Mughal-e-Azam

Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel it has featured article potential and that issues identified here will be more productive and better prepare it at FAC…

Thanks, ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:56, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have used this reference.--Nvvchar. 14:33, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Info abt the DVD release can be added from here ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 03:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley

I'm afraid I haven't time to do a thorough review, but here are a few comments that I hope you will find useful.

I'll add more if have time. Best. Tim riley (talk) 10:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tim.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed all issues mentioned above by Tim.--Nvvchar. 14:33, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SchroCat

I've made a few tweaks here and there: feel free to revert or tweak, as you prefer. First chunk:

Development
Design
Principal photography

More to follow. - SchroCat (talk) 20:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some further minor copyedits, which should be OK, but please feel free to tweak or revert if you feel appropriate. Some further points:

Infobox

Lead

Development

It is not known how they collaborated or split up their duties, but the Times of India considers the "writers' mastery over Urdu's poetic idiom and expression is present in every line - giving the film, with its rich plots and intricate characters, the overtones of a Shakespearean drama".
Your call if you go down the full quote route here, but you shouldn't be claiming "often" based on one source (unless that source specifically says that the film is often compared to poetry)
I am not sure that I agree with this, or most of the other 'the's that you added in the text. What is the need? Also, why change theatre to cinema? BollyJeff | talk 01:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not having the definite article when dealing with occupations is journalese. Having it is correct English. This also holds if there are a number of people involved (ie. "the journalist", or "the music director" even if there are numerous journalists or music directors involved). I was under the impression that IndEng followed BrEng in using the cinema to watch films and the theatre to watch plays: if that's not the case, feel free to revert. - SchroCat (talk) 08:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you get these rules? This guy (a professional writer) says that it is wrong, and should only used for unique occupations: [2]. As for the cinema, you may be right; I am American and we call it theater (er not re). BollyJeff | talk 12:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough if you don't believe me, I'll flash up the bat signal for Tim riley to comment on the use of definite article in these circumstances. I certainly wouldn't take the word of a blog, and especially when he is writing about the journalistic use, which is where the practice has become all too common. - SchroCat (talk) 12:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why can't us Americans and British just get along? :-) How am I supposed to contribute to this site when I have to purposely write everything differently than how I was taught? This "the" stuff just sounds bad; I will never get it. Also, what do you Brits have against the letter "z"? :-) BollyJeff | talk 12:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know - I have the same problem when writing on American topics - and don't get me started on the different dating styles either! And why do Americans have an obsession in using "z" and not using the letter "u"...? ;) - SchroCat (talk) 12:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not being racist, but I think American English is casual and simplistic, in contrast to British English. And since British English is formal like the people who speak it, its better to follow it on Wiki. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good example of the wisdom of Wikipedia's WP:ENGVAR rules. When writing about an American subject I write in American English (e.g. Cole Porter, Jerome Kern and H. C. Robbins Landon; when my respected American colleagues and sometime collaborators are writing about British subjects they write in British English (e.g. Neville Chamberlain and Noël Coward). We tweak one another's prose when our grasp of the other's idiom occasionally goes awry. As to the "According to premier David Cameron" construction, I know no British style-guide that countenances it, though I assume the tabloid papers' internal style guides must do, as the usage is common there. In scrupulous British usage it is avoided, but I shouldn't dream of quibbling about it in an American article, as the usage is idiomatic in the US. Horses for courses. What is best for an Indian article is not for me to say. Tim riley (talk) 13:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting that this is the "right" way even though many writers in your own country as well as those in America see differently. Anyway, as long as I am writing on these subjects, I will do my best, and let someone else correct it. Concerning what Kailash said... no, I will just let it go. BollyJeff | talk 12:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Casting

Post-production

"A song titled "Ae Ishq Yeh Sab Duniyawale", picturised on Sheila Dalaya, was cut from the film"; firstly "picturised" isn't a word I'm aware of (fair enough if it’s acceptable in IndEng). Secondly, I'm not entirely sure what this is saying, apart from the song being cut.

Yes it is very common in IndEng, meaning that the song played during a scene involving her, or that she lip synched to it. BollyJeff | talk 12:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Themes

Music

It was linked previously in another section. Link again? BollyJeff | talk 12:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need to link - my mistake: I missed the previous mention. - SchroCat (talk) 12:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Box office

Done down to the end of Accolades: will finish off later today, all things being equal. - SchroCat (talk) 11:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - I made notes and a few copy edits last week but didn't post my notes: apologies!

Colourisation

That's it from me. Drop me a note when it gets to FAC and I'll have another read-through then too. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Preservation

As Indian media does not often keep archives, the URL's have a good chance of becoming dead links. Even the popular archiving site WebCite appears close to discontinuation, which makes archiving URL's even more difficult. So I advise the editors to archive all the important URL's used in this article through the Wayback Machine ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 08:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Crisco review

Isn't it helpful?
  • Not particularly, especially since they play no other role in the article. BFI can handle that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The one who played yourg Salim, as described in cast section.
  • Not what I was asking. You're telling us "so and so" was an actor, singer, etc. Any biographical information on this one? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting to know, thanks. Of course, then the question becomes where to find reliable sources for film cast and crew?
Try this page at the BFI. Most of the main cast is shown and an extensive credit list is there. - SchroCat (talk) 13:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, lots of names there, but I noticed that it conflicts with the book source "Encyclopaedia of Hindi Cinema" as to who were the assistant choreographers, sigh. BollyJeff | talk 01:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does the film's credits say? Compare the two with the primary source and use the correct one. If the film doesn't list them, or both sources are wrong, then you can either ignore such a trivial point and not mention the assistant choreographers in the article, or highlight the discrepancy in a footnote. - SchroCat (talk) 05:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Credits did not say, so I took them out, thanks. BollyJeff | talk 14:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That sentence is the indication, no?
  • It a) comes out of nowhere, and b) is not explicit that they were dating. Readers need at least a little indication. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It re-directs to an article about a queen, not the film.
  • I know that. How is it not notable? Judging by the individuals working on this article, that should have been an article 3 years ago. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How so? Doesn't WP:CITEKILL say to not have identical cites in a row?
  • Attribution, not citations. "According to John Doe of XYZ College,..." etc. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think so. Where?
  • "Anupama Chopra included the film in her list of "Top 100 Films", writing "with its powerful performances, thunderous father-son drama and spectacular song-and-dance sequences, Mughal-e-Azam is the apotheosis of the Hindi film form.", for instance.
Thank you Crisco. I have a couple questions sprinkled in above. BollyJeff | talk 12:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input Schrod and Crisco!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:48, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think that I have covered most of these points now, except for the complete read through. Maybe later. BollyJeff | talk 03:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redtigerxyz's comments

Redtigerxyz Talk 12:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I didn't add the part about Jodhabai and Salim because the article said that the complainers have "their own version of history". BollyJeff | talk 12:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The soundtrack section is big enough to have its own article now. Do you think it should be separated out or kept together with the film? BollyJeff | talk 12:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I feel yes. But there are only 2 reviews for the music alone. I feel that at least 3 more music reviews can be added, and when that is done, the soundtrack may look eligible for having a separate article. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Category