Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mughal-e-Azam/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 User:Ian Rose 10:01, 22 December 2013 (UTC).

Mughal-e-Azam

 * Nominator(s): Bollyjeff (talk), Dr. Blofeld (talk)

I am nominating this for featured article because 2013 is the 100th anniversary year of Indian cinema, and I wanted to feature this 1960 film which is widely considered to be a milestone in Indian cinema, and considered by some to be the greatest Bollywood film of all time. It has been thoroughly reviewed and expanded by myself and the co-nominator, and we look forward to your comments. BollyJeff &#124;  talk  18:27, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

All my comments have been resolved/appropriately answered. However, before voting, I would like to read the article once more. Meanwhile, the nominator can move these comments to this FAC's talk page, or, can collapse the comments.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:06, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Further comments were also addressed, and I have collapsed those.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Support on all criteria except criteria 1a and 3. Not including 1a because I lack the capacity to judge if the prose "is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard"; and 3 (Media) because I have not checked the media for appropriate license tags etc. Otherwise, the article meets the rest of criteria in my opinion.--Dwaipayan (talk) 00:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Comments from self-locked-out User:Indopug
 * On currency:
 * The problem with having a dollar value is that it significant hampers readability in places where money features often, "earning INR4 million (US$838,574) in the first week, and eventually earning a net revenue of INR55 million (US$11,530,398), generating a profit of INR30 million (US$6,289,3088)". That you don't round up the dollar figure makes it worse.
 * I could use just one conversion per sentence if that would help. BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  13:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Please use lakhs and crores for Rs. No Indian (the most-likely reader of this article) is going to understand "Rs 5 million" without converting it to lakhs. A note explaining it for those unfamiliar with l and c might be better.
 * Believe me, I agree with you, but I see editors going around and changing Crore and Lakhs to Billions and Millions in many articles, so I thought that it was the new rule. Is it not? I do not want to be switching it back and forth multiple times for each new reviewer. Can you show me a definitive policy on this? Recent FAs Kahaani, Vidya Balan, and Rani Mukerji do not use the word "crore" even once (except in the source titles). On the other hand, Manual_of_Style/India-related_articles says to use it, but Manual of Style/Dates and numbers is inconclusive. BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  13:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The figures in Colourisation don't use Rs. 4.5/$. I think you should the note the new rate.
 * Colourisation was done in 2005, not 1960, so the rate was different. The new ones are converted automatically with the INRConvert template. Maybe I can still add a note. BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  13:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The Immortal Dialogue of K. Asif's Mugahl-e-Azam - typo?
 * Fixed. The source itself had a spelling mistake. &#45;--- Kailash29792 (talk) 08:54, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Music looks like it should be a separate article, leaving behind a 2-3 paragraph summary here.122.164.98.165 (talk) 08:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

It could be split, but I don't see any major problem with the current length and it's perfectly relevant. Need input from other editors on the currency issue.♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:29, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment by Hekerui:
 * Thanks a lot for working on this article!

General
 * per WP:INITS: "where the subject uses two consecutive initials, a space is used between the initials", and this is not yet followed
 * Done except for a quote. BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  03:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Lead
 * Shapoorji Pallonji links to the Shapoorji Pallonji Group, not a person, and I don't see any discussion of the person in the article
 * This is very confusing because according to the sources (that are not consistent) there are 3 or 4 generations of guys with very similar names. ,,. Will try to sort it out, but may not be able to. BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  03:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I delinked the wikilinks to Shapoorji Pallonji since the link article does not have a particular person as subject or relieve ambiguousness, instead I linked the Shapoorji Pallonji Group. I hope you don't mind. Hekerui (talk) 17:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Plot Production Themes
 * "... attempts to force the prince to love her ..." - how does Bahar use force? she schemes but I don't remember force, please explain
 * "Despite this, Anarkali refuses to reject Salim." - this qualifier at the beginning of the sentence sounds clumsy, I think, and unless the explanation that Akbar wants Anarkali to renounce Salim in return for her freedom, "reject" is a bad word to use here, because a reader would not understand a motive for rejection
 * "... his own army to confront Akbar" - is confronting his father the ultimate goal or is it rescuing Anarkali? if it is her, maybe we should write that instead
 * I feel we should include that the Emperor has a change of heart in the end and does not really want to kill Anarkali but is bound by law like everyone else to carry out the sentence - this is emphasized in the closing credits if I remember correctly (?)
 * "... but Madhubala, who was longing for a significant role, could not let the opportunity pass" - this is unclear, how could she not let the roll pass even when she was not offered the role? the whole sentence makes it sound like her casting was fate - is it known what kept Suraiya from accepting? if not, we must plainly state that Suraiya was offered the role but Mubhala later got it
 * why is it mentioned that Lance Dane is a collector of erotica? he is first mentioned as a photographer. we should state the main profession of the person unless the collection is related to the movie somehow.
 * "... in the wider picture" - this is vague
 * I wonder why this section uses "the film scholar X", "the scholar Y", and "the author Z" - I don't believe the articles are necessary
 * Search for "the definite article" in Peer review/Mughal-e-Azam/archive1. The guy is adamant that it is correct. Another case where you cannot please everyone. I will do whatever the delegate wants. BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  01:22, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, it's a minor thing, I only wondered. Hekerui (talk) 17:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * does it really say "relatively happy ending" in the source, because that ending did not seem too happy to me
 * It says "happy ending", not even relatively. BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  10:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Historical accuracy
 * I would like to know whether the source actually argues that being linked to history gives a fictional story "credence", maybe the source talks about how relying on a legend gives credence, but merely being linked to a time that existed?
 * "It is further supported by the fact that ..." - this would indicate that being linked to the Mughal time supports the story's accuracy which I can't believe is argued anywhere
 * is there any more information on the origin of that marble couplet? does the text connect Jehangir to the marble with something more concrete that the time of her death? otherwise this does not read like a fact that supports historical accuracy
 * I suggest restating that Imtiaz Ali Taj wrote a stage play, simply referring to "the play" makes it seem like this was a prominent part of the article subject, at least to me
 * what is the Kathak dance sequence supported by thumri?
 * The source does not say. BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  01:22, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This is tough, I know little about kathak but I suspect they mean the dance sequence before "Pyar Kiya To Darna Kya" - in that case that is not thumri at all (tarana in Darbari?). It's a pity this is not clearer in the source and since it does not say which dance sequence is meant one might well argue that this fits for one of the others where one might say the music is betweem something classical and a frivolous Bollywood tune, so it's not obviously wrong. Hekerui (talk) 17:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe that formulation means that the discrepancy is between putting the light song "Pyar Kiya To Darna Kya" next to the kathak dancing that comes before and is arranged with classical music. Or it refers to another instance, but certainly light singing and the court in that time don't go together. The book talks about another instance where Dilip Kumar practices for a "thumri" he sings with Mangeshkar. It seems the book means thumri to include Bollywood songs that are influenced by classical music. Hekerui (talk) 17:25, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Music Reception Hekerui (talk) 19:33, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "... at a time when Lata Mangeshkar and Mohammed Rafi ..." - readers may not know that these were the best payed playback singers, we should make that explicit
 * until now I was pretty sure that Bade Ghulam Ali Khan does not sing qawwali in this movie. I assumed that the two times when he sings (Salim's return iirc and the love scene) are classical performances because of their structure (in the love scene he sings Raga Sohini, I think) and because I can't imagine they are devotional because of how they are placed alongside imagery of celebration and romance. the source in The Hindu identifies them as ragas, which would make sense since this was court music at the time, so I don't feel good that we are putting that qawwali claim out there, maybe we can simply call them "songs" like The Hindu does?
 * I don't think the description of Mangeshkar as "Indian nightingale" is a mark of special praise from the reviewer for this soundtrack, it's merely a common description for her, used often
 * "..., making it clear that he would sell the film only as per his wish." - this is so complicated, why not write more plainly?
 * it should be shortly explained what is meant by multiplexes, the linked article describes many technical applications but I think this instance refers to a specific kind of cinema, no?
 * I'm concerned we have too many quotes, a whole farm, in the critical reception section. These reviews can be summarized in our own words, no need to cite so much, especially since we don't want to overuse copyrighted material.
 * I'm not sure the " [ work ] " addition to the Rediff review is needed. Looks more like "historical" is an abbreviation for "historical movie" like talkie is an abbreviation, so no word was omitted by the author.
 * All done except where noted, and the quote farm which I will shortly trim. BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  01:22, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'm happy with the changes. One issue I have after watching that marriage part again: I don't think she's a "make-believe wife" - Akbar is keeping his promises, whether to marry her to Salim or kill her, so she truly becomes his wife, even if it's only until her "death". Or am I wrong with this? Hekerui (talk) 17:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I highly doubt that he would allow an actual marriage because that was his objection all along. He allowed the make-believe part so that she could get close to Salim and drug him. We would need a good source or two to verify this theory, as it goes against what other articles say.  BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  18:25, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Since I did not see references to articles as sources for the plot so I had assumed it's your summary and not gathered from elsewhere, which is why I gave my opinion. Hekerui (talk) 19:34, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * We do not usually add sources for plots, but here are a couple that talk about that scene:, BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  20:34, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * We could also mention in the music section that "Mohe Panghat Pe" is composed in Pancham Se Gara, a variation of Gara (sadly lacking a wiki page). In this we seemingly have a reliable source. Is this overkill to include? It show even better how music in this film is based on classical music. Hekerui (talk) 17:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Some would say that a blog is not a good source, so I would prefer to leave it out. BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  18:25, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd say the medium of writing does not unmake an expert, since he has credentials, but as you wish. Hekerui (talk) 19:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Support: I had my say at PR and was happy at the end of that process, but this has been strengthened further since then. - SchroCat (talk) 00:59, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you! BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  01:22, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Schrod.♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Support This article is essential to the topic of Indian cinema and I'm happy all this work was put into it. Hekerui (talk) 22:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your cleanup and your support. BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  00:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment from Hamiltonstone
Mostly fantastic, but sounds hagiographic and stilted in the casting section.
 * Lede: "Upon completion, Mughal-e-Azam became the most expensive Indian film, to the extent that the filming of a particular song sequence cost more than the entire budget of a typical film of that period." Ugle sentence, that uses the word "film" three times. Try: "Mughal-e-Azam cost more to produce than any previous Indian film, with the budget for a single song sequence exceding that typical for an entire movie".
 * "remade it as a talkie in 1935". "Talkie" is not treated as a collequialism?
 * Will "sound film" sound more professional? &#45;--- Kailash29792 (talk) 05:41, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "Kumar visited London to test the wig he would wear in the film". Bizarre celebrity factoid worth omitting, since neither the wig not London make any further appearance in the article.
 * "but remained dedicated to her work without much concern for her health." Sounds like celebrity hagiography to me. How can this possibly be known by the writer of an article in 2012?
 * "and would look into a mirror as tall as himself before every shot". What is the point of this information?
 * "on a diet and actively engaged in exercising" How else can one exercise? Passively? Why not just "on a diet and exercising"?
 * "covering all the mirrors with a thin covering of wax," - repetition of "covering".
 * "This process took extensive efforts, since restoration was essential for the colourisation.[101] The process involved cleaning the negative of fungal growth, restoring the portions which were damaged, and re-instating missing parts in the frames." Clumsy and a bit repetitive from previous sentence. How about "Costly and labour-intensive restoration was essential before colourisation could occur. The negative was cleaned of fungal growth, damaged portions were restored, and missing parts of frames were re-instated.[101]" (and delete the separate later sentence "The restoration required significant labour and money to complete".)
 * "reported to be in the works in 2009". Colloquialism?
 * Rewrote as "was reported to have been planned in 2009" &#45;--- Kailash29792 (talk) 05:41, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

An interesting piece of cultural history. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:26, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Some good comments, thank you; all have been implemented. BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  13:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Can you take another look at two things in the casting section: the excessive repetition of "role" in the first para, and the repetition of reference to the body armour, once in the first para, then again in the second? hamiltonstone (talk) 14:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This has been fixed. BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  13:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I made a further edit to deal with some other repetition. Support hamiltonstone (talk) 11:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Hamilton and Hekurai for your constructive input and support.♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments - glad to see this here. I've really expanded my knowledge of Indian films after seeing noms for Sholay and others.
 * The External Images thing in the Plot section... is that a new thing? It's not very attractive.
 * I admit I glanced over them last time only to pop in my DVD and forget about them. I would think this a good idea if those were good quality images with a good plot outline or set images but I have to agree with LB here, going through them again I find little value in the screenshots or the awkward accompanying text. Hekerui (talk) 00:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * LB, did you mean the template was not attractive or the link pointed to? I think its nice to see so many pictures. Would it be okay as an external linl instead? Anyway, I have asked the template designer if we can have an option to leave off the title and top image.  BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  01:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The Plot section... is that the end of the film? Her going into exile? Remember that we do not omit spoilers, so if there is a conflict resolution or other ending it should be described here. If not, depressing ending!
 * Yes that is the ending (they just walk away), except for some narration about how good the emperor was.


 * There is some overlinking. Akbar, for example, is linked in the lead, in the Plot, and in the Cast. Check others.
 * The tool "Highlight duplicate links" does not think Akbar is a problem. Which would you remove? It does pick up on a couple others, but other reviewers thought it was okay since the sections are far apart.
 * Generally you link the first mention of a term, and possibly the first occurrence after the lead if it's linked in the lead. See WP:OVERLINK. -- Laser brain  (talk)  20:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I readded links that Jeff removed, which were from a list of movies. It's inconvenient for readers to then put those in the search manually even if they only want to check, the guideline mentions keeping links that are helpful for readers and using common sense is part of the guideline. Hekerui (talk) 23:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "A theatrical version was soon produced, and screen versions followed." This isn't really proper terminology for what I think you are trying to express. "Theatrical" and "screen" both typically refer to films. "Stage version" would refer to a play, which I suspect is what you meant. You also use "cinematic" later, so you have three different words in that section that mean films.
 * Done. BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  01:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I will be back with more. -- Laser brain  (talk)  18:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Andy, if you're able to complete your review shortly I daresay we wrap this up. Looks to me like we need image/source reviews so if you can take care of those as well... ;-) Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll finish up within the next 24 hours. My Google Glass arrived yesterday and I've been busy making the townsfolk paranoid. -- Laser brain  (talk)  15:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry but it's a bit of slow going. Rather than posting up a list, I'm trying to just fix things as a find them. I don't think it's quite ready yet because I'm still finding things to do. I'm looking at images and sources as I go. -- Laser brain  (talk)  21:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

====Comments from AmericanLemming====

I will review this article over the weekend. Expect a thorough review shortly. AmericanLemming (talk) 08:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There has been a change of plans: I need to study organic chemistry over the next month, not spend hours reviewing FACs on Wikipedia. (Trust me, I would rather be doing the latter.) I sincerely apologize for the disappointment this will cause the nominators of this article as well as the FAC coordinators, but it is what it is. I thought I would be upfront about it (one of my pet peeves on Wikipedia is when people say they're going to do something and then do it a month later or not at all). AmericanLemming (talk) 07:19, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Support: This is an excellent piece of writing. The film itself is a gem in Indian cinema and it is a deserving candidate for Featured article. The article is brilliantly written by Bollyjeff and Dr. Blofeld. Congratulations!!— Prashant 06:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Prashant for your kind words.♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Image review:
 * File:Mughal-e-Azam.jpg - copyrighted image, fair use rationale is acceptable.
 * File:Sulocmov.jpg - verified public domain, but the description isn't filled out correctly on Commons. The date isn't "1920s" and the author isn't anonymous.
 * Would 1928 and Unknown be acceptable? BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  14:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 1928, yes. Isn't there a creator notice on the source web site? I don't know if that's the right person. -- Laser brain  (talk)  15:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The article lists sources for the text, but I cannot find that image in those sources. I would bet that neither the web site owner nor the article author took this picture 85 years ago. In fact, I think its a screen shot. Who would author that?  BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  15:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually in that case I have no idea. I looked at some other film FAs with screen shots and they just don't list an author. It's probably fine as is, with the date set to 1928. -- Laser brain  (talk)  16:46, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Will post again with source review and any other issues. -- Laser brain  (talk)  14:42, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * File:Jahangir_with_portrait_of_Akbar.jpg - verified public domain
 * File:Mughal-e-Azam,_1960_film_soundtrack_album_cover.jpg - copyrighted image, fair use rationale is acceptable.
 * File:Mughal-e-Azam BW Colour comparison.jpg - copyrighted image, fair use rationale is acceptable.

Source review and final comments: I didn't find any issues with source formatting or consistency. I've been through the text again and just edited it to correct any issues I found. My concerns should be considered addressed and I don't have any further comments. -- Laser brain  (talk)  16:46, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Laser, much appreciated.♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Note -- Given a lot of people have had a go at this I was looking to promote but reading through the lead I see a fair bit of redundancy/repetition. The first sentence includes "1960 Indian period epic film", which is at least one adjective too many IMO; it's true not all epics are period pieces but many are, so I think you can afford to lose "period". The very next sentence states "Starring Prithviraj Kapoor, Dilip Kumar, Madhubala and Durga Khote in the lead roles" -- surely we don't need "starring" and "in the lead roles" in the same breath? Finally, the word "film" appears 15 times in the lead -- there must be a few places it's unnecessary, e.g. "Production of the film" (why not just "Production"?) and "Bollywood film history" for instance, and perhaps one or two other spots you could just use "it" or something else. Those being just in the lead, I have to wonder if another round of copyediting isn't warranted. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I've cut down a bit and changed period to historical epic which I think is fine. The article has changed a fair bit since I last read it, I'll give it another read and copyedit later and ask one or two others to also do so.♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Quadell
After spot-checking for prose, I'm afraid I'm going to have to agree with Ian Rose here. As comprehensive and well-sourced as this article is, I believe a thorough prose-review is needed. For instance, the Legacy section uses the word "film" eight times in the first paragraph, thirteen times in the second paragraph, and nine times in the third. It also contains a direct quote, "crowning glory", without a clear speaker or unambiguous source, and it uses a hypothetical direct quote ("Finish quickly...") which should really be omitted in favor of a gloss as to the term's use (e.g., "...has become part of Bollywood vernacular, indicating a project that is taking too long to complete"). The very brief Accolades section both uses and omits the serial comma in a single sentence, improperly uses a colon (to separate a list in the middle of a sentence), and awkwardly pluralizes "Dialogue" to indicate multiple nominees. If the article receives a thorough copy-edit, I may support, but I believe it will take a lot of work to make the prose "engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard". – Quadell (talk) 16:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Update

The article has now had a thorough copy-edit (nearly 100 edits alone today) from several very capable editors such as Ipigott and Eric Corbett and I've also given it a final copy-edit and I'm happy with the quality of the prose now. In my opinion it is now satisfactory. Ian and Quadell, can you let Jeff and myself know if you still see any issues with it? Thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:34, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a lot of improvements! Reading now... – Quadell (talk) 13:05, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

The prose is much improved, but it still has significant problems. I don't believe this passes 1a yet. It's deeply ironic that the collaborative nature of Wikipedia is one of its greatest strengths, but still, it's much harder to make an article's prose "engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard" with too many cooks involved with the broth. – Quadell (talk) 14:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Significantly, the direct quote "crowning glory" still has no clear speaker or source, which is a major problem.
 * There are several places where the wording introduces awkward ambiguities or misplaced modifies. For instance, "Asif filmed one reel of Mughal-e-Azam in Technicolor that included the song...", but Technicolor does not include songs. For another, "The general theme of Mughal-e-Azam is a family history that highlights the differences between father and son...", but a paricular family history is not a theme. (You could say that the family history brings out the themes of father-son relationships, etc.)
 * There are several problems in the "Historical inaccuracies" section. A sentence begins "Yet, ...", in a way that is not grammatical. Phrases like "A single piece of marble carries a Persian inscription" feel like story-telling style, rather than encyclopedic style. (It's very normal for an inscription to be on one piece of marble, but the wording here is clearly designed to highlight the specialness of the inscription.) It claims "One of the books states", with no info on what "books" are meant. There are weasel words and vague expressions of doubt, like "Some have suggested" and "There are also historians who doubt" (who?) and "there are snippets of historical evidence" (though no such evidence is mentioned).
 * There are inconsistencies with comma usage that, while not a terrifically big deal, give the article an amateur feel overall. For instance, most style guides recommend using a comma when joining two independent clauses with "and", as in "The dog barked, and I ran." But some authors choose to omit this comma, especially in sentences with short clauses, and that's fine. This article, however, seems to use commas randomly in these situations. Similarly, most style guides recommend omiting a comma when combining two predicates to a single subject with "and", as in "The cat climbed a tree and hissed." Some authors include commas in these situations, especially with longer or confusing clauses, and that's fine. Here, however, commas are used or omitted in these instance without even minimal consistency. This gives the article a "hodgepodge" feel.
 * Similarly, the article is not consistent in its use of serial commas. Some places use them (e.g., "sets, costumes, and music") while others do not (e.g., "containing text, photographs and trivia"), and the "Accolades" section still contains a single sentence that both uses and omits them in separate parts.
 * Sometimes the article uses an odd-sounding "The" to introduce titles (e.g., "The film scholar Stephen Teo"), while in other places, the definite article is more naturally omitted (e.g., "Film critic Mukul Kesavan"). Different parts of the article sometimes use different spellings, e.g., "soundtrack" vs. "sound track".


 * These are rather small things, easily fixed. And we're not concerned about most style guides, we're only concerned about one, our own. Eric   Corbett  14:23, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Well I have to disagree with you on this one Quadell, Eric and Ian (Pigott) have proved that the prose quality has improved. I believe Eric has also addressed most of your concerns too. Professional quality prose doesn't mean perfection..♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:32, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Wow, the article's prose continues to improve at a rapid clip! Many of the issues I raised have been fully resolved, and others are less of a problem now. There are only three unresolved issues that I think are clearly objectionable and actionable: the unsourced direct quote in "Legacy", the WP:W2W problems in "Historical inaccuracies", and the inconsistent use of the serial comma throughout. (Regarding that last issue, our MoS does say "Editors may use either convention on Wikipedia so long as each article is consistent within itself.") – Quadell (talk) 17:20, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the unsourced quote and have reworded, it wasn't necessary. I have also removed part of the historical inaccuracies as I agree it's a bit vague and have also removed "the" before the authors in the themes section, should be consistent now. I've given it another quick read through and I really don't see this big problem with commas you keep bringing up. Any chance you could take the liberty to fix what you see is the problem? I believe everything else has been fixed now... ♦ Dr. Blofeld  19:20, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment from Eric Corbett
I don't quite follow what this means, from the Plot section: "Salim rebels and amasses his own army". Is this an army that he amassed, in which case why not a simple "amasses an army", or is it referring to an army that he already had, his own? Eric  Corbett  15:53, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Amasses an army yeah. I think it was written as "his own army" as he is the son of the Emperor and would have naturally been in the same royal army as his father. Thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you to all the recent copy editors! I think its interesting how one sentence fragment can be changed each time someone new touches it: "and patrons often queued throughout the day, eager to get tickets.", "and patrons often queued throughout the day to get tickets.", "with patrons often queueing all day for tickets.", "and patrons often queued all day for tickets." BollyJeff &#124;  talk  16:09, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Here is another (no more, I promise): "In all, nearly half of the songs recorded for the film were ultimately left out.", "In all, nearly half of the songs recorded for the film were left out.", "In the end, nearly half of the songs recorded for the film were left out.", "In the end, almost half of the songs recorded for the film were left out.", "Almost half of the songs recorded for the film were left out of the final version." BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  21:28, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * But my version is clearly far superior. ;-) Eric   Corbett  21:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I reworded it because "in the end" was repeated!♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:43, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the prose is good enough to meet 1a now, but what do I know. Eric   Corbett  21:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment This looks to be on track to promotion, but I just wanted to mention one thing that I noticed: the entire plot of the film is given away in the opening paragraph of the lead - is this necessary? It seems a bit unfair on readers who haven't seen the film but are interested in doing so! Perhaps cut the last sentence? -- Loeba (talk) 11:38, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

You have a point I guess but I think if somebody doesn't want to know about the film first before watching it they should simply just not read the article. We can't be expected to censor details on it and and the lead is supposed to summarize the whole article. We got rid of the spoiler template a few years back.♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I concur. An encyclopedia article on fiction is not required to protect the reader from spoilers, even in the lead. – Quadell (talk) 17:22, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keeping the lead spoiler-free is not required, but realistically it's a decent thing to do...I know I'd be annoyed if I heard about the film, wanted to see it, and then had the ending ruined for me in the first paragraph (I'd know to avoid the "Plot" section, but you don't expect to have to avoid the opening para of the article). Even if you don't agree with my this, I'm not sure I've ever seen a film or book article that summarises the entire plot in the lead. It's just not necessary and too much detail at that point. The spoiler ending doesn't provide any additional, necessary context does it? Anyway I'll leave it with you guys - it looks like the nominators have done a great job on the article, well done! -- Loeba (talk) 22:54, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Closing comment -- Looking over the many recent edits, I agree the prose has improved markedly, so thanks all for your efforts (not the ideal time for copyedits to occur in the FAC process but the exception proves the rule). If there are any remaining minor points, I think they can be dealt with post-FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 22:46, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.