Wikipedia:Featured article review/Chandralekha (1948 film)/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by DrKay via FACBot (talk) 0:34, 12 January 2018 (UTC).

Chandralekha (1948 film)

 * Notified: Ssven2, Numerounovedant. Listed at WikiProject Film/Article alerts, WikiProject India/Article alerts, and WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force/Article alerts

I am nominating this featured article for review because it has been substantially reworked after one abundantly used source, which was later discovered to be a non-RS, was removed. Now I want to re-evaluate the article and see that it is still FA-worthy. Kailash29792  (talk)  13:59, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Could you please notify some relevant WikiProjects? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:48, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I've notified two users as seen above. I doubt if the users will respond to my request at the Indian cinema task force since they rarely respond to messages. -- Kailash29792   (talk)  17:07, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Close without FARC: I have given a good look at the article and it still does seem to meet the standards for FA. Only one query: The critical reception can be improved by describing what the critics say in our own words instead of simply stating "xx said xx". Otherwise, I can't find much fault with the article. — Ssven2  Looking at you, kid 07:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * , thank you for your comments. I'll be travelling from tomorrow till 14 Sept, so I hope someone will respond to further comments in my place. -- Kailash29792   (talk)  16:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments, Sven. I have amended the bold title as we do not usually declare keep or remove in the review stage. DrKay (talk) 16:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Close without FARC: I think there should not have been an FARC in first place. The article is very much of FA-standard and I think it deserves that bronze star. Krish  &#124;  Talk  08:54, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from VedantHey Kailash, I am sorry it took me so long to get here, but now that I've gone through the article, I do have some concerns. Also, here i go appreciating the sheer magnitude of one of your articles again. It's amazing how you're able to dig up the resources and come up with such comprehensive articles one after the other. All the refs. looks good, great work. Let me know if you any queries regarding my concerns, and then I can probably come up with a declaration. Good luck. Numerounovedant  Talk  06:35, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The Critical response, as rightly pointed out by Ssven2 can use a lot of paraphrasing because as it stands now it's just one long direct quote after the other, especially in the first paragraph. The second fares a little better in this aspect, but again, the way the sentences have been frames is repetitive. The section could use some copy-edits.
 * Although I am not sure if there any rule regarding the references being placed at the end of the sentence, I prefer it that way. When put in he middle of a sentence it really breaks the flow for, but that could just be me. Also, when two or more references are being used in a sentence make sure that they are placed in a chronological order.
 * I'll offer some very minor c.e. for the relatively trivial issues.
 * I request that this FAR be closed, with the decision to keep the article as FA. All the reviewers have voted in favour of keeping it as a FA. Kailash29792   (talk)  13:32, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

DrKay (talk) 10:34, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.