about it.
  • I would move this sentence (Since the cast members were predominantly Tamil, it was considered the first Tamil film.) to after this one (Keechaka Vadham was the first film made in South India.). The current placement of the sentence does not make sense as the paragraph focuses on the filming process, and it would make more sense and be more coherent to group these two similar ideas together.

Great work with this article. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any help with my current FAC (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/All Money Is Legal/archive1). Either way, good luck with this and your current and future projects, and have a wonderful rest of your day and/or night! Aoba47 (talk) 19:37, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have hopefully resolved your comments, Aoba47 and I'll look at the FAC sometime soon. Do let me know if there's anything pending. Thanks.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 11:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, Aoba47. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 08:52, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Vedant

[edit]
  • "The film, based on an episode from the Hindu epic Mahabharata focusing on Keechaka and Draupadi, stars Raju Mudaliar and Jeevarathnam as the central characters." - Why have such a colloquial sentence when it can be easily split into two. This one tries to tell the story, the origin, the cast all in one. The latter part should be a separate sentence.
  • Is there any reason why the article refers to R. Nataraja Mudaliar as differently as "Mudaliar" and "Nataraja Mudaliar"?
  • The writer warrants a mention in the lead too.
  • R. Nataraja Mudaliar should be wiki-linked in the first paragraph of the Development section.
  • "Mudaliar developed a passion for cinema after watching the films of Dadasaheb Phalke." - This gives an impression that he developed a passion after buying the camera.
  • "Nataraja Mudaliar made contact with Stewart Smith" - made contact? contacted maybe?
  • Interestingly now, "Some of Mudaliar's relatives objected", this is where you need to mention which "Mudailar" is it, not elsewhere before this.
  • "based on the episode.[17] The episode follows the attempts" - Use can use the word "segment" at either occasion.
  • "The film's budget was ₹35,000,high at the time." - This could be phrased better.
  • Mahatama Gandhi's mention is not really required unless it's affects the film in any way.
  • "Guy wrote in his 1997 book Starlight Starbright: The Early Tamil Cinema that a thin white piece of cloth was used" - I do not think k that the article mentions him before.
  • "Mudaliar's work inspired Raghupathi Surya Prakasa, whose father, Raghupathi Venkaiah Naidu, has been acknowledged as the father of Telugu cinema, and J. C. Daniel, later recognised as the father of Malayalam cinema." -That's a very long and unwarranted connection. I do not any value in this. Had the works directly inspired Raghupathi Venkaiah Naidu, it would have made sense.

That's it for now. Let me know if you have any concerns about my comments. VedantTalk 10:52, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have hopefully resolved your comments, Numerounovedant. Do let me know if there's anything pending. Thanks.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 11:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comments like 1 and 3 have not been addressed Ssven2. VedantTalk 15:32, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How about now, Numerounovedant?  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 15:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the new version of the Development section looks a lot better too. Give me a day or two before I can support. VedantTalk 15:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More comments:

  • "He then established a production house, India Film Company, which was South India's first film studio in 1915 on Miller's Road in Purasawalkam, Madras" - The sentence is a little off; Is India Film Company a production company or a film studio? The sentence implies that it is both.
  • I still believe that the article might confuse a reader with the use of Mudaliar. The artcile lists atleast two other people with the same last name and it would be best of you use use "Nataraja Mudaliar" and "Sambandha Mudaliar" from "Mudaliar sought advice from his friend, theatrical artist Pammal Sambandha Mudaliar" onward for the sake of clarity.
  • I think "female" and "feminine" are distinct terms and you should the former in "Rangavadivelu was also experienced in playing feminine roles on stage".
  • "paintings of Raja Ravi Varma provided Mudaliar a with source of inspiration for recreating the story on celluloid." - with a.
  • "Since the cast members were Tamils, it is considered the first Tamil film" - as Aoba47 said.

That should do it. VedantTalk 12:08, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have hopefully resolved your remaining comments, Numerounovedant. Do let me know if there's anything pending. Thanks.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 14:37, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can support this for promotion. Good luck, you guys. VedantTalk 11:32, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, Numerounovedant. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 16:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Eric Corbett

[edit]
  • My overwhelming impression of this article is that the writing is somewhat stilted, and needs to be made to flow more easily. For instance, the first paragraph of the Development section is a series of disconnected short sentences, as is much of the rest of the article.
  • "Keechaka's misbehaviour with Draupadi prompts her to tell Bhima about it, and Bhima kills him." What misbehaviour, and tell him about what?
Expanded.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 12:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mudaliar was not a writer by profession and hence received assistance from his close friend, attorney C. Rangavadivelu." I'm unclear what the "hence" is trying to tell us here. Also, it appears that Rangavadivelu wasn't a writer either, so I'm doubly unclear on what this is trying to tell the reader.
Rectified hopefully.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 12:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The paintings of Raja Ravi Varma provided Mudaliar a source of inspiration for recreating the story on celluloid." There's either a word missing there or it's written incorrectly. "... provided Mudaliar with a source of inspiration"?
Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 12:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mudaliar wrote the English intertitles himself while being assisted by Dr. Guruswami Mudaliar and Thiruvengada Mudaliar ..." That's rather unidiomatic. Better would be something like "with the assistance of".
Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 12:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Since the cast members were predominantly Tamil, it was considered the first Tamil film." Why the past tense? Is it no longer considered to be the first Tamil film? I'm not fond of the phrase "predominantly Tamil" either, as it's ambiguous. Was each cast member predominantly Tamil, or were most of the cast members Tamil?
Rectified hopefully.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 12:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... the place where Mudaliar founded India Film Company was previously known as Tower House" Missing "the".
Uh no, actually, the name is just Tower House, not The Tower House.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 12:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I meant in front of "India Film Company", not "Tower House". Eric Corbett 12:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 13:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm surprised to see no Cast section.
The answer for that is in the peer review of the article, under the section "Comments from Aoba47".  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 12:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't agree with that. Eric Corbett 12:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Alright then, done as asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 13:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your comments, Eric Corbett. Please do let me know if there's anything pending. Thanks.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 12:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The most important point is pending, which is the disjointed writing style. Don't worry though, my opinion will carry no weight. Eric Corbett 12:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have made some modifications to the first paragraph of the development section. Better now?  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 13:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a distinct improvement. Eric Corbett 13:59, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Eric Corbett. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 14:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this article's promotion. I'm sorry to have to do this, but my point about the disjointed, staccato style of writing throughout the article hasn't been addressed. It doesn't just apply to the one paragraph I specifically drew attention to, it's endemic. To give another example, look at the final paragraph of the lead. It's just a sequence of three sentences without any literary glue to hold them together. And to compound the problem the final sentence Since no print of it is known to have survived, it is considered a lost film just comes out of the blue, à propos of nothing. So while I will concede that the prose is workmanlike, it falls quite a way short of professional and engaging, in my opinion anyway. Eric Corbett 02:13, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just wanted to add this for the sake of fairness. I'm very sympathetic to the difficulties faced even by native English speakers to achieve the elusive goal of "professional" and "engaging", and doubly so in the case of non-native speakers, so I'm prepared to do whatever I can to help. As an example, I've rejigged the lead, so see what you think. If you like what you see then I'll try and go through the rest of the article similarly as well. Then hopefully I'll feel able to strike my oppose. Eric Corbett 11:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what to say, but this has always been the format I prefer to chose for writing film leads, which follows the same order as film production: 1st para introduces the film, it's director and producer (occasionally, the writer), star cast and premise. 2nd para is behind the scenes. 3rd para deals with the release, reception and cultural impact. I intended for this to be the same way. Ssven2, what do you think about Eric's version of the lead section? --Kailash29792 (talk) 11:57, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Eric Corbett, the lead looks better now than before IMO. You may proceed with the rest of the article likewise, Eric. Its always nice to have an extra mind on grammatical style. :-)  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 12:56, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've got absolutely no intention or desire to upset you in any way Kailash, so please feel free to revert my changes to the lead back to your preferred format and I'll leave the rest of the article alone. Eric Corbett 15:08, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we'll go with the way it currently is. And thank you for your constructive comments Eric. --Kailash29792 (talk) 15:12, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Eric Corbett; Ssven2; Kailash29792, guys I have edited the article's production section and tried to move around things to help with the flow. It's in my sandbox, take a look and let me know if it is any better? Also, let me know if I messed any part up. If it is an improvement by any standards, we can always work on the rest, it's a relatively shorter artcile and can be restructured in no time. Cheers. VedantTalk 16:59, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better with the added "Plot" section, Numerounovedant. Your version can be used if it helps. Cheers.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 08:04, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the prose has been significantly improved I have struck my opposition to this article's promotion. Just one question though. Why are only two cast members listed? Did Bhimi not make an appearance in the film? Eric Corbett 11:32, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If I had known who played Bhima, I'd list him here. Or this might be like no-one knowing the first ever actor to play Sherlock Holmes in a film. --Kailash29792 (talk) 11:50, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm finding your belligerence to be rather tiresome Kailash. If you believe that nobody knows then simply say so. Eric Corbett 12:36, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, Eric Corbett. As I said before, your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 12:41, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Images are appropriately licensed and formatted. FrB.TG (talk) 11:36, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, FrB.TG.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 14:39, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim

[edit]

Comprehensive and readable, some suggestions follow Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:35, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Link rupee symbol at first use.
  • focusing on Keechaka and Draupadi.—perhaps focusing on Keechaka's attempts to woo Draupadi to give us a mini-summary of the plot and establish the sex of each character without clicking through.
  • The film features Raju Mudaliar and Jeevarathnam as the central characters. — perhaps "casts" instead of "featured" to make it more obvious they are the actors, not characters, it's slightly ambiguous as its stands.
  • automobile dealer—unless my memory is at fault, it's usually BE "car dealer" in India
  • the episode follows the attempts made by Keechaka, the commander of King Virata's forces, to woo and marry Draupadi by any means necessary. Keechaka attempts...—avoid repeat "attempts"
  • shot with a speed of 16 frames per second—perhaps indicate if this was standard at the time?
  • Elphinstone Theatre—in Madras?
  • a fire accident—don't need "accident"
  • although I understand why you have done it, the conversion to US$ seems a bit odd considering the US wasn't even the colonial power. Looks a bit US-centric to me. I'd prefer to see a conversion to give the modern rupee equivalents, keeping it more Indian, but your call.
I have hopefully resolved your comments, Jimfbleak. Do let me know if there's anything pending. Thanks.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 16:45, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All looks good Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:42, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jimfbleak, sorry I didn't ask this earlier: can the infobox be free of monetary conversions? I remember Cyphoidbomb once saying infoboxes shouldn't have INR to USD conversions since they may clutter it. And is just "silent" (no link) the term we should put in the language field in infoboxes for such films? --Kailash29792 (talk) 17:39, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Kailash29792, I'm no expert on infoboxes, but personally I can't see the necessity for conversion, nor for anything beyond unlinked "silent" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:51, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with you there, Jimfbleak. BTW, thank you very much. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 13:00, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]

I was one of the peer reviewers, and have a few additional suggestions.

  • I might suggest putting the approximate date of release in the first paragraph rather than the third.
I had pondered doing that but I feel that stating the release would be better as other reviewers might question it. Nevertheless, done as per your suggestion.
It is merely a suggestion. If you prefer it in the third, that is fine too.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:30, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "British cinematographers filmed" I might make it "had filmed"
  • I might link to Indian rupee on the first use of the symbol in text. The one in the infobox links to the article on the symbol, but it might be better going to the article on the rupee.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:42, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have hopefully resolved your comments, Wehwalt. Do let me know if there's anything else pending. Thanks.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 12:21, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support enjoyed reading it both times. Well done again.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:29, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, Wehwalt. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 12:43, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note to coordinators

[edit]

@FAC coordinators: Hello there fellas. The article has been reviewed by 6 users here of which 5 have provided their support and one is neutral. It has also had a source review and an image review. I was wondering if you would care to take a look. Thank you.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 10:59, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it looks to me that the source review concentrated on the availability of the refs on Google, rather than reliability and formatting -- Brian or Nikki, would you have time to take a look? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:55, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

[edit]

Some formatting issues:

  • Guy 1997 lacks ISBN. WorldCat doesn't provide one, but you can use oclc= 52794531
  • Baskaran 2011 gives some useful extra detasils you should use: Vol XXI No. 10
  • Guy 2007 ("A Miller's Road..."): A page number would be useful as the source article is not on the first page
  • "K. R., Manigandan"; surely, "Manigandan" is the surname, and this should be "Manigandan, K.R." ? It needs to be repositioned alphabetically.
  • The unlinked Madras Mail requires a page number
  • The link on the "Film News Amandan" goes to a blank page. The archive link works.
  • Balakrishnan 2015 is out of place alphabetically,

The sources all seem to be of reliable quality, but I wonder why one of them used at all – Gilmour 2016. This is an article in the British newspaper The Independent listing some of the villains of Britain's imperial past, among whom it rightly included the viceroy Lord Curzon, but in a context that has nothing to do with the subject of our article. The citation serves no useful purpose that I can see, and you may as well delete it.

Subject to these points, the sources are well ordered and meet FAC standards. Brianboulton (talk) 18:01, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some people in India do not have surnames. Others have a name that they list as surnames but is not really a surname. That name might be the father's first name. Vanguard10 (talk) 20:26, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Brianboulton, thank you very much for the source review. I have resolved almost all of your comments. For the "Baskaran 2011" reference, I don't know how to add the No. 10 in the reference. Same for Guy 2007 ("A Miller's Road...") (The same newspaper number, not the page number). "Manigandan" is his first name as per The New Indian Express article. The Madras Mail reference was obtained by the co-nominator, Kailash29792, here and here. The page numbers are not listed and the original source is nowhere be found. I've changed the "Film News Anandan" reference to a "deadurl=yes" one as the original link is dead now. I'm not quite sure what you mean by the last comment.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 14:54, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have a lot on at the moment. I will get back to this as soon as I can, but please be patient. Brianboulton (talk) 14:22, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My final comments:

  • I've added the page number to Guy 2007
  • I don't believe for a moment that Mr Manigandan is actually called "Mr K. R.", but if that's the way you want it, so be it.
  • You should add this link to the Madras Mail source and then you won't need a page number.
  • Balakrishnan, V. would appear to be the first alphabetically in the list of websites.

The rest you've either fixed or have been fixed. I trust you to do the final bits as I've indicated. Coordinators: the sources can be taken as approved. Brianboulton (talk) 23:14, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the final comments as per your suggestions, Brianboulton. Thank you once again. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 01:13, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Vanguard10

[edit]

An interesting article. I am not familiar with Tamil cinema and am a FAC newbie but offer the following comments.

Prose is reasonably good but could be improved, in my opinion. Most of the suggestions are absolutely critical and, therefore, do not have to be used.

  • (optional) The first paragraph of the lede might highlight the unique properties of the film as well as eliminate a dictionary definition. It might read "Keechaka Vadham (English: The Extermination of Keechaka)[5] is an Indian silent film produced, directed, filmed and edited by film pioneer R. Nataraja Mudaliar. Keechka Vadham was the first film made in South India and the first film using Tamil actors. <<too bad we can't write "first Tamil language film" because it was a silent film>> Shot in five weeks at Nataraja Mudaliar's production house, India Film Company; no print of it is known to have survived. <<removing the phrase "lost film">>
Some readers might still get confused if the term "lost film" is removed.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 01:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • (clarification) There were no Tamil subtitles?
Um, no.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 01:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • (optional) Plot. Can this be expanded? Maybe not because the film is a lost film.
That's the plot.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 01:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • (optional) Not critical at all or required, but slight expansion of who R. Nataraja Mudaliar was may make the article very interesting to the reader. Rather than just a car dealer, he was a merchant with a bicycle business and later expanded into selling American cars before opening a film studio.
I actually wrote whatever that can be used but thank you for the tip though.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 01:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • >>>Filming Section. Consider chronological order. Mention 2016 first then 2017, not vice versa.
Vanguard10, not quite sure what you mean here.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 01:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, error on my part. Vanguard10 (talk) 04:08, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • (optional) Filming Section. Consider noting that various film historians ascribe the date of release as early as 1916 and as late as 1918. This information would then be both in the text of the article and in more detail as note A.
Done hopefully.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 01:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Madras. Recommend mentioning the current name in the text of the article. For example. "...in Madras (now Chennai)..." or "in Madras (now Chennai, Tamil Nadu..."
I've wikilinked it to Chennai actually, so it will go to that article.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 01:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • (optional) This sentence is near the end, under "legacy". "Nataraja Mudaliar is widely regarded as the father of Tamil cinema, and his films helped lay the foundation for the South Indian cinema industry; " It might be noteworthy enough to be in the lede.
Done.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 01:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, Vanguard10. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 01:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
typo which I am correcting. Also, I see that it is mentioned that it is a Tamil film because the actors were Tamil. It is not possible to say that it was a Tamil language film because it was a silent film. However, I have just noticed that intertitles were in Tamil so it may be possible to mention that it was a Tamil film based on the actors and written titles. Another thing, any information known about the film's length in minutes? Vanguard10 (talk) 04:08, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If there were, Vanguard10, it would be on the article now wouldn't it? :-)  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 14:33, 19 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Keechaka_Vadham/archive1&oldid=832274681"