Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lage Raho Munna Bhai


 * 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 04:21, 5 May 2007.

Lage Raho Munna Bhai
previous FAC

Article about a Bollywood comedy film that has created great interest, and revived the tenets of Gandhism (principles of Mahatma Gandhi) in India. Besides being a very popular film, it has made strong cultural impacts. The article is a Good Article, thanks to the excellent effort of User:Classicfilms.

The previous FAC was a bit premature (version during the previous FAC is this). It's a pleasure to nominate the article for FAC. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to add that a number of people contributed to this article. Looking forward to your feedback. -Classicfilms 21:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Object - Non-free images lack article-specific fair use rationale, per Non-free content criteria.  Pagra shtak  21:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply Removed two images. Fair use rationale for Image:Munnaradio.jpg seems to be ok. I request you to please review the rationale. If it still seems not permissible, the image will be removed. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Image:Lage raho munna bhai.JPG and Image:Lagerahodvdcover.jpg have no fair use rationale.  Pagra shtak  16:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You also noted here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lage_Raho_poster2.jpg that Image:Lage Raho poster2.jpg needs to be smaller - could you specify the exact dimensions it should be reduced to? -Classicfilms 16:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Reply The size of Image:Lage Raho poster2.jpg has been reduced from previous 104 kb to 34 kb. Image:Lage raho munna bhai.JPG and Image:Lagerahodvdcover.jpg have been provided with fair use rationale for the article. Please see. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The dimensions of the image are still large. Right now it's 750&times;563, but the article doesn't require an image nearly that large. It could easily be half that size with no detriment to the article.  Pagra shtak  05:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Done Reduced. Now it's 350&times;263, size is 12 kb. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your work, objection struck.  Pagra shtak  05:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Pagra for your help! -Classicfilms 20:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Support- This article must be a FA beacuse it meets all the required criteria. I accept the fault of nominating the article previously, and it is now much better than the previous nomination. Amartyabag   TALK2ME  15:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Amartya, thanks for the comment. However, nominating previously was not a fault! It's rather unfortunate that the article could not be upgraded during the previous FAC. Thanks for your enthusiasm. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Support. Nice improvements from last time. A question I have is the chai-wallah incident, I can't see how that is important enough to mention. Unless perhaps someone important told the story. Similar for the statement "Several real life incidences followed that were inspired by the themes repeated in the film." in the lead. I don't get a sense from that of how it is important enough to be mentioned. It can also be phrased much more encyclopedically as something like "The film has impacted life outside the film in a number of ways", and then tell us what about those things is important. Also the box office section could use more numbers if they are available. How many tickets were sold, how much revenue, and exactly how well did it do overseas. It doesn't need a volume of material on that, but I think it should be standard for a successful movie to tell us the box office numbers. Close to support. - Taxman Talk 18:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for the suggestions. Please check back in 24 hours. Have to sleep now (it's past midnight here in India)!--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Reply Available figures added in box-office. Chai-walla incident was mentioned by director Hirani in an interview. The incident (and some more observations by the director) has now been incorporated as quoted text. The sentence in the lead has been changed per the suggestion. Please see. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 09:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks good. I fixed the info a bit based on what the source reported. I removed "nett", since I've never heard of nett gross, and that's not what the source said anyway. If I made an error, let me know of course. The lead could stand to be three full paragraphs, but it reasonably summarizees the article now, so it's not a huge problem. - Taxman Talk 19:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Taxman - you were right to remove "nett" from the overseas, but the source for the 2006 earnings does use "nett gross" - "nett gross" is defined here, at the bottom of the page. I'm wondering if you could elaborate more about the lead paragraph - what information do you feel needs to be added? -Classicfilms 20:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Support A very good encyclopedic source of information well structured meeting all the criteria for a film FA on wikipedia - featured articles always have that something special -in this case it involves the cultural influence of Gandhi -further information which takes it beyond a GA. Maybe one of two sentences need polishing up to avoid repetition particularly the synopsis but this article has seen considerable improvement since the GA review visibly. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" Contribs 10:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Could you give me an idea of what areas need work? -Classicfilms 20:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment, rather narrowly, I think it would be nice if there weren't visible jpeg artifact on the film poster. Limited resolution is necessary, but, the low resolution images should be sharp. gren グレン 18:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm... Do you suggest increasing the size of those poster images?--Dwaipayan (talk) 09:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Per the suggestion you gave in my talk page, a new poster has been instituted in the infobox. However, the size is 43kb, and 490 × 368 pixel. Please comment if it is better, and also if it is acceptable for fair use. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Support Meets the criterion from a to e fine. I only have two observations - (1) at 53 kilo it may be a bit too long; and (2) the surprise blockbuster stuff may be worth mentioning in the lead, the same goes for the wave of Gandhigiri stuff. Cheers. Aditya Kabir 20:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I moved material above and removed some material to reduce the length. If you see other material to trim, please do so. Thanks for the feedback. -Classicfilms 21:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In the present version, the size is 50 kb (52,017 bytes). However, readable prose size, as depicted here and here  is less than 30 kb. In fact it is only 24,194 bytes. So I request Aditya to reconsider his observation on size. However, that does not mean trimming is unwelcome. Rather, good trimming would help the article become more easily readable. We'll try --Dwaipayan (talk) 10:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In this version (3 May), the size is 53 kb (55,964 bytes). Will update the readable prose size soon.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Support - Informative and well written. - P.K.Niyogi 00:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Despite not liking the film, this is a very well written article; but are footnotes alone enough?-- Wolf  talk 08:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks - though I'm wondering if you could elaborate on the comment about footnotes. What else would you like to see? -Classicfilms 13:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply Hmm... well, some media-related Featured Articles are based on footnotes alone, without any separate section on references. For example, The West Wing (TV series) and Lost (TV series). Some film-related FAs are there based primarily on footnotes, such as V for Vendetta (film) and Tenebrae (film). However, the last two examples use some book-sources, though those books are not listed separately under references.
 * IMO, this article satisfies WP:V. Yes, there are no separate reference section, since no single source has been extensively used as a reference. Multiple sources have been used, and hence footnotes were thought to be more appropriate. No publications (books etc) have been published on the movie yet (AFAIK). If such books were available, of course we'd have tried to incorporate details from those.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I added a few comprehensive references. -Classicfilms 18:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Classicfilms for adding the references. Being the principal creator of the article, you know the best which sources have been used extensively so as to place them under "References". :)--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Support :-)  Wolf  talk 17:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Support - A very well written article which meets the required criteria. -- Pa7 16:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Support - Great article on a great topic! I have a few suggestions that may be helpful in improving the article, but the article is good enough to be FA even without these.
 * Under 'Influences and allusions', the similarities between Munnabhai MBBS and Patch Adams can be added. I would say that is a more strongly evident influence than anything in Parineeta.
 * The not-so-subtle reference to Bollywood's love for numerology, especially the double K is a humorous minor theme that can be explored in more detail.
 * More on how the Munnabhai series celebrates the Tapori culture of Mumbai, and uses it as a contrasting background for talking about humanism in medicine or integrity in day to day life.
 * I don't see why the comment by Shastri Ramachandran in Reviews section deserves special quotes. Sure, its superlative praise, but so is everything else above it.
 * -- Longhairandabeard 18:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply (1) Influnces and allusions - good point. Will try (depending on adequate source abiding by WP:V)
 * (2) Bollywood's love for numerology - probably would be difficult to get good ref per WP:V and WP:RS that this thing in the film was satirical to Bollywood's numerology fad. Where do you suggest to incorporate the exploration (if possible)? Plot is not the best place to do so, as it would increase the size of plot.
 * (3) Celebrating Tapori culture - Again, depends on good ref. And more appropriate for Munna Bhai series. However, an interesting aspect. Would be great to have at least some lines.
 * (4) Done.
 * Thanks a lot for exploring some newer aspects. However I fear without good refs, points 2 and 3 may sound like WP:OR, even if we understand that this is prbably true :) Will try, nevertheless. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * More Both Hirani and Vidhu Vinod Chopra  denies influence of Patch Adams on Munna Bhai MBBS. Reports  vary though. In any case, this article won't be a good place to discuss that, IMO. --Dwaipayan (talk) 19:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, actually the fact that people so closely associated with the project have commented on it makes it a must to be included in the article. A short line that says "some people have drawn similarities between a and b but this has been refuted by x (cite) and z (cite)."--Blacksun 09:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It is a point which already exists in the Munnabhai MBBS article (see trivia) - since this is a topic about a different film, how would you suggest writing the sentence so that it ties to this film (the film Parineeta is only mentioned by name in this article, for example - the use of allusion is discussed only in the article Parineeta itself - for consistency we could change the sentence to say "such as Munnabhai MBBS and Parineeta" - if we add the details for one film, we should add for both). -Classicfilms 13:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Aha yes, that makes sense. I did not realize it had more to do with the original film.  Never mind then.--Blacksun 08:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - Great job guys.--Blacksun 09:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Support: Article good as it is well-sourced but only one small prob - Budget: 12 crores....but no source and also a source for the release date will make make it better.--KnowledgeHegemony 17:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay so IMDB says 12 crores (estimated) acc. to http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0456144/business and also - http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/2006/0LARM.php. says the same... But I don't know how to use these link as sources so I leave to others.
 * I added a reference for the release date (date is also given on IMDB). This fact cannot be given on the page, but I also saw the film on opening night and know that it was September 1. As for the estimated budget, IMDB does not list a secondary source for it - it would be nice to have that to confirm the amount. -Classicfilms 18:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Added a reference for the estimated budget. Can it be considerd as a secondary source for the IMDb data? Don't know.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Support - Comprehensive coverage. Well written. Well sourced. --Indianstar 04:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.