Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kalidas (film)/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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 15:21, 12 September 2015.

Kalidas (film)

 * Nominator(s): Kailash29792 (talk) 12:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

This article is about Tamil cinema's first sound film, which also happens to be the first sound film in South India. After it successfully passed its GA nomination (nominated by me) and went through many copyedits, especially by GOCE veteran Bafflegab, it should be fine for FAC. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Pavanjandhyala

 * four book references show problems. Rectify them.
 * I checked, they actually work in my server. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * They are showing accesing issues. I hope you can rectify them. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 08:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC) at Teahouse called it a side effect of the Wayback Machine. Thus, i find it not a concern as the links are working. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 12:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * All the three Images require Alt text.
 * Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Imperial Movi-Tone does not have an article. Can you please explain why a redlink exists?
 * Done. Unlinked. Actually, it was Bafflegab who added it, and I thought an article could be created on it. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Prasad also acted in Alam Ara and Bhakta Prahlada—the first Telugu sound film—earning the distinction of appearing in three of the first sound films in India — This is more relevant in Prasad's article. Here, it sounds a bit trivial.
 * Done. Instead written that Kalidas was his second film following Alam Ara. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * For all the content the section has, it is relevant to rename the section "Release" to "Release and reception"
 * Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * "Kalidas was the only Tamil film to be produced and released in 1931. No print or gramophone record of the film is known to have survived, making it a lost film. The time of the film's loss has not been documented, although The Indian Express stated in 2014 that the film "turned to dust" long before the National Film Archive of India was established in 1964." — These sentences should start the section, preceding the existing sentences.
 * Like how? Kailash29792 (talk) 04:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Like this. "Kalidas was the only Tamil film to be produced and released.......before the National Film Archive of India was established in 1964" should be the first paragraph. "Kalidas became a trendsetter for sound films in Tamil cinema.......the end should be the second paragraph. This is because, we have to mention about the film first and its influence on others later. That ensures a better flow for the readers. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 08:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Kannada remake should have been mentioned in the lead.
 * Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I expect the nominator to either rectify them or give an explanation regarding them here if required within a reasonable period of time. Yours sincerely, Pavanjandhyala (talk) 17:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I found no other issues from my perspective in the meantime. Thus, i lend my support. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 12:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Ssven2

 * "it features P. G. Venkatesan as the central male character" — "it features P. G. Venkatesan as the titular character".
 * Written as asked. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * "Kalidas was released amid much hype on 31 October 1931—Diwali." — "Kalidas was released amidst high expectations on 31 October 1931, coinciding with Diwali."
 * Written as asked. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * "she was "the automatic choice to play the heroine."" — According to who?
 * Randor Guy. Written that. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

That's all from me. I lend my support. — Ssven2  Speak 2 me '' 07:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Edwininlondon

 * Support - All my comments have been addressed now. Did not check sources or image rights. Great to have another Indian topic as FA. Edwininlondon (talk) 20:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Support -- Note: I have conducted a dozen or so edits on this article prior to my support here. Those edits have been minor prose fixes only and I have not added anything substantial. Thus I don't consider my support to be in anyway bias. This is a very nice article and tells an interesting story about one of India's first films.  I believe it meets all FA criteria.   Cassianto Talk   07:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Support: Well-written and very informative. Plus, there are no major issues.— Prashant 07:27, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment The USD values given for the INR are incorrect. According to these figures, the exchange rate seems 62.5; however, in 1931 the INR-USD exchange rate was definitely not 62.5. You need to use the 1931 exchange rate.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:18, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have changed the amount based on a new source. Kailash29792 (talk) 19:03, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Since it's a lost film, the plot summary must be cited to reliable sources (because it can't be verified by watching the film). If possible you should mention how even this much of the plot is known.—indopug (talk) 16:26, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Done as you asked. Kailash29792 (talk) 19:03, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments from

 * Support – the comments I had added have all been resolved. -- Frankie  talk 09:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Reviewed this earlier. Considering it's a 1931 non Hindi film I think it's very impressive that you've managed to write all that about it. A nice little article which meets FA criteria in my opinion.♦ Dr. Blofeld  09:49, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Certainly gets my vote. First Class! — &#124; Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh Buzzard&#124; — 12:30, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Support from RO

 * Lead
 * It is most notable for being the first Tamil-language sound film, and the first sound film to be made in South India.
 * I'd drop "It is most notable", as it's kinds self-explanatory.
 * Changed it to simply "it is noted". — Ssven2  Speak 2 me '' 00:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Plot
 * the minister finds an illiterate cowherd
 * Although one can figure this out by the context, I was unfamiliar with the term "cowherd". Is there a good Wikilink we could use here?
 * Linked it to Cowman (profession) if that's alright. — Ssven2  Speak 2 me '' 00:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Cast
 * This section needs a citation.
 * Done — Ssven2  Speak 2 me '' 00:34, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Production
 * according to different sources.[11][d] According to film historian Film News Anandan
 * I'd copyedit so we aren't using "according to" twice in this part.
 * Done Changed the first "according to" to "as per" if that's alright. — Ssven2  Speak 2 me '' 00:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * the film was produced in a "hurry",
 * Copyedit/paraphrase this to avoid this one-word quote.
 * Done — Ssven2  Speak 2 me '' 00:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Music
 * According to
 * I recently had to break this habit, but I think it would be nice to remove as many of these "according to"s as you can.
 * Done — Ssven2  Speak 2 me '' 00:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

This is an especially well-written article, and I only found a few very minor quibbles, which I've listed above. I'm happy to support on the prose, which is quite enjoyable and well presented. Nicely done. Keep up the great work! RO (talk) 15:57, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Conclusion

Coordinator note: Has there been a source review? If not, please request at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. -- Laser brain  (talk)  01:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * There has been no source review, not even image reviews. I suggest that someone do them ASAP. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Sorry for coming late to this. I have read through the article and since the above comments relate to the prose side of things, I'm happy enough that the article is comprehensive and meets the FA criteria. Well done on this. JAG  UAR   16:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Image review

 * Photographs and cinematographic works become PD in India 60 years after publication; all images in this article are from 1931, so they are fine. As for US copyright, the images were PD in their home country before 1996, so they should be fine there as well. There is some text on some of the images though, and I'm a bit unsure if it is covered by the cited laws. FunkMonk (talk) 19:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * An image is an image, and it should comply with the laws. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, that would depend on the jurisdiction, whether there is freedom of panorama in India or not (there isn't). But I assume the text is covered under "other works", so I guess it is alright. FunkMonk (talk) 17:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Source review
Reading though now....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yves Thoraval book needs an ISBN, as do 4 3 other books in Bibliography section (and don't forget hyphens)
 * Newpaper articles generally have authors - some appear to be missing.
 * Some articles just don't have credited authors and are published anonymously, like the following:
 * this (which reads Express News Service, should I add it though?)
 * this
 * this
 * this (although the agency is United News of India, which I have already written)
 * this. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that happens. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:01, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Otherwise look ok. I will do some spot checking shortly. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:11, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't need allcaps in an title of a reference.

Ok, going by this version of the page to ensure correlation of soruces.
 * Ref 14, used four times. Article faithful to source.
 * Ref 16, used twice. Article faithful to source.
 * Ref 30, used twice. Article faithful to source.
 * Ref 38, used twice. Article faithful to source.

Earwig's has one issue but I think it is the WP text exported that is coming up as a false positive.

So spot checking looking ok. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

-- Laser brain  (talk)  15:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.