Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Dadasaheb Phalke Award/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 02:52, 23 July 2014 [1].

Dadasaheb Phalke Award[edit]

Dadasaheb Phalke Award (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): - Vivvt (Talk) 04:25, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The award is India's highest award in cinema given annually for the outstanding contribution to the Indian cinema. This is a listing of all the recipients since the award institution in 1969. Looking forward to some constructive comments. - Vivvt (Talk) 04:25, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • Should the industry the recipient belongs to be noted? Soumitra Chatterjee is a Bengali film actor; while Pran is a Bollywood actor. Others like Lata, prominently work in Bollywood and Marathi cinema.
I don't think it should be added. The page would be vandalized so much. Anon users would also add state, language etc.
Fearing vandalism is not the cure of incompleteness. IMO, it is a very important detail missing. --Redtigerxyz Talk 14:25, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Added industry column.
  • The I&B Ministry is responsible for it. Should be noted somewhere. --Redtigerxyz Talk 19:06, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Added. - Vivvt (Talk) 01:52, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am no expert for copyvio so I have asked somebody to take a look at all the images. - Vivvt (Talk) 22:04, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks in good shape. I would, however, expect to see a summary of the work of each person rather than simply "profession" which really looks at their most notable work and why they might have been given the award. I think it helps put things in context and will lead to a greater understanding for readers.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Will add the necessary details soon. - Vivvt (Talk) 22:04, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Krimuk90
  • "The Dadasaheb Phalke Award is India's highest award in cinema given annually at the National Film Awards." I would say National Film Awards ceremony.
  • Done
  • "...set up by Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and is conferred on a film personality for the "outstanding contribution to the growth..." ==> "...set up by Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and is conferred on a film personality for their "outstanding contribution to the growth..."
  • Done
  • "In 1969, the Government of India introduced a new National Film Award, the Dadasaheb Phalke Award, in the centenary birth year of Dadasaheb Phalke who is often credited as "the father of Indian cinema". Very awkward phrasing. I suggest something like this: "The Dadasaheb Phalke Award was introduced by the Government of India in 1969 to mark the centenary birth year of Dadasaheb Phalke, who is often credited as "the father of Indian cinema""
  • Done
  • " Dhundiraj Govind Phalke (1870–1944), popularly known as Dadasaheb Phalke, was an Indian filmmaker and has made India's first full-length feature Raja Harishchandra (1913). With the career spanned around 20 years, Phalke had formed a film company, Hindustan Films, and made 95 films and 26 short films including Mohini Bhasmasur (1913), Satyavan Savitri (1914), Lanka Dahan (1917), Kaliya Mardan (1919), and Gangavataran (1937)". These two sentences have several grammatical errors. Please correct them.
  • Done I have made the changes. Please see and let me know if it needs any further correction.
  • "The award was introduced to commemorate his contribution to the India cinema and is awarded "for distinguished contribution to the medium, its growth and promotion" Isn't something very similar mentioned in the second sentence of the first paragraph? Why repeat?
  • Removed
  • In the last sentence, please say "the most recent recipient of the award is..."
  • Done
  • Why is the cite web template used for newspaper sources? Please change them.
  • Corrected

Finally, I agree with the Doctor's comment. A little expansion on the recipient's most notable work will be great to have. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 14:34, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Blofeld: and @Krimuk90: Per your suggestions, I have added some details about recipients' work. Please let me know if it needs any corrections. I may have done mistakes with the repeat text/verbiage. Feel free to correct. - Vivvt (Talk) 05:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Better, can you add profession then birth and death dates first though? Also, you'll need to source all of the information you've added.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would not like to add DOB and DOD as it does not add much value to the list. Also, none of the Nobel award FLs are having such details. Talking about references, the column mentions all the necessary sources supporting the text. - Vivvt (Talk) 23:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I too think that DOB/D is not needed. The next step after having those is to have separate section of "living winners". Such separate sections existed on Bharat Ratna eg and Prime Minister of India eg. Its like a countdown where we are waiting for them to die. The obsession also goes on to write down the age of the recipient at the time of winning, at the time of death and then footnotes are added to write about posthumous wins. And then there is another note added on the youngest winner and the oldest winner. And then again posthumous wins are to be clarified on whether they are considered in oldest winner or not. Oh! That's Hanuman's tail.... If there was any background on age/DOB/D and winning the award, it would be logical. We don't have any DPA death curse like the Oscar love curse. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Blofeld:, @Krimuk90:, and @Redtigerxyz: Please let me know if I have resolved your concerns. - Vivvt (Talk) 14:33, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image concerns remain.--Redtigerxyz Talk 16:22, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I spot a lot of peacock words and puffery which have crept in during the expansion I'm afraid.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:23, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid the expanded section needs a thorough check for grammatical errors before I can support this. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 02:14, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • The very basic concept of giving out the award is to honour the "lifetime achievement" of individuals. This isn't mentioned anywhere in the lead; it's mentioned only in the infobox
  • Not done: The statement "outstanding contribution to the growth and development of Indian cinema" clearly says the intent.
  • IMO, the lede does not adequately summarize the list. You need to explain about highly notable ones in a word or two.
  • Not done: "highly notable ones"? really? Are others not notable and have they got the award for free? Absolute case of POV.
  • POV? You don't get my point. What I meant was you need to explain a bit about "notable recipients". You definitely cannot scale down all winners to the same level. —Vensatry (ping) 10:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So who do you suggest should be mentioned in lede and why? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's upto the contributors/nominator to decide upon. Lead should summarize the list by talking about the winners, their profession, etc., not some arbitrary factoids like "XXX are the only siblings". —Vensatry (ping) 16:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Already decided as a nominator not to add any "notable recipients" as its a pure case of POV.
Oh then two or more recipients being siblings is worth mentionable? I'll leave it to other reviewers. —Vensatry (ping) 03:07, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You should know the differences among WP:POV, WP:POVPUSH and WP:WEIGHT. I'm insisting on the last one. —Vensatry (ping) 03:19, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Its definitely rare when in the country with the population of 1.2 billion, the highest award in a particular field is bestowed on two people from the same family and thus notable. - Vivvt (Talk) 03:35, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indian cinema linked twice in lede
  • Done
  • "The award was introduced to commemorate his contribution to the Indian cinema" is repetitive stuff. The sentences before this one are more than sufficient to convey this idea.
  • On hold Would like to have second opinion on this.
Have rephrased it now. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:35, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cash prize needs "as of ..."
  • Done
  • I see that this amount has changed from time to time invariably. You need to mention that too, probably as a FN in the table. —Vensatry (ping) 10:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While Prithviraj Kapoor is the only recipient to have been bestowed the honour posthumously,[6] his son Raj Kapoor was also awarded in 1988". I'm not sure what you're trying to say.
  • In simple English ...that father and son, both had been awarded with country's highest award in cinema.
  • In that case you need to rephrase the sentence. It starts with "while...." explains about posthumous honour and ends with his son receiving the honour. Doesn't make sense even at the "simple English" level. —Vensatry (ping) 10:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure if the semi colon after B. N. Reddy is correct. Also, the sentence itself doesn't satisfy WP:V. Neither of the sources verify the claim. Page number 72 of Encyclopaedia of Hindi Cinema talks about Nau Bahar.
  • Everything is sourced...just that you haven't read it properly. Page number 72 of Encyclopaedia has a section "The changed musical scene" on the same page. Did you read that?
  • Of course they are sourced. But I'm only concerned about verifiability. The source for Nagi Reddy doesn't even talk about his brother. As for the "Encyclopaedia of Hindi Cinema", it only says Lata was honoured with Bharat Ratna and Asha with the Palke award. Even when both the sources are put together, the fact that the pairs are the only siblings to receive the award isn't clear. Also, when you first brought the list here, you did not mention about the Reddy brothers. So it's your own research. —Vensatry (ping) 10:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A BIG LOL for "it's your own research". Provided another source which says they are brothers. Their parents would be so upset up in heaven by your claim. :D
  • Oh come on man. Stop being childish and do some homework before going in for some crude jokes. I'm not denying that they are siblings; I know that much before you know. You need to provide a source which says the three pairs are the only siblings to receive the award. —Vensatry (ping) 16:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not interested in going into the details of what you or I knew earlier. Its irrelevant here. When three of the sources say that the respective recipients are siblings, we need not provide bunch of sources to prove that others are not related to each others as siblings. Second opinion needed.
  • Then you shouldn't have made comments like that. In case you are not aware of our policies, we need multiple reliable sources to prove strong claims like this. Else remove it, it's your own research. —Vensatry (ping) 03:06, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, you would not find a source of something that doesn't exists. So there will be no source that says "A B C P Q R are not related". I have and will always be against Wikipedia's blind dependency on "reliable sources" especially in trivial and minuscule matters. We Wikipedians on many occasions do better in-depth research than so called researchers with access to a printing press. At end WP:COMMONSENSE exists, hopefully. Btw, going by the rule book, the reference at the end of the statement "The most recent recipients are Rajkummar Rao (Hindi) and Suraj Venjaramoodu (Malayalam)" in the article National Film Award for Best Actor does not actually support the "most recent recipients" claim. In case you have doubts on some people in here being siblings, we can try getting OTRS emails from them. Until then, lets use commonsense over rules. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 16:03, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your claim about the most recent winners is a case of WP:OBVIOUS. The one which we are discussing right now doesn't fall under that. —Vensatry (ping) 18:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just as obviousness applies to the style of writing, it applies to the content too; per what is commonly known as common sense. Anyways, you may put your doubts here and i can go and get OTRS or file RTI. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 19:58, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any reason for making the table unsortable?
  • Not done: Only two out of six columns contains info that makes sense to have it sortable, I would keep it unsortable. Again, its not mandatory.
Are you saying that row scopes should exist only when some column of the table is sortable? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure as the guideline is not very clear. But I've normally seen tables that use row scopes and column scopes being sortable. At least the winners column need to be sortable as it helps in accessibility. Besides WP:FL? has something about tables being sortable. —Vensatry (ping) 16:47, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Its not mandatory. Many FLs do not use sortable columns. This is just one example.
Sortablity is a very useful feature in tables. In this case, we have 40+ recipients. The one you showed doesn't use row scopes. Anyways, you can have multiple opinions on this one too. —Vensatry (ping) 03:14, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The list which you showed doesn't need to be sortable as they are many tables with just one or two rows. —Vensatry (ping) 03:17, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The entries in the "Film industry" are awkwardly aligned.
  • I think it looks nice to have bullet format than simple <br>
  • None of the entries in "Notes" col. are sourced; seems like you've copied text from other pages without proper attribution.
  • Wow! I am absolutely certain that you haven't read any source. Tell me whats not sourced then I will correct it. Don't just type because you have keyboard!!
  • Yes. I've not done any spot checks. Here we go: The very first ref. for Devika Rani (Britannica) doesn't mention her being the first leading lady of Indian cinema and Bombay talkies being the first public limited company, etc., If you want me to carry out spotchecks for other refs, I'll do some "keyboard overloading" (if time permits). —Vensatry (ping) 10:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The ref already present in the article says "Dube Industries, which was mainly into construction, was founded by Rajnarayan in 1929. It diversified into films with the opening of Bombay Talkies, India's first public limited film company. " §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, but I cannot find any mention of her being the first leading lady in either of the sources. Also why is the ref nested? —Vensatry (ping) 16:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no need for a key to indicate posthumous win as there is only one recipient
  • Done
  • The FN for Raj Kapoor gets into too much of unnecessary details
  • I don't think so. Its a well published "fact" in multiple books and reliable sources, knowing that we had a DYK published on the main page about deciding vote about NFA!
  • It doesn't mean we should write every crap that's being published. Published trivia should be included based on it's importance and relevance to the context and not because of personal interest. Bringing in the DYK fact is absolutely irrelevant here; that was not an FLC. Besides, the fact carried a greater relevance to the context and was quite interesting when compared to some attributed hooks like the ones mentioned here. But in this case, it's running out of context and looks purely trivial. —Vensatry (ping) 10:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have randomly entered the entries for "Film industry" column. What's the criteria you;ve taken for each recipients? For eg., you say K. Balachander (Tamil and Telugu) while the Reddy Brothers were confined only to Telugu films.
  • Its taken from the source. Again, tell me whats not sourced, I will correct it. However, several sources can be provided to support the "industry" but then it would be cite kill.
  • CITEKILL is not an issue. You could nest the refs. —Vensatry (ping) 10:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's better to remove some images as there are copyright issues. ANR's image is definitely not PD-US. Having images are good but not mandatory in these kind of lists.
  • Not done: I would keep all the images and remove only those which are not compliant.
  • Then go ahead and remove the "now tagged copy-vios" which you uploaded. —Vensatry (ping) 10:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Once deleted from Commons, a bot automatically removes the red-linked images from Wikipedias. In case you have doubts on any specific images, please get them to DR over there or highlight them here so others can get them to DR. "Remove some images" is too vague for understanding whats to be removed and what not. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion process might take some weeks. We don't want such copy-vios to stay here if the list gets promoted in the meanwhile. Regarding your last point, I think I've made it clear in the previous comment. —Vensatry (ping) 16:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The DR is open for a week and usage in that period is perfectly fine. If it wasn't the one-week norm would have been reduced with common broad consensus. Anyways, all DRs are now closed as keep. Images are fine and good to stay. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 15:45, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fine —Vensatry (ping) 18:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Harv errors in references.
  • Very vague statement!
  • If you understand "harv", it would be understandable. —Vensatry (ping) 10:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference parameters are inconsistently formatted.
  • Very vague statement!
  • You have used page nos. in Bibliographies too. Randomly linking publisher parameters, etc., —Vensatry (ping) 10:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Corrected
    • I've listed only a few issues, but I can still go on and on. The main issue here is the content keeps changing drastically every moment since the list was brought here. It goes more like a peer review rather than an FLC. To be very honest, the list needs a fair amount of work before it gets promoted. Suggest the nominator to go for a peer review. —Vensatry (ping) 17:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "content keeps changing drastically"! Only "Notes" column has been expandedsince the list is bought here, that too based on the suggestions of two renowned reviewers and not one. - Vivvt (Talk) 01:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note – I found a few samples where the statement is not even correctly reproduced. I can do it for the whole article, but finding it difficult to find time as I'm terribly busy in real life. So requesting others to carry out a spotcheck. —Vensatry (ping) 10:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image update

Only 2 Some images are under DR at commons.

Rest all are okay or were kept post DRs. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated some of the images myself for the deletion for not having valid sources. - Vivvt (Talk) 23:54, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strike when images are replaced. --Redtigerxyz Talk 04:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All the suspected images are deleted. - Vivvt (Talk) 17:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
L. V. Prasad img is nominated for deletion. See Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:L.V. Prasad.jpg. --Redtigerxyz Talk 04:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Sitush
Table columns
The year column in the table makes little sense at present because it suggests that the first award was the 17th. I suggest that another column is added - "National Film Awards - and the information split between that and the current "year" column. Or the column title is changed to "National Film Awards" and the contents reformatted to [[17th National Film Awards (India)|17th]] (1969) etc. - Sitush (talk) 06:17, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The year and the number has always been an issue with NFAs. Now being accustomed to it, some regular editors/readers would know how to interpret it. The current format of calling it "Year" and the writing "YYYY(nth)" has been followed on National Film Award for Best Actor and National Film Award for Best Actress; both being FLs. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comparatives. I still think that it jars: we are not necessarily (or, indeed, usually) catering for regular editors and readers. Everyone is new once. That other lists have the same construct might indicate a wider problem. I've only just noticed that this is a FLC - perhaps we should copy/paste these relevant sections from here to the FLC page? Are we allowed to do that? - Sitush (talk) 08:14, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Valid point. I have added (Ceremony) to the column header for better clarification. - Vivvt (Talk) 00:30, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Film industry
I'm not entirely convinced that "Film industry" in the table heading will make much sense to non-Indian readers. We may need some explanation of how Indian cinema is grouped linguistically. Also, since the table is not sortable, we seem to be massively in breach of WP:OVERLINK. That said, I guess that some people might like to re-order the table by film industry or recipient name, so perhaps consider making the thing sortable? - Sitush (talk) 06:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sortablity would hardly be of use when some have more than one industry mentioned. It would only sort by first entry. And then as only one column of names was left worth sorting, the whole table was left unsorted. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I realised that. Thus, we should reduce the overlinking in that column. - Sitush (talk) 07:57, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reduced over-linking. - Vivvt (Talk) 00:32, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clarifications needed
  • CN is requested with reason "something wrong here - introduced in 1969 but he was born in 1870, so it is not the centenary of his birth" for the statement "First presented in 1969, the award marked the centenary birth year of Phalke (1870–1944)".
The award is presented at the NFA ceremony. The NFAs are given for films released from 1st Jan to 31st Dec. So the entries are collected, sorted and whatever, and the awards are declared in the first quarter of next year. In recent few years, the ceremony is being held on 3rd May and the recipients are announced in April or so. So even if the award is actually handed in 1970, it is for the work done in 1969. The award ceremony is popular by its own serial number, but is at times also confused by media between the year presented and the year its actually for. That's how the 1969's award which was presented in 1970 falls under the centenary birth year. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can we explain this? For example, "the awards are made retrospectively, at the NFA for the following year." - Sitush (talk) 08:10, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, this award, in particular, is given for the contribution over the years. So tying it with last and following year would not justify the purpose. - Vivvt (Talk) 01:02, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think my primary point is being missed: we say that Phalke lived 1870 - 1944 but that the award was first presented in 1969 to mark his birth centenary. Since the centenary of his birth was 1970, this makes no sense and it is only if you click on the link to the NFA article that you realise the ceremony was in 1970. Am I really the only person who is confused by this? As Vivvt says, the award recognises a corpus of work rather than a single event and my gut feeling is that the year should show 1970 even though all the other awards doled out at the ceremony are for 1969. Obviously, this then has a knock-on effect for every other entry in the table, which will need advancing by a year. - Sitush (talk) 07:55, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that this is kinda confusing but I am not sure how to address this concern. We cannot simply add up years by one because in the past we have had two of the NFA ceremonies in a single year. Like, 16th-17th in 1970, 46th-47th in 2000, 49th-50th in 2003, 51st-52nd in 2005, and 56th-57th in 2010. So this would not solve the problem. Rather should we say that it "marked a beginning of the centenary birth year"? - Vivvt (Talk) 19:35, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Did it? How can 1969 mark the beginning of 1970? I really don't know what the answer is here and I think we need extra input. Is there a way to highlight this issue? - Sitush (talk) 17:02, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the centenary part for now along with the tag. I dont see it getting resolved soon. I would raise an RfC probably sometime later.
OK. - Sitush (talk) 00:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • CN is requested with reason "what is the point here? the statement is a non sequitor" for the statement "While Prithviraj Kapoor is the only recipient to have been bestowed the honour posthumously,[6] his son Raj Kapoor was also awarded in 1988." and probably on the footnote "In 1972, Raj Kapoor received the posthumous award given to his father, Prithviraj Kapoor. However, on 1 May 1988, when he was being conferred the award by the then President of India, R. Venkataraman, Kapoor had an asthmatic attack and was rushed in the President's ambulance. Kapoor died a month later on 2 June 1988."
The paragraph later on talks about the related recipients. And we have to somehow mention the relation of these two Kapoors. We also had to mention that Sr. Kapoor was awarded posthumously. For me, the link of son accepting the award and then being rushed to hospital and eventually dying was interesting. To not give undue importance to it, it was added as footnote instead of the main body. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting that the information should be removed entirely from the thing. My point is that there is no connection other than name between the two parts of the statement and thus the phrasing - especially the "but" - is wrong. "But" creates a dependency between two clauses - eg: "bread tastes nice straight out of the oven but less so when it is stale" rather than "bread tastes nice straight out of the oven but is made from wheat that grows in fields". - Sitush (talk) 08:10, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Does this makes sense? "As of 2013, there have been 45 awardees and Prithviraj Kapoor is the only posthumous recipient awarded in 1971. Kapoor's actor-filmmaker son Raj Kapoor, who accepted the award on his behalf, was also awarded [with Dadasaheb Phalke Award] in 1988."[Footnote] - Vivvt (Talk) 01:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sitush: Please see if we could provide necessary clarification for the tags. - Vivvt (Talk) 15:26, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot this, sorry. Your draft is not great English. Try "As of 2013, there have been 45 awardees. Among those was the sole posthumous recipient, being Prithviraj Kapoor in 1971. His actor-filmmaker son, Raj Kapoor, accepted the award on his behalf and was himself a recipient in 1988." Or something close to it. - Sitush (talk) 17:02, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Sitush:Changed a bit. Please see if its suitable and remove the clarify tag if its alright. - Vivvt (Talk) 23:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's fine by me. I'm sorry if I have been a pain - I was asked to copyedit and have been drawn into a process of which I have no prior experience. - Sitush (talk) 00:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rather, you were fabulous with your comments. We were looking for a native speaker to do copyediting and your edits were much helpful in the process. - Vivvt (Talk) 06:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Awardee names in tables
  • With apologies but this first time at a FLC has brought out the pedant in me. We say Devika Rani Chaudhuri Roerich but our article is titled Devika Rani and a cached version of the DFF source for the table also seems to use the shorter form (the live site is not accessible to me here). We also say B. N. Sircar when our article is Birendranath Sircar, and in this instance I can't even see what the DFF prefers from the cached version.
I'm not trawling through every line of the table but do we need to standardise? There may be a fight between COMMONNAME and what the DFF says in some cases but we probably need to follow either one or the other rather than mixing things up. I guess that some of these issues are because our article titles do not always follow COMMONNAME even though they are supposed to do but others might be because the DFF adopt a more formal tone. - Sitush (talk) 08:07, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thats correct. Its very confusing at a times. So, changing table entries to the current wiki article names. Moving them to COMMONNAME needs another discussion and is out of the scope for this FLC. - Vivvt (Talk) 17:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dr. Blofeld:, @Krimuk90:, and @Redtigerxyz: Please let me know if I have resolved your concerns. We got the list copyedited by a native speaker recently. Please see if you still see any issues. - Vivvt (Talk) 06:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather see inline citations in the description part rather than one in a column referencing the claims directly as I suspect for some the one source won't cover all of the claims in it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:49, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please let me know which claims are unsourced? I would rather not like to have it changed to the inline than ref column as most of the FLCs follow the same format and I personally find it tidy. - Vivvt (Talk) 13:06, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome to ask one of the delegates on this. My feeling is that when you make several strong claims about somebody in a column the facts should be directly attributed. Does the one source in each column really back up all of the claims made in each?? For me it would look tidier and more easily verifiable if you removed the reference column and used inline citations in the column. Will be willing to support once changed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With two of the reviewers suggesting the same thing..working on it. - Vivvt (Talk) 15:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose. Good job. :) However, I would strongly recommend that the quotes used in the notes column be sourced with an inline citation. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 05:54, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tending to Support
    • I have checked all images now. Only File:D. Ramanaidu.jpg is a problem, which I have nominated for deletion.
      • The file is removed from commons. However, I had put up a reason on the talk page why it should not be deleted but forgot to remove the tag on the file and it got deleted in the meantime. Bad timing!
        • I am not sure about the rationale on talk. You can ask for the complete text from OTRS of the permission. As far as I remember, there was a discussion on commons somewhere. Only under section Parties & Events are allowed. Redtigerxyz Talk 15:25, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I will check with some of the admins on Commons about it. - Vivvt (Talk) 18:11, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • In terms of text, the word only in "are the only siblings"; seems a little odd. You are naming 3 pairs; not only one pair Redtigerxyz Talk 13:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support: Waiting for your edits on Refs In Refs column, retain the ref that says that the award was given to XYZ in a particular year. Please move refs besides those quotes in descriptions. --Redtigerxyz Talk 15:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support You should archive all web references. However, that does not stop me from supporting. :) Redtigerxyz Talk 13:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the suggestion. Most of the URLs were already archived by other users, I archived a few of them now. - Vivvt (Talk) 05:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the sources to be inline with the text. I still have kept one source from DFF at the header of the table which indicates the year in which award was given. Please let me know if you think multiple sources are required for any of the claims. - Vivvt (Talk) 18:11, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Dr. Blofeld: and @Redtigerxyz:: I am finished with the references. Please see if it needs more work or you have any other suggestions before the nominations gets archived. - Vivvt (Talk) 01:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A pity that it took other editors commenting to bring about the change I'd been on about for a while but this is much improved from when it was originally nominated and I'm now content with it. Good effort!♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I was looking into promoting this, but I am concerned over the possibility of source misrepresentation. I am not too concerned over the only brothers (iff this list is complete, and iff they are the only brothers/siblings on the list, then that's enough referencing for me). However, I'd like a source spotcheck anyways, just in case. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not much sure but do we have to ask an uninvolved editor to do spotcheck or can it be done by currently involved editors? Or would it be done by delegates? - Vivvt (Talk) 03:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • An uninvolved editor is enough. Perhaps one of the earlier reviewers? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:31, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spotchecks

On this version:

  • Ref 2 for "selected by a committee consisting of eminent personalities from the Indian film industry". The parts of the google book page linked that I can see says "sub-committee would recommend that a small committee consisting of eminent persons...". So, this reference states that a certain sub-commitee is recommending setting up of a committee for the Phalke award. I could not find the year of that recommendation, and what happened to that recommendation. I think this inadequate to support the sentence.
Since 57th National Film Awards (2009), DFF started mentioning about the committee members for the award in their official catalogue. So I would have at least 5 sources to support the statement. Should I add those along with the existing source?
You should add at least one good additional source.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Added sources from 57-58th NFA official catalogues. - Vivvt (Talk) 18:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 3. Checks out fine. No copyvio problems.
  • Ref 6. "Vidura" - the hyperlink is giving a 404 error to me. Also, the citation itself "C. Sarkar. "Vidura". Vidura. Press Institute of India 25. Retrieved 24 May 2014.", what is it? I mean, a chater called Vidura in a journal called Vidura?
Darn. Its a dead-link now. Let me find another source.
Added two sources. One for RK receiving award on behalf of PRK and another for RK getting the award himself. - Vivvt (Talk) 18:37, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks ok.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 10. At page 72 of the Nihalni, Chatterjee, Gulzar book, I did not see any sentence supporting the data. Maybe I am seeing some other edition of the book. Can you please point out which sentence(s) in the book supports the fact in the article?
Here is the related sentences for Mangeshkar sisters. "Of those who began their playback careers after independence, the Mangeshkar Sisters, Lata and Asha (professionally known as Asha Bhosle), dominated the women's scene right into the 21st century." and "Lata and Asha are the daughters of the noted singer and actor, Dinanath Mangeshkar."
It's fine.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 15. The Gulzar Nihalni book, page 632. This is not available for me to see in google book. So, could not check.
The page is accessible for me. Here is the snippet... "Subhash Chandra Bose inaugurated Sircar's theatre, Chitra (now called Mitra), on December 30, 1930. Since Chitra only screened Bengali films, Sircar opened another theatre, New Cinema, for screening Hindi films."
Thanks for the sentence. It's fine, then.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 17. Checks out fine.
  • Ref 18. Should there be a space between the comma and the succeeding page numbers?
I'm not sure what does MOS say for this.
I believe there should be a space (non-breaking space?) after comma.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. - Vivvt (Talk) 18:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 21. Checks out fine.
  • Ref 26. Checks out fine.
  • Ref 32. Ok
  • Ref 39. One of the top ten greatest performances. I failed to see this mentioned in the source. Is the source a part of "top ten" slides/gallery?
I believe its part of slide as it has left-right nav arrow. Here is the direct link which mentions "Great Performances Raj Kapoor, Awara By Richard Corliss Jan. 19, 2010"
Still not convinced for this one. The article/series referred to discusses top 100 films; I did not see anything on "top 10 greatest performances of all time".--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well. There is no explicit heading but the link "Great Performances" above RK and one on the right hand side lists ten performances from various movies starting from Marlon Brando in On the Waterfront till Brigitte Lin in Swordsman II. I dont think TIME has given such explicit heading for these ten entries. Please advice if this is not convincing. - Vivvt (Talk) 18:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for the guide. Yes, now I can see that the performance by Raj Kapoor in Awara is included in the top performances slideshow (which has total of ten entries). Yes, now it appears appropriate.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 46. Checks out fine.
  • Ref 49. OK.
  • Ref 55. Checks out fine.
  • Ref 61. Fine.
  • Ref 62. Fine.
  • Ref 64. Fine.
  • Ref 68. Fine.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have answered some of the concerns so far. Let me circle back with rest. - Vivvt (Talk) 18:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I performed some random spotchecks A few issues came up, which were properly addressed. The resut of this random spotcheck is convincing. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:47, 21 July 2014 (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://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Dadasaheb_Phalke_Award/archive1&oldid=1136094276"