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 SandyGeorgia 00:27, 27 December 2010 [1].

---

Taare Zameen Par (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Taare Zameen Par/archive1
• Featured article candidates/Taare Zameen Par/archive2

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

Nominator(s): Ωphois 23:12, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets the criteria. It was not promoted last time due to a lack of reviewers, so hopefully the second try will garner more activity. Ωphois 23:12, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Maybe this is standard for articles about movies, but I would convert the "Cast" section from list to prose. — GabeMc (talk) 23:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The film MOS allows for lists such as this, and I feel that the information within that section is best presented in the current format. I don't think it would have a sufficient flow to work as prose. Ωphois 00:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*If you prefer to stay with the list, then Bugs Bhargava and Shankar Sachdev should have separate entries. — GabeMc (talk) 00:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are a pair, though (sort of like how inseparable, identical characters can share an article or entry). It would be redundant, IMO, to list both with the same information. Ωphois 00:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*The article seems to have two references and 126 cites, I would like to see the "notes" section broken into "citations" and "references". — GabeMc (talk) 23:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Ωphois 00:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would put the cites above the refs, so further reading follows refs. — GabeMc (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reader needs to see the refs first to understand the specific citations. Ωphois 00:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is typical to present, notes/citations, then references, then further reading. — GabeMc (talk) 00:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have examples of this? A recent FA (Dustbin Baby (film)) uses the current style. Ωphois 00:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. Done. Ωphois 00:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it 'round as I suggested, feel free to put it back as you prefer. — GabeMc (talk) 00:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That works for me. Although I changed back the See Also move, because I believe See Also generally goes after the main section and is separate from the later Further Reading. Ωphois 00:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*"Two critics from the BBC both gave the film a rave review."

"Rave review" is cliche', and peacock language. Let the quotes from the reviewers speak for themselves. Also, the section could be smoothed out a bit, overuse of "furthermore" and topic sentences like the one above. — GabeMc (talk) 01:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I fixed it. Ωphois 02:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* In the "Accolades" section there are several multiple cites that you might want to consider bundling, and making notes for so the reader knows which cite is sourcing which clause. — GabeMc (talk) 01:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per above comment please see WP:INTEGRITY and WP:CITEBUNDLE. — GabeMc (talk) 01:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Section has been fixed. Ωphois 03:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*I would apply the same ce to "2009 Academy Awards submission and Slumdog Millionaire". — GabeMc (talk) 08:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Each ref of the bundles of that section support the entire sentence. Do you want me to just group all of them together? Or wouldn't that just nullify the purpose of "ref name" tags? Ωphois 19:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If one cite will do, why use four? I suggest reducing the cites to the best, or most reliable ones, and removing redundant cites that add little. For example, cites 101-104 source the statement: "The Indian news media also frequently compared Taare Zameen Par's lack of a nomination with the British Slumdog Millionaire's multiple Oscar nominations and wins, ... " This could read: "The Indian news media compared Taare Zameen Par's lack of Oscar nominations(cite) with the British film Slumdog Millionaire's multiple nominations and wins,"(cite) Seems like two cites would cover the statement. Keep in mind this is just a suggestion, you do not have to bundle, though WP:CITEBUNDLE recomends it, and you don't have to remove, or move redundant cites, though WP:INTEGRITY recomends it. — GabeMc (talk) 22:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant is that each source says the same thing. However, the sentence is that the media commented on it, so one specific news organization would not be adequate for "the media". Ωphois 22:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know what you mean, and I was there myself recently. It just comes down to a pile of cites when no one is contending the info anyway. If you want the reader to have access to several sources for one statement why not include them in further reading? Like I said, its up to you, though MoS agrees with my assertion that 3 or more cites look messy, and are more likely to confuse the reader then to enlighten them. — GabeMc (talk) 23:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want, I can just list them all under one ref. Ωphois 23:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its not what I want, its what looks tidy. However, don't sacrifice verifiability for appearance. If you need multiple cites for a statement then use multiple cites, just clean it up in the article so it's not untidy and confusing to the reader. — GabeMc (talk) 23:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I grouped the large bundles into one. Ωphois 00:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support per my review in the previous FAC. I notice one change to the lead from the last time I saw the article: the "English: Like Stars on Earth" in brackets. What exactly is this—1) a translation of the title (if so, it should be just "Stars on the Earth/Ground") or 2) the name of the English version of this film (which is unnecessarily in bold twice in the lead)?—indopug (talk) 13:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Changed the first instance to "Stars on the Ground". Ωphois 18:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer internal consistency, unless Disney mis-translated "ground" as "earth", in which case I might mention that the translation means ground not a planet. — GabeMc (talk) 23:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You would prefer "Stars on Earth" instead of "Stars on the Ground" in the first sentence? Ωphois 23:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer consistency but not over accuracy. Which is more accurate to the translation? Earth or Ground? — GabeMc (talk) 23:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know Hindi, so I don't know. The subtitles on the DVD say "Earth" though, and most references to the film use "Earth", so I will change it to that. Ωphois 23:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Though I just spoke to my friend who knows Hindi, and he said that the literal translation is "Stars on the Ground". Ωphois 00:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Always go with the most accurate translation. Although an arguement could be made that the meaning is more important than the literal translation. For example, does the title imply stars in the dirt, among rocks and sand, or stars on Earth among people? — GabeMc (talk) 00:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Literally, it means "ground". But figuratively, it means "Earth". Ωphois 00:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anything else? Ωphois 04:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You have done a great job with getting otrs permission for many of the images, however File:TaareZameenPar.jpg fails wp:nfcc and the article therefore fails WP:FA Criteria 3, so regrettably Oppose FA promotion Fasach Nua (talk) 18:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does it fail? Every other film FA just uses the poster with the caption "Theatrical poster". This article uses production commentary within the caption to justify the image's inclusion. The related information makes little sense if the image is not present. Ωphois 18:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The benchmark of usage is not other articles, but NFCC. What is the purpose of said image? Fasach Nua (talk) 18:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • But benchmarks show the generally-accepted interpretation of such rules. Anyways, I've also added in that the poster is set against images from Ishaan's imagination, an important aspect of the film that is also touched upon in the "Art and animation" section. The image itself is important because it is the advertisement from the film, with related production commentary explaining why it was chosen. Ωphois 19:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • That is the sort of information you need to add to the fair use rationale on the image page, at present the FUR is a boiler plate and as such is unacceptable. The WP:WIAFA hasn't always been applied consistently, particularly in older FAs, and I would urge caution if you choose to use anything other than WP:NFCC Fasach Nua (talk) 10:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have updated the FUR here. Ωphois 17:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • better Fasach Nua (talk) 18:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DAB/EL Check - no dabs, no real external link problems, though note that the bloomberg and reuters links are slightly redirecting. --PresN 22:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the Bloomberg link, but Reuters doesn't redirect for me. Ωphois 22:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - This article is well written, well sourced, comprehensive and neutral. The prose in general could use some smoothing out, but overall it's nothing a good copy-edit couldn't fix. It is a very important topic BTW, and the article conveys well the attempt the filmakers made to creatively illustrate a medical condition that is difficult to explain in words or film. — GabeMc (talk) 03:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Source comments:
  • The publication name is wikilinked in some refs but not others, within the same publication. Ex. Bollywood Hungama. Linking them all creates a sea of blue—I would prefer if you linked the first instance and left it at that.
    • Fixed. Ωphois 16:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 104: What makes WebIndia123 a reliable source? It looks like businesses can pay them to publish their content.

--Andy Walsh (talk) 04:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • • I removed it. Ωphois 16:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - there are still a few too many glitches in the prose that stop me from adding my support. Please check for consistent dash usage, the article mainly uses unspaced emdashes, which are fine, but I saw at least one spaced endash; the MoS advises consistency. I recall a "though", which should be "although" and please consider using "said" instead of "stated" when the reported discussions were informal. The is a little too much repetition of the plot in the cast section, which left me asking myself haven't I just read this? There are a couple of technical terms that I didn't understand such as "blocking" and "footage was not available on film solution". And, can we find a better expression for "bunking scene"? I look forward to adding my support. Graham Colm (talk) 11:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fixed the only endash instance I could find.
  • Do you recall which section the misplaced "though" was?
  • I went through and changed some of the "stated" to "said" as suggested.
  • For each character, the cast section only gives a sentence or so that is repeating directly from the plot section. The rest is either production stuff or plot-related details that are not included within the plot section. For example, the part about Nikumbh:
    • "An instructor at the Tulips School for young children with developmental disabilities, Nikumbh is hired by New Era as a temporary art teacher. He discovers that Ishaan is dyslexic and helps him to improve in his studies. Gupte, who based the character on his art teacher Ramdas Sampat Nikumbh, first asked actor Akshaye Khanna to play the role." The second sentence is the only repeated information.
  • Wikilinked "blocking", and changed "footage was not available on film solution" to "footage was not available in the proper format".
  • Do you have any suggestions to replace "bunking"? Ωphois 18:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen the film, but I guess "bunking" means "truancy"? Graham Colm (talk) 18:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It's British English. Do you want me to wikilink to the Truancy article? Ωphois 18:50, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am British :-) but I'd rather you used the word "truancy". Graham Colm (talk) 18:56, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to "truancy". Ωphois 19:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any other concerns? Ωphois 22:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I still don't think the prose is up to FA standard. Redundancy remains, and some odd tenses, [2]. The article needs another copy-edit and I suggest that someone fresh to the subject is asked to do this. Over familiarity with a text often makes effective copy-editing difficult. Graham Colm (talk) 21:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article has already been copy-edited by Malleus Fatuorum. Do you other examples of prose issues, because other than the "tensed" issue, those are very nitpicky in my opinion. To me at least, it sounds better to say "ahead of time" rather than just "ahead", and the meaning of the other sentence can now be easily misinterpreted without "in order". Ωphois 22:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not shoot the messenger; you invited me to revisit this FAC on my Talk Page, I guess this was in the hope of gaining my support, which is not forthcoming. Malleus copy-edited the article on the 8th of October, over two months ago, there have been many changes since then, and not all of them have been an improvement. If Malleus has the time, I suggest that you ask him to work his magic again. Also, reviewing at FAC level is all about being "nitpicky". FAs represent our best work but at the moment this article does not. Graham Colm (talk) 22:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean any disrespect by it. I was just explaining why I disagreed and giving my opinion. Anyways, I've contacted Malleus. Ωphois 23:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some images without alternative text. Ref 112 - Walt Disney redirects to home page so content missing. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 17:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added in alt text. I tested ref 112 and it works fine for me. Ωphois 21:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. As I've been mentioned here I'll say that I'd be even more critical of the prose than Graham has been, and I think it still needs quite a bit of work. As Ophois has asked me to help with it again I'll not vote yay or nay, but I will say that I would not be supporting this article's promotion as of now. Malleus Fatuorum 00:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been through the whole thing again and made a few changes. Malleus Fatuorum 23:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • More than a few Malleus, I have been watching your editing in the hope of learning something, and my time has not been wasted. Graham Colm (talk) 23:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Comments I would have reviewed this before if I'd been aware of the film's topic, since I've had to do a fair amount of research into dyslexia. Some queries follow Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Although "dyslexia" is linked at the first occurrence, considering its central role in the film I'd be inclined to add a sentence to explain what it is. Most people will think it's just problems with reading, and won't be aware of the wider cognitive difficulties

• Do you mean in the lead, plot, or development section? Ωphois 18:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• collecting fish outside of his school — "of" is redundant

• Copyeditor fixed it.

• Due to the hindrance — "this hindrance"

• Done. Ωphois 18:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Mondal also instructed Khan on the mannerisms and movements of painter. — poor phrasing, how about " on a painter's typical mannerisms and movements. "?

• Copyeditor fixed it.

• crore (US$ 3.41 million) — "crore" isn't linked or explained, whereas both the local and foreign currency symbols are overlinked

• The article uses the INRConvert template to display the rupee amounts and the equivalent in US dollars. I have requested at the template that they add in a link for crore. Ωphois 17:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I edited the template, so crore is now wikilinked. Ωphois 18:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• non Indian audience — "non-Indian"

• Done. Ωphois 18:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that you were wrong to change this as it's a direct quotation. Better to append {{sic}} after "non Indian" if that's felt to be necessary. Malleus Fatuorum 19:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I changed it back and added in the sic template. Thanks. Ωphois 20:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• A change like this would be allowed (see WP:MOSQUOTE). It is clear he meant "non-Indian", all you're doing is fixing a minor typographical error. - Kollision (talk) 15:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I fixed it and removed the sic. Ωphois 04:33, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per {{Infobox album}}, the reviews are now moved out of box into prose or a table. This needs to be corrected. And there is a huge commentary beneath the main poster, seems unnecessary. I know FN is strict about the NFCC, but you already have the critical commentary in the prose, and the rationale for the image is also updated to reflect this. You can easily prune down the commentary below the poster. It is kinda distracting. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the bit about it being set against Ishaan's imagination. I will look into the album concerns. Ωphois 17:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MOSFILM says to use the album infobox. Since reviews are no longer required in the infobox, I think I will remove the reviews. Ωphois 17:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not expand some of those references and add some critical commentary in the soundtrack section? — Legolas ^(talk2me) 12:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MOSFILM only says to list the tracks. I think it would be going beyond the scope of the article to include reviews for the soundtrack. Ωphois 04:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That MOS is applied only when the soundtrack itself doesnot have a separate article. And I guess you forgot to take out the reviews from the infobox. And they should not use the plain http links. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The soundtrack doesn't have a separate article. And I didn't forget to remove them, I was just waiting for your response to my suggestion. :) I've gone ahead and removed the infobox. Ωphois 17:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but why did you remove the reviews also? The section at present looks quite empty and just a collection of the tracklist. Taare Zameen Par soundtrack doesnot have a separate article, hence including the reviews for the soundtrack (since they exist) will only strengthen the section. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is all that MOSFILM requires, but I've gone ahead and added in the reviews. Thanks for pointing out the flaw. The section looks better now. Ωphois 06:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thanks for the cleanup, the article looks wholesome and precise now. I support its FA promotion. One small point, the comments below could be incorporated for Khna's picture also, not the critically praise one.. but rahter what inspired Aamir to make the film. Something like that seems interesting. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 14:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, although the photo is in the critical reception section, so his inspirations wouldn't be really relevant, IMO. Ωphois 17:43, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The image captions are kinda boring. Try making them more interesting. - Kollision (talk) 15:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All of them? Or are there certain ones in particular? Ωphois 18:56, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Aamir Khan one is especially bad. The Darsheel Safary and the musicians one are not bad, but not great either. I will just quote an example from WP:CAPTION: "in History of the Peerage, a caption for Image:William I of England.jpg might say 'William of Normandy overthrew the Anglo-Saxon monarchs, bringing a new style of government.' Then the reader gets curious about that new form of government and reads text to learn what it is." See what they did there? They didn't just describe what the picture depicted, they used it to draw the reader into the article. - Kollision (talk) 03:11, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the Safary one, how about: Darsheel Safary's initial screentest lacked dialogue. When Aamir Khan saw the expression in his eyes and face, however, he instantly knew, "That's the child. He is Ishaan." Ωphois 04:43, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's better. - Kollision (talk) 06:52, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added it in. Do you have any suggestions for the Aamir Khan one? The only thing I can think of is: "Critics praised Aamir Khan for his directorial debut, which garnered him many awards." Ωphois 07:33, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Well written, meets criteria. Good work.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:44, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.