Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mother India/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 list was promoted by 10:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC).

Mother India

 * Nominator(s): Dr. ☠ Blofeld ; Dwaipayan (talk);  Redtigerxyz  Talk 15:32, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

A tale of a woman's battle against the world, Mother India (1957) is an epic Indian film which was the most expensive as well as highest grossing Bollywood film at that time and even made it to the Oscars. The article has been GA since last March. The article underwent an exhaustive peer review by User:Crisco 1492, User:Tim riley, User:Bollyjeff and User:Mark Arsten, and was copyedited by User:Rothorpe. We are nominating this article for featured article because in our opinion, it satisfies all FA criteria after the copyedit and the peer review. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 15:32, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm leaning support now, but I'm worried that I may be too involved in the text and thus be missing something. As such, I'll wait until another editor does a review before (maybe) supporting. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

 Oppose , 1 b,c,d All issues raised here have been resolved, supported below. The section on Themes is lacking in comprehensiveness and neutrality.
 * An excessive amount of space has been devoted to the identification of Radha with the whole Hindu pantheon, while the connection between the mild–mannered, obedient Ramu and Rama, the transgressive Birju and Krishna is left out.
 * Added about Shamu too. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 18:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The patriarchal overtones of the film have been completely ignored. Not all critics believe that the film broke female stereotypes. Jyotika Virdi alludes to what Tarini Sridharan states rather succinctly in The Hindu, "the film is about ‘Mother India’, not ‘Woman’ India — carrying with it suggestions of patriarchy and male domination via a hitherto unseen route — the cloaking of patriarchy in maternal power." Many aspects of the film like giving birth to two sons to upholding patriarchal notions which oppresses women like honour (izzat) are interpreted as a reinforcement of gender stereotypes by Sridharan and others. In light of this, the emphatic declarations of empowerment of women need to be balanced.
 * Added. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 18:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Despite the protagonist's struggle against feudal oppression depicted in the film, the ending upholds the status quo— the feudal and patriarchal order. It is touched upon in Rushdie's quote, but needs to be taken up in more detail.
 * (updated comment) Borrowed your lines. Added "to protect the patriarchal village structure". "Despite Radha's struggle against feudal oppression depicted in the film, her action of stopping the rebellious Birju and upholding status quo—the feudal and patriarchal order—is seen as "regressive" by various authors". Please let us know if your comment is addressed. Redtigerxyz  Talk 06:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This sentence would fit better into the paragraph about liberation from feudal and colonial oppression. Both the sources above refer to Mother India as a "complicit text", within the "dominant discourse", "regressive" etc. because of Radha's role in preventing a change in the power structure of the society. This needs to be highlighted in the sentence above and contrasted with the existing paragraph. Correct Knowledge  «৳alk»  23:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Reorganized. Both views are now stated. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 08:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Oedipal elements/symbolism in the relationship between Birju and Radha are covered extensively in almost all the sources I came across. At least a short paragraph on this is due in the themes section.
 * (updated comment) A para is added. Redtigerxyz  Talk 17:58, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The paragraph is still missing a few important aspects. At least a sentence needs to be included on how obsession with Radha's bracelets symbolizes Birju's incestuous longings. Radha's actions at the end of the film also need to be analyzed in an oedipal context, Virdi will be of some help here. Please note how she interprets Birju's sexual advance on a village girl (which is incest in North India) as being a substitute in the plot for the incestuous mother–son relationship and his death at the end as a punishment for violation of the taboo. Perhaps the paraphrase of William van der Heide is saying the same thing, but the implication is not very clear from the sentence. Is the last line, " ...something extremely rare in Hindi cinema." really needed in a themes section? Correct Knowledge  «৳alk»  21:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Added. Again stealing your lines. :) " ...something extremely rare in Hindi cinema" indicates uncommon theme. Redtigerxyz  Talk 06:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


 * "The film scholar Vijay Mishra has seen Nargis's portrayal... being a Muslim, as an allegory of the increasing symbiosis of religions in a multicultural and multi-ethnic society." is not an accurate paraphrasing of the source. First off, Mishra does not claim this. His own argument revolves around the fact that Nargis' "Muslimness" became significant only in post–Ayodhya India when Sanjay Dutt was arrested under Terrorism and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act. Mishra, however, reads an "implicit argument" in Das Gupta's analysis of the movie favouring the theory that a Muslim actor playing a Hindu role is a result of emerging cultural symbiosis. Parama Roy has a different take on this; to Roy, Nargis' acceptance is a result of Hinduization, so to speak, of the role. Besides, multicultural and multi-ethnic society etc. is an exaggeration, only Hindus and Muslims are being dealt with in the reference.
 * Roy view is also added. Redtigerxyz  Talk 17:58, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Rushdie's comment on Mother India, "In Mother India, a piece of Hindu myth-making directed by a Muslim socialist...", is taken from a passage in his novel The Moor's Last Sigh. I am not sure whether a passage from a fictional work, without contextualization, can be used as a writer's authoritative take on anything. Through the passage, Rushdie explains Khan's Mother India to his readers and contrasts it with his own Aurora Zogoiby. Mishra sees some "metacritical value" in it, but by itself the quote adds little to the section other than supporting the phrases "highly syncretic" etc. which themselves seem superficial. Given that the sources used in the article deal with the presence of Muslims in the movie in depth, the whole paragraph needs to be summarized better to reflect the diverse views on this.
 * IMO, it is a perfect summary of Mother India, considering diverse views. We are using Mishra (a secondary source), not Rushdie's work. Rushdie talks about status quo as well as redemptive; Oedipal elements as well as loving mother. Redtigerxyz  Talk 17:58, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You have contextualized the quote, so it's alright now. Correct Knowledge  «৳alk»  21:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * A final suggestion about the writing style used in themes section. The section (particularly para 4) currently reads like a collection of loosely connected, paraphrased quotes rather than a coherent elucidation of prominent themes in the film. This style might work for other sections, but frequently jumping from one author/theme to another within a paragraph and using too many direct quotes breaks the reading flow.
 * When numerous authors have same view, name dropping removed. Also some quotes paraphrased for better flow. Redtigerxyz  Talk 08:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

On a cursory glance, the other sections look well written and up to FA criteria. However, IMO, the themes section and associated content in the lead require a substantial rewrite. Regards. Correct Knowledge «৳alk»  07:33, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Good points, but judging by your swift response here, it seems you were aware of this nomination, not sure why you didn't bring this up during the peer review.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  14:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Correct Knowledge, it is good to know that only 1 section may have issues. Will work over it on the weekend. Redtigerxyz  Talk 17:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This caught my eye a week ago. I should have stopped you from archiving the peer review. I'm sorry. :) Correct Knowledge  «৳alk»  18:08, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries, thanks for your input.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  18:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Haha, that's a really funny sorry video :)
 * Yeah, all the points you mentioned are pretty much workable, I think. So, will work on those, soon.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done
 * Don't include quote-initial ellipses
 * Removed.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:51, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Note b: this seems a bit iffy in terms of OR
 * Any suggestion? How about "The exact year when the loan was borrowed is not mentioned in the film, so the value is given in 1957 (year of release of the film) exchange rate" ? --Dwaipayan (talk) 23:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * FN28: page(s)?
 * Page range provided.--Dwaipayan (talk) 23:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Fn40, 56: page formatting
 * Formatted.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:51, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Asian Cinema: what kind of source is this?
 * This is a journal. So, the citation is incorrectly formatted. The Google book provides a snippet view, and the page number provided in the snippet view matches with the page number mentioned in the article. However, the full citation could not be obtained. So, I have emailed the editor of the journal if they can provide the full citation. Otherwise, this will have to be removed.--Dwaipayan (talk) 23:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Reference removed. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 17:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Retrieval dates aren't needed for GBooks links
 * Done I think.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  21:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, but hyperlinks to the particular page are acceptable, right?--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Removed google book links too as complete page range not available in all. Redtigerxyz  Talk 18:35, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Lall: why is the archive title different?
 * This I could not figure out. The archive name is appearing in that way automatically, whereas the the title of the page is now copy of the title of that piece. Confused!--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:51, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 17:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * What makes this a high-quality reliable source?
 * Sorry I could not find out where this website/url is used in this article. Can you please point that out. Yes, this does not look like a reliable source.--Dwaipayan (talk) 23:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Be consistent in whether you abbreviate page ranges
 * No, we are not abbreviating page range. If we have incorrectly abbreviated page range in any citation, and you see it, can you please notify here, or change it in the article?--Dwaipayan (talk) 23:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Check alphabetization of Bibliography
 * Extremely sorry for such mistake. I corrected the faults.--Dwaipayan (talk) 23:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Why do some single-author books in Bibliography include page numbers? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:57, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Think I've removed page numbers now.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  21:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Support I peer reviewed and was impressed then. The article has since moved onwards and upwards and seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. Tim riley (talk) 20:09, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Tim riley for your comments in PR and your support here. Redtigerxyz  Talk 13:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Support The article meets FA criteria in my opinion. Just one caveat - the weight given for the comparison with Radha (the lover of lord Krishna) with the central character is a bit heavy. While the mythological character was a lady love, the movie character is devotional to her husband post marriage. A pic of Kali can be appropriate over the current pic of Radha Krishna as the central theme revolves around ultimate self-sacrifice (and good over bad in climax).Ssriram mt (talk) 15:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ssriram for your support and comment. The protagonist Radha of this film has been said to have shades of different gods and goddesses, as described in the theme section of the article. It's definitely difficult to choose one. However, her husband (in film) has been compared to Krishna, her son Birju has been compared to Krishna; plus she is the namesake of mythological Radha. So many suggestions/indication prompted us to incorporate the image of Radha and Krishna. I still think this is a more appropriate image than Kali.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... While Dwaipayan's rationale about Radha-Krishna is sound, the romance in the filmy Radha's life is limited. The terrible Kali seems appropriate for a mother who kills her child, but no author found till now gave the detailed explanation of comparison to Kali. Another option will be to replace the Radha-Krishna with a more secular Bharat Mata, explicit comparison with goddess and India as a whole. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 17:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Kept both images. 2 images look better in this long section IMO. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 18:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This looks fine. Ssriram mt (talk) 21:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments by SchroCat


 * Regardless of whether the minor point of cite bundling takes place or not, this is certainly an FA-standard article. Well done all who have obviously worked hard to get it to such a standard. - SchroCat (talk) 18:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support. Most of the bundling is addressed. Hope I did not miss any. :) -- Redtigerxyz Talk 18:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

As always, unless I indicate otherwise, please do not take any of the following as prescriptive demands, but suggestions for consideration.
 * Infobox
 * Any reason why the US release date is in the infobox? No need for it per WP:FILMRELEASE.
 * Removed US release date from infobox.
 * Title
 * Unless you have a reason not to, I'd suggest moving the citation for the quote to after the quote, rather than before;
 * Placed the citation after the quote.
 * Script
 * Is there a reason for putting "7,350 US$", rather than "US$7,350", as per MOS:CURRENCY? I appreciate that Indian currency is expressed as 35,000 ₹, but the US currency should appear as it always does, n'est pas? (Feel free to tell me I'm wrong on this—the MOS isn't entirely clear on the point). I'll also point out that the Release section has both rupee and dollar as " ₹ 1,173,000,000 (US$21,348,600)", so one of them will have to change anyway for the sake of consistency!
 * Currency symbols and their usage made consistent (unless I missed any).
 * Themes
 * The strings of references are slightly off-putting. Have you thought about WP:BUNDLING to make it slightly easier on the reader? (This applies in a couple of other place too, such as Release).
 * I do not know how to bundle footnotes while using sfn. Any suggestions?
 * SchroCat, we are currently using WP:SFN, where bundling is not possible. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 16:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Release
 * You'll have to ensure consistent currency format, as noted above.
 * Reviews
 * Perhaps wikilink New Internationalist?
 * Wikilinked New Internationalist. It was wikilinked once in the theme section, but that's far above. So, no problems I hope.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Aside from those very small points, a very nice article indeed. - SchroCat (talk) 14:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for your comments. All the comments have been addressed and/or replied. I do not completely disagree with the bundling of footnotes; however, I am not sure how to do this technically, and whether doing so would make the result inconsistent with the general referencing/footnote pattern used in the article. Once again, thank you for the review with such details (and apologies for the previous inconsistent use of currency symbols, that should have been taken care of earlier!) Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Have a look at the Skyfall article and the footnotes 121 and 133: both are bundled and the article uses the sfn format throughout. (If you don't like the way it appears, then feel free not to use it - the main thing is that you've looked over it and considered the pros and cons). Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Unlike Skyfall, we are using sfn with which bundling is not possible. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 17:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You should be able to use sfnm, which is a companion to sfn, designed specifically for bundling. I've not used this template, so don't know how easy or troublesome it would be to use. - SchroCat (talk) 18:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Support based on my peer review. Changes since then look to be for the better. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Your comments in peer review helped us a lot. Thanks again. Redtigerxyz  Talk 15:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Support Amazing - the work you've done on this article! One suggestion, in the influence and legacy section, it might be a good idea to bring out the impact of the film more. For example, you could start with kehr's comment about it having set the pattern for the next 50 years of Indian cinema and construct the impact section around that. Also, it's not clear if you mean what influenced the film or what influence the film has had. If the former, then I'd separate the two sections into "Influences" and "Impacts", perhaps even moving "influences" into the "Themes" section. But, none of that is necessary for FA status so they're just suggestions. Great work! --regentspark (comment) 20:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support. We will work on integrating the first para into themes and retain the rest as a Legacy section. Redtigerxyz  Talk 18:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think we should not hurry in this aspect. The first paragraph of this section (I just changed the name of the section to "Impact and legacy") has some element that can be moved to Theme section, but not entirely. IMO, most of the content of the first paragraph also go ok in Impact and legacy. Moving content inadvertently may cause break of flow. Plus, Theme section already has large amount of content which belongs exclusively to Theme. So, it may be difficult. Unless strong reasons exist, we need to be very cautious.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No strong reasons and no hurry. The article is well up to FA standard right now so just something to think about. I'm impressed by the effort the two of you have put into this. Finding references and tying everything up cannot have been easy! --regentspark (comment) 18:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Support – Sorry it has taken so long. I spent yesterday evening reading this article and it was a shear pleasure.  With a cast list such as Tim, Mark, Rothorpe et al, we were always onto a winner with this one.  The nominator's have done a fine job.  The only thing that stuck out for me a little was the WP:CITECLUTTER in some of the text.  It would be best not to go over three IMO.  This won't sway my support, just a thought. --   Cassianto Talk    11:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support. The clutter is mostly in themes where we wanted to establish that a view is mainstream and not 1 author's view. Now most of it is disappeared due to bundling. Redtigerxyz  Talk 18:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Support - I just went through the article and also looked through the looked through the FA criteria and in my opinion this clearly meets the criteria. Amazing work done by the nominators. Torreslfchero (talk) 11:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your support. Redtigerxyz  Talk 18:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Support - Gone through the article many times, tremendous work done by the editors. In my opinion the article meets the FA staandards. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 17:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your support and suggestions on the talk. Redtigerxyz  Talk 18:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Delegate comment -- image review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Image review (I had done one during the peer review, but some have been changed since)
 * File:Nargis in Humayun (1945).jpg - Is this a promotional picture or screenshot? If the latter, this isn't PD in the US (1945 + 60 = 2005, after the URAA)
 * File:Aurat 1940.jpg - Not PD in US, because of the URAA
 * For the above two images, I had a similar doubt. However, Redtiger explained me that these two were in PD in India on URAA date, because Copyright Act 1911 applies to them. The PD India tag in the images explains that stuffs created before 1958 comes to PD in 50 years. So, these images becomes PD in India in 1995 and 1990, respectively. What do you think?--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That will have to be noted on the file pages, like most of the images at Sudirman. Do you have a copy of the original copyright law I can examine, or a summary of the pertinent subsections? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * India was PD-50 till amendments in 1992., but don't know if changes were retrospective. The Copyright Act, 1957 came into effect from January 1958. (before Mother India). "Prior to the Act of 1957, the Law of Copyrights in the country was governed by the Copyright Act of 1914. This Act was essentially the extension of the British Copyright Act, 1911 to India."  Redtigerxyz  Talk 18:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I see (79 ss. 4) "Where copyright subsisted in any work immediately before the commencement of this Act, the rights comprising such copyright shall, as from the date of such commencement, be the rights specified in section 14 in relation to the class of works to which such work belongs...". I'm reading this as a retroactive extension of copyright. In that case, we would still count 60 years (and thus this would be copyrighted in the US) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:53, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Removed the two images. If copyright status becomes more clear and acceptable in future, we can add those back.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The rights specified in section 14 also talk about rights defined by copyright and does not act extension to copyright to Pd-60. Clause 22 notes specify that it was amended to PD-60 in 1992. Will check further. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 14:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think removing them for now (and reinserting them later, if they are indeed PD) will be most expedient to this article being promoted. I have already nominated one of the images for deletion, while the other I haven't touched yet as it may be a photograph and not a screenshot. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Added 1 image after talking to Crisco 1492. User_talk:Crisco_1492. Redtigerxyz  Talk 09:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * File:Brooklyn Museum - Krishna and Radha - 2.jpg - Needs a PD tag.


 * Done.
 * File:Bharat Mata bronze.jpg - tagging with FoP-India would be nice, but I don't think it's required.


 * Done.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Otherwise everything looks okay. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Tks for that, Crisco. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The quote from Rushdie includes "that image of an aggressive, treacherous, annihilating mothers" -- is this in fact an exact quote, given the "an" doesn't agree with "mothers"? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I checked the actual Rushdie's book, (The Moor's Last Sigh). Yes, it is exact quote, you can find the quote on page 139 in Google book.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Corrected. Was typos. Redtigerxyz  Talk 05:19, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Very glad to hear that... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:55, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * LoL! I don't know how I missed it even on checking!--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Lastly, although this article has been extensively reviewed, I don't think we've had a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing; I'd like to see a few spotchecks before we wrap this up. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Support a comprehensive and well–written article which meets FA criteria. Fantastic work by the nominators. Correct Knowledge «৳alk»  21:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Spotchecks
 * Article:Film scholar Vijay Mishra has pointed out the presence of "highly syncretic hyphenated Hindu-Muslim nature" of Bollywood in the film.[66]
 * Source: "The first ("a piece of Hindu myth-making directed by a Muslin socialist") is the highly syncretic, hypenated Hindu-Muslim nature of Bombay Cinema discourses, production practises, and indeed its very ideology. (p 62)
 * Article:  Mishra has noted that although Radha upholds Dharma (the natural law or order) in the film, it is Birju who achieves identification from the spectators; in his rebellion lies the agenda of political action that will usher social change.[65]
 * Source: "However, since the mother in Mother India triumphs (in the form of Mother of Durga) and upholds dharma as law...The political necessity finds its cause elsewhere-in spectorial identification with Birju. (p. 87)
 * Article: Mishra notes that due to such conflicting ideas, the film is very much conforming, and yet "defiantly subversive".[65]
 * Source: "Mother India becomes outrageously "conforming" yet so defiantly subversive. (p. 87)
 * Article: Mishra opines that the crushing of arms of Radha's husband and the mellowness of the older son symbolise castration, which is in contrast with the rebellion of Birju, identified with sexual potency.[60]
 * Source: Indeed those who give in to the Law of the Mother, like her husband and her older son, are symbolically castrated...It is clear that in making the younger son Birju more like his rebellious father, the film connects sexual potency with rebellion against the Mother...
 * Article: Dastagir travelled to India from Los Angeles, stayed in a hotel in Mumbai (then known as Bombay) and received a retainer. However, delays and obstacles in beginning shooting and getting a work permit for Dastagir led to his dismissal from the project.[20]
 * Source: ...Robert Flaherty...flew over from Los Angeles. He was put up in the Ambassador Hotel and paid a monthly retainer of 5,000 rupees. (p. 19)
 * Heh, this one had me puzzled for a second... Just to clarify, appears from the snippet view of the work at GoogleBooks that Flaherty is mentioned in passing as the director of Sabu's The Elephant Boy -- it wasn't Flaherty flying out from LA to India and staying at the Ambassador but Sabu... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Article: The Hindustan Times states that Nargis symbolised mothers in "which all the mothers [in later films] had the same clichéd roles to play. Representing both motherhood and Mother Earth, who also nurtures and occasionally punishes, Nargis immortalised the Indian mother on celluloid."[112]
 * Source: Nargis symbolised such mothers in "Mother India" following which all the mothers had the same clichéd roles to play. Representing both motherhood and Mother Earth, who also nurtures and occasionally punishes, Nargis immortalised the Indian mother on celluloid.
 * No issues. Graham Colm (talk) 09:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for spotchecks. Redtigerxyz  Talk 11:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Cheers, Graham. Ian Rose (talk) 00:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Images are fine as of this date: 10:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC) . Good job! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the image check. Redtigerxyz  Talk 11:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 00:58, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.