Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Sathi Leelavathi (1936 film)/1

Sathi Leelavathi (1936 film)

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Sathi_Leelavathi_(1936_film)/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • Most recent review
 * Result: Kept (t &#183; c)  buidhe  11:41, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

The article failed it's most recent FAC, with one of the detractors saying he would reject it for GA status, proving how terrible the article is. While there will never be another FAC attempt at this article by me, I will nevertheless be satisfied if it at least maintains GA status. Because factual accuracy and coherence matter more. -- Kailash29792 (talk)  09:30, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie
I'll leave notes here as I go through the article; if I make any copyedits you disagree with please feel free to revert them.
 * What is a "mock tea party"?
 * Krishnamurthy's acquaintance Ramanathan persuades him to drink alcohol: it's apparent from the rest of the plot that it Krishnamurthy's later consumption of alcohol that's the problem, so does Ramanathan persuade Krishnamurthy that he should no longer abstain from alcohol? So that he starts to drink from that point on?
 * Ramanathan's collaborator is Rangiah Naidu, a corrupt police inspector. "Collaborator" doesn't have the right connotations for a partner in crime.  "Accomplice" might work, but it would help to know why we're using the word.  Does Rangiah do anything at the party to help persuade Krishnamurthy?  Or is this only a reference to the later plot elements? Does Krishnamurthy's infatuation with Mohanangi start at the party?  Is it because of his drinking, or is it instigated by Ramanathan or Rangiah?
 * The English plot doesn't get into detail. But I've written that Rangiah was Ramanathan's accomplice since the Wiktionary definition of the word reflects what happens in the plot. -- Kailash29792 (talk)  11:26, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

More later. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:42, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * sinking Krishnamurthy deeper in debt: we haven't said he was in debt; presumably he doesn't have the money he promises to Mohanangi? Or he goes into debt to get it?
 * Why does Krishnamurthy return to Madras, knowing he's likely to be arrested? To see his family? If he tries to do so surreptitiously I think it would be worth saying.
 * The complete plot in both English and Tamil is here, free for access. You may do proofreading if you need to. Though the Tamil plot is more detailed, I haven't added much from it, except the revelation that the killed man was the servant, and the killer was Ramanathan who framed Krishnamurthy. -- Kailash29792 (talk)  11:26, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll look this evening. That's a beautiful first page!  I assume it's under copyright and we can't use it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:34, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is copyrighted in India per Template:PD-India. -- Kailash29792 (talk)  11:51, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Up to you but I think it would look good in the infobox; you could move the theatrical poster further down. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:49, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Re the plot: I see we're hampered by the limitations of what the source gives us. If we can't explain what a "mock tea party" is we should either put in a footnote saying so or remove the phrase.  Currently the lead says Ramanathan teaches Krishnamurthy to drink at the party, which I don't think is explicit in the source. "Accomplice" is fine since it's clear that Rangiah and Ramanathan planned Krishnamurthy's downfall before the party.  How about this as a rewrite of the first paragraph of the lead: "Krishnamurthy is a wealthy man who lives in Madras with his wife Leelavathi and their daughter Lakshmi. Ramananathan, a friend of Krishnamurthy's, and Rangiah Naidu, a corrupt police inspector, plot together to ruin Krishnamurthy.  Persuaded by Ramanathan, Krishnamurthy begins to drink alcohol, and becomes infatuated with Mohanangi, a promiscuous woman, promising to pay her ₹50,000 (about US$18,700 in 1936)." Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 12:49, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , wrote exactly this way. Only, I wrote the correct spelling of Ramanathan, not "Ramananathan". Kailash29792 (talk)  13:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

More:
 * I'm interested by the division of three "Comedians" from the rest of the cast. Is this standard in cast lists of the era?
 * I'm not too sure about that, but I do know that male actors and female actors were divided in Indian film credits even in 1966 (eg: Anbe Vaa). But I've divided based on the pressbook that I shared above. Even Gone with the Wind divides it's cast into multiple columns. -- Kailash29792 (talk)  11:51, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Struck; I was curious to know if there's a reason for separating the comedians, but since the source does it that way it's fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:52, 1 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Pathi Bhakthi, a Tamil play dealing with alcohol abuse and its effects on family life, was written by Te. Po. Krishnaswamy Pavalar during the early 1930s: the source for this says "It was in the early 1930s that a play titled Pathi Bhakti enjoyed a long run on the stage. A play about the evils of drinking, it had been written by a well-known playwright, Te.Po. Krishnaswamy Pavalar." which only says the play was successful in the early 1930s, not that that's when it was written. Per this source it was published in March 1931, though I'm relying on Google Translate there and may be misinterpreting.
 * Looking at Guy, I think a couple of changes would be worth making. Guy doesn't contradict the March 1931 date from the other source, so we can use that.  It's also apparent from Guy that the rewrite for MOBC is just for the run in Madras itself, at the Wall Tax Theatre.  (And I wonder if the Wall Tax Theatre is worth a red link?  It seems to have been famous.)  So saying "this production was also successful" is slightly misleading; the production was just part of the overall success of the play in the Madras Presidency; it's singled out because that's the troupe that got involved in producing the play.  When Chettiar found out that MOBC was working on a film version, he talked to Mudaliar who directed him to Vasan.  It's a pity about the contradictory sources on who was making the other film, since that makes it harder to make it clear to the reader what the sequence was. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 13:48, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Pavalar's play was rewritten for the Madurai Original Boy's Company (MOBC) theatre troupe by playwright Madras Kandaswamy Mudaliar: I don't have access to Guy (1997), so can you just confirm that it says Mudaliar rewrote the play for MOBC? The other source seems to imply it was the original play.
 * Here is access to select pages from Guy's book, free for viewing, and all pages containing Sathi Leelavathi are in it. -- Kailash29792 (talk)  11:51, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks -- that's very helpful. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:48, 1 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The film was Dungan's directorial debut, and was later listed in the Limca Book of Records as the first Indian film to be directed by a foreigner: I copyedited this slightly, but on reflection I think it might be better to just make it "The film was Dungan's directorial debut, and was the first Indian film to be directed by a foreigner". I take it the Limca Book of Records is a reliable source? If so we can just cite the statement to it.
 * Do as you please. -- Kailash29792 (talk)  15:06, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The case was resolved when Vasan testified that both Pathi Bhakthi and the novel Sathi Leelavathi were based on Ellen Wood's 1860 novel Danesbury House, therefore neither party could claim originality.: I've copyedited this a bit but I an wondering if the last clause would be worth expanding. It's an interesting point because perhaps one could say that both Pathi Bhakthi and Vasan's novel were plagiarized, if neither is original. Does the source give more details about Vasan's testimony or the reasoning of the court in dismissing the case?
 * Nope. And I'm not sure even the Madras High Court would have documents related to the case. But since I have no future FA plans for this article, I don't this case needs further digging, right? -- <b style="color: black;">Kailash29792</b> (talk)  15:06, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Struck; if the source doesn't discuss it that's fine. Re plans for FA: I'm not commenting with FAC in mind, just trying to identify places where we might be able to improve the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 01:29, 3 August 2020 (UTC)


 * in particular the plight of Tamil Nadu labourers in Ceylon's tea estates: I'm not sure about this, but just a suggestion: the plot summary only mentions this in passing, but it appears that some commentary on the film regards this as an important aspect of the film. Would it be worth expanding the brief mention of this in the plot a little?
 * It appears this was shown on film to a larger extent than what was shown in the pressbook's English synopsis. -- <b style="color: black;">Kailash29792</b> (talk)  15:06, 2 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Suggest adding the character names to the caption of the still from the film, or at least making it clear it's a still (or is it from a poster?).
 * Ramachandran appeared in Pathi Bhakthi as the antagonist's henchman Veeramuthu: might be worth making it clear this is the MOBC stage version we're talking about, since the reader might well assume it's the film version until the second half of the sentence.
 * He later approached Mudaliar for a role in Sathi Leelavathi because he felt his role in Pathi Bhakthi offered him "no room to shine". I don't see the connection here; perhaps understanding the timing better would help. I assumed that the stage run of Pathi Bhakthi was over by the time the film was being made; were both going on at the same time? I see from another source that the timing was pretty quick -- Vasan's novel comes out in early 1934 and shooting on both it and the film version of Pathi Bhakthi starts in 1934. The delay in release till 1936 is just because of the lawsuit, I gather. So was Ramachandran acting in both at the same time? It's a minor point if the sources don't say but it wasn't till I looked closely at it that I realized how quickly it was all happening.
 * I don't think shooting started in 1934, since Dungan came to India in 1935 and Chettiar bought the film rights to the novel the same year. -- <b style="color: black;">Kailash29792</b> (talk)  11:51, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This source says shooting on both films started in 1934, but I don't know how reliable that source is for that sort of detail. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:52, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

More later, probably tonight or tomorrow morning. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:30, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll get back to this but I've been asked to have a look at FAC and will do that next as it's time-sensitive. I should be able to get back to this this weekend, possibly even today. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 13:52, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Continuing:
 * Perhaps not an issue for the article, but why does Guy refer to Krishnamurthy as Radhakrishnan?
 * Simply put, a mistake. Not using the Radhakrishnan name (it was Radha's real name though). -- <b style="color: black;">Kailash29792</b> (talk)  15:06, 2 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Is it "Pasaruraman" or "Parasuraman"? Looks like the latter, but you have one instance of the former spelling.
 * Typo corrected. -- <b style="color: black;">Kailash29792</b> (talk)  15:06, 2 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Ellis Dungan's autobiography is listed as 2001, but our article on him lists it as 2002. A quick look on the web supports 2002; can you check the copy you have to confirm the date?
 * I've copyedited the section on acting a little but I think that paragraph could be reorganized -- the sentence about the actors freezing comes between two sentences about the effects of being theatre actors. How about this: "Most of the cast were theatre actors and Dungan later recalled that he had to tell them to soften their voices and tone down their facial expressions.  This included Ramachandran, who according to Dungan did not initially understand the nuances of film acting and performed aggressively as though he was on stage until Dungan convinced him to deliver his lines naturally. Dungan also recalled the actors freezing and forgetting their lines in front of the camera, which frightened them."
 * Looks good to me. But I don't think the actors forgot their lines, as Dungan said in his autobiography, "Also some of the actors had never appeared in front of a motion picture camera before and it frightened them, whereupon they would often ‘freeze’ and couldn’t speak". -- <b style="color: black;">Kailash29792</b> (talk)  15:06, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. How about "Most of the cast were theatre actors and Dungan later recalled that he had to tell them to soften their voices and tone down their facial expressions.  This included Ramachandran, who according to Dungan did not initially understand the nuances of film acting and performed aggressively as though he was on stage until Dungan convinced him to deliver his lines naturally. Some of the actors were scared of the camera, and Dungan recalled them freezing in front of it, unable to speak." Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 01:33, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Wrote exactly this way. -- <b style="color: black;">Kailash29792</b> (talk)  12:13, 4 August 2020 (UTC)


 * With this film, Dungan introduced many features to Tamil cinema such as a lack of on-screen stage influences, the "cabaret dance" or the "club dance", strict discipline, filming by schedule and camera mobility. Could this sentence be expanded a little to give more details? I've no idea what a cabaret dance or club dance is, for example, or what is meant by "strict discipline".  Some of these sound like significant points in the evolution of Tamil cinema and a bit more space would be worth it.
 * It was not until I read the last chapter of "Filming" that I realized there were songs in the movie, but I see from the "Music" section that there were about a dozen. That makes them a significant part of the movie; shouldn't the songs be mentioned in the lead?  Did all Tamil movies of the day include songs as a matter of course?
 * More than 90% of Indian films have songs in them, most not relevant to the plot. And I don't think music was a defining point of the film. I read somewhere else that the film was praised for having fewer songs than other Tamil films of the time. -- <b style="color: black;">Kailash29792</b> (talk)  15:06, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought I recalled something like that. I agree no special mention should be made, but on the basis that the lead is a summary of the article, a short sentence in the lead seems appropriate.  How about just mentioning who the lyricist was, and that it was his debut in cinema? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 01:45, 3 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The melody of "Theyila Thottathle" (also spelt "Theyilai Thottatile") is based on Subramania Bharati's poem "Karumbu Thottathile". I don't follow this; how do you base a melody on a poem? Did "Karumbu Thottathile" have a melody associated with it?
 * While the poem is about the plight of bonded Indian labourers in Fiji, the songs's lyrics follow the problems of tea-plantation workers in Ceylon. Did Bhagavathar adapt the lyrics -- that is, just change a few words to make them refer to Ceylon -- or did he write completely new lyrics?
 * Not sure. Though I'm a native speaker of Tamil, I did not live in Tamil Nadu for most of my life. Hence, I am unsure of how Subramania Bharati's poems have "official" melody versions. This source says, "The poet had composed ‘Karumbu Thottathile’ which was on the plight of bonded Indian labourers in Fiji. This was changed to ‘Theyilai Thottatile,’ depicting the problems of the tea plantation workers in Ceylon." -- <b style="color: black;">Kailash29792</b> (talk)  15:06, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The source, in Google Translate, refers to "songs" not "poems"; is it just that the translation should be "song"? The source talks about Bharati's songs being sung on stage, and the melodies being popular, so "poem" seems wrong. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 01:45, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no error by Google Translate, the source indeed describes "Karumbu Thottathile" as a song. Written likewise. <b style="color: black;">Kailash29792</b> (talk)  12:13, 4 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Sathi Leelavathi had a "trade show" debut in Madras on 1 February 1936, and was theatrically released on 28 March that year. A trade show is a showing of a film to people in the trade, usually so reviewers and critics can get an early look.  I think we could write this more naturally as "Sathi Leelavathi had a trade screening [with a footnote if you think it needs explanation] in Madras on 1 February 1936...".  We'd need a source for the definition and a quick look doesn't find one in Google Books, so if you want to make this change I'll look a little further.  Also, I see that this source, which you cite for the trade showing, says the picture was release on February 1; the trade show must have been the day before, or earlier, and I think we should mention, perhaps in a footnote, that a contemporary source says it went on release on February 1, not March 28.
 * I pondered over this for a long time, but kept quiet due to lack of sources. It remains a mystery how the film released on March 28, almost two months after the trade show. But based on the Indian Express article, I guess we can ditch the March 28 release info altogether and agree that February 1 is the official release date. What do you say? -- <b style="color: black;">Kailash29792</b> (talk)  15:06, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that's a good enough source -- it's scarcely even a future prediction; the release happened the day the paper came out, and pre-screenings were often just one day before public release, in order to get reviews into the papers for the day of release. You could link "trade show" to Film_screening. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 01:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)


 * At the time of its initial release, critics praised most aspects of the production, including the direction, photography, sound design, and writing. This doesn't seem well-sourced.  One source is the press book; the other just says "The photography and recording are sound and the acting is generally satisfactory"; this is hardly "praise".  (The same comment applies to the source for "The acting performances also received generally positive response from critics.").  The press book does include positive comments, and I don't think we have any reason to doubt that they're accurate transcriptions, but the press book would exclude any negative comments so we can't use it to say the response was positive -- that would have to come from a source like Guy.  Would any of the original sources be available from a library?  It would be great to obtain the original reviews of any of these, though I imagine that's unlikely to be possible.
 * The critical reception summaries, which were not added by me but, may be removed since I agree with you that there seems to be some form of censorship, given that the pressbook seems like WP:PRIMARYSOURCE (please don't say the pressbook should be outright removed). I think The Hindu's original review remains, as a snippet from it is mentioned here. But I'm not sure if they took that from the pressbook. -- <b style="color: black;">Kailash29792</b> (talk)  15:06, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The pressbook is fine, we just need to make sure that the reader understands that the review information we have comes from PR for the film. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Stopping there for now; should be able to finish this pass later today. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:16, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments, they are greatly appreciated. While FA is not a possibility, this article maintaining GA status with acceptable prose and zero blatant factual errors is enough for me. If you feel statements attributed to Memories of Madras (Guy, 2016) need proofreading, here are the pages free for viewing. But much of the content is the same as in Starlight Starbright. <b style="color: black;">Kailash29792</b> (talk)  15:06, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

, I've been reflexively reviewing this article with the same rigour that I would at FAC -- probably because that's where I started looking at the article. However, this is GAR, not FAC, and I should let you know what I think the status is according to the GAR requirements. The only remaining point that I think needs to be addressed for GA is to make it clear to the reader that the press opinions are taken from PR material and so cannot be assumed to be representative.

I think this is only the second of your articles I've reviewed at FAC; I hadn't realized you were working on early Tamil cinema. It's an interesting topic. If you plan to bring any other articles to FAC, and would like me to comment before the FAC, let me know and I'll try to find time. I think this article could easily make it to FA too, though it sounds like you're no longer interested in pursuing that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:47, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm still watching this; just to repeat myself, are you really only interested in having this reassessed for GA? If so just make it clear about the pressbook and I'll pass it.  I'm happy to provide more feedback if you want, but it's not necessary just to retain GA. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 00:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , after reading your comments, I reconsidered. An FAC might still be possible, but I intend to solve 's comments before that (seen here and here). While I'm not sure if he is still active, do you think his comments have been solved and this can go straight to FAC? If they have been solved, I'd say yes, only the "Reception" part needs restructuring. Can the section be restored to as it was here, before edited it? <b style="color: black;">Kailash29792</b>  (talk)  04:50, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear you want to go back to FAC. I'm out of time this morning, but I might be able to look at the reception section again tonight.  I gather Laser brain is limited in his ability to edit by the COVID pandemic; I'll take a look through his comments when I can and give you my opinion but it would be good to get him to look through again too.  In the meantime I'll go back through my comments above and strike everything that you've dealt with.  I think there are some points you haven't yet responded to above? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 10:50, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I looked at the edit to the reception section, and I think that section still needs work. I'd be willing to have a go at rewriting it, but I don't think I should do that during a GAR.  I suggest you add to the top of the reception section a simple statement such as "All known contemporary reviews are from a press book advertising the film.  There may have been negative reviews, but if so they have not survived."  That warns the reader sufficiently.  Then I'll pass this as surviving GAR, and we can resume work on the article talk page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 22:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , sorry for the delayed response. I have added your suggestion – not in the main text, but as a hidden comment because it sounds opinionated. When you have time, can you re-review the article and say if the GAR can be closed? <b style="color: black;">Kailash29792</b> (talk)  04:02, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think what's needed is to let the reader know that the surviving reviews may not be representative, so a hidden comment, while helpful to editors, isn't really enough. Is there another wording you'd be OK with?  This is the only thing holding up the GAR from my point of view. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 10:23, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , just checking in -- I've been working on Manilal Dwivedi so haven't looked in here in a week or so, but it looks like there'll be a pause in activity on that article so I can come back here if you still are interested in working on the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:46, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , your opinion is welcome here, given your expertise in keeping/removing critical reception summaries. Once that is settled, the GAR may close., once the GAR closes, you'll help me solve Laser brain's comments? One of them is reading the offline English sources which I can give you for free. <b style="color: black;">Kailash29792</b> (talk)  12:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I should be able to help. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:26, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This is maybe a bit beyond my area of expertise. We typically don't include disclaimers, but there might be a way to incorporate something that explains the situation without sounding so disclaim-y. My recommendation is to ask at WikiProject Film to see what they'd recommend. Something like: "I'm writing about a film from 1936 and want to get it to GA/FA level. While there I haven't been able to find a lot of press coverage that summarises overall critical response or that even presents a selection of good/bad reviews, I have found some review excerpts published in the film's press book. Naturally, these are probably cherrypicked for their bright hue. Any tips on how these could be used while still maintaining a neutral point of view? Should some language at the top of the critical response section be included, to the effect of: 'All known contemporary reviews are from a press book advertising the film. There may have been negative reviews, but if so they have not survived'? Should I do something else? Thanks." (Cynic's pro-tip: Try not not to mention India right off the bat or nobody will respond...) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:19, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

, I decided to go ahead with a slightly modified version of the suggested sentence, and will go ahead and close the GAR. I have a couple of other reviewing obligations but if you're still interested in taking this back to FAC I would be willing to work with you on it when I get time. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:21, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Passing GAR; article retains GA status. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:21, 5 September 2020 (UTC)