Talk:Parineeta (2005 film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleParineeta (2005 film) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 21, 2007Good article nomineeListed

Untitled[edit]

Why are we spoling the plot? --> not spoiled anymore.

Fair use rationale for Image:Parineetaposter.jpg[edit]

Image:Parineetaposter.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In addition...[edit]

Having seen the film for myself, there are a few other minor things that probably need to be fixed. The subtitles seem to indicate that his name is spelt as Gurucharan. Also, Shekhar doesn't realise (by himself) that Lolita rejected Girish's hand in marriage - it was only when Girish returned the papers that he revealed he was married to Koel as Lolita claimed she was already married. The importance placed on marriage isn't really shown in the plot section - this could be fixed if it was more detailed with the significance of exchanging garlands etc. Ncmvocalist (talk) 00:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your thoughts, I will never trust the subtitles unless I know the source is reliable. My usual tryst with movies with subtitles has yielded only humor, and this I attribute to the poor/incorrect/atrocious subtitles. So, if I were you, I'd rather check the pronunciation and come up with the spelling. This is the best way, I feel, for Indian movies.
About Shekhar's realization about Lolita's rejection to Girish's marriage proposal, I had not included this directly because I was facing a plot summary word count crunch. I was trying to limit the content by providing the gist alone. This has been addressed now.
About the importance of marriage, I was not really sure of what you mean by "significance of exchanging garlands". What else did it signify but the marriage? Can you elaborate on this, please?
Regards, Mspraveen (talk) 15:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if I can agree completely with spelling it as pronounced, as the English language often doesn't do justice to Indian names, perhaps as a result of the lack of characters in the language. The subtitles seemed rather accurate, however, I can understand your concern, knowing how ridiculous it can be. Why hasn't Gurcharan been included in the cast section? He plays a major role in terms of the storyline, doesn't he? If so, then there may be a way around it (to be on the safe side anyway).
I can see now what you mean by just providing the gist - never mind my comment regarding garlands. I just felt that the symbolic significance needed some comment (although, the plot section may not be the appropriate section to include this after all) - the simple, perhaps innocuous act of exchanging garlands, can in some cultures, be considered a ritual for getting married - some people may not fully understand this and how significant/important/life-changing this can be. I think I'll stop while I'm ahead :P Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Regarding the pronounciation. The name of the female lead should be written Lalita, instead of lolita{although its pronounced lolita} Bengali pronounciation of the 'a' sound is slightly different. {Bengali is pronounced simlilar to Bongoli, if I am not mistaken. Alexsanjoseph (talk) 03:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.199.213.130 (talk) [reply]

Discussion pertaining to non-free image(s) used in article[edit]

A cleanup page has been created for WP:FILMS' spotlight articles. One element that is being checked in ensuring the quality of the articles is the non-free images. Currently, one or more non-free images being used in this article are under discussion to determine if they should be removed from the article for not complying with non-free and fair use requirements. Please comment at the corresponding section within the image cleanup listing. Before contributing the discussion, please first read WP:FILMNFI concerning non-free images. Ideally the discussions pertaining to the spotlight articles will be concluded by the end of June, so please comment soon to ensure there is clear consensus. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Parineeta (2005 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Parineeta (2005 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:11, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Parineeta (2005 film)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)Press [show] to view →
Will add some comments soon! Ncmvocalist 08:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

===Assessment/Review being conducted by Ncmvocalist===

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:


Images fair use rationales are not detailed enough, however, some such as Greencar.jpg were perfect. However, the naming of this image mentioned could certainly be improved!

Manual of style guidelines need to be followed more strictly in some areas. For example; captions of images do not end with full stops, and the movie's name shouldn't be bolded unnecessarily other than in the first sentence of the article.

The article is largely unfocused in areas post-cast. 'Production' and 'Reviews...' certainly needs to be cut-down in length in order to conform with the summary-style article guideline. Further, there are some more unnecessary details of critics/reviews in the 'filming and music' subsection of production - this also raises questions about the neutrality of this article. The lead section also fails to mention important points such as cultural allusion, DVD availability, and the less-favourable reviews prior to the film's release - work is needed here to mention all of these, while being succinct. Despite the fact this may have been mentioned in another review/article, 'bit went on to become one of the hottest best-sellers. The report states that' can be omitted. The hottest best-sellers part can be avoided in this article to maintain neutrality.

Although the prose is quite good for most of the article, there are areas in need for improvement. The spelling that would be preferred is the UK style rather than the USA style in this particular article (eg; realise as opposed to realize).

However, despite these shortcomings, the article appears to be sound in the other areas. The unsatisfied GA criteria needs to be satisfied within the next 7 days if this article is to pass. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

== Response to the GA review ==

  • Image fair use rationales have been detailed. With regards to renaming the Greencar.jpg, I wasn't sure how this could be done. If light is thrown on this, it shall be changed.
  • Caption style has been followed. Only the first sentence has the movie name in bold.
  • I've rearranged sentences to have a sense of flow in the text. With my intentions of pushing this article further on quality, say A-class/FA, I wish to provide greater detail (not unnecessary) about the article. I'd request the reviewer to view it not on length but on the quality of content.
  • The lead section now includes a reference to the cultural allusions from the movie. After viewing the lead sections of several FA films, which do not mention DVD, I decided not to add one as suggested by the above reviewer.
  • With respect to neutrality, due perspectives have been provided in the reviews/critiques section. Even an instance of copyright violation allegation was provided to show that not all was well with the movie.
  • A reliable source has been referenced for the aspect of "hottest best-sellers". Since I am supporting the phrase with a reliable source, it is not POV.
  • Prose has been checked for the US style of writing and modified according to the review. I assume UK style is preferred due it the article being on Indian origin. If not, I don't see a reason why UK is the preferred style.

If there are any other issues that missed my attention or something new crops up, please feel free to direct your concerns on this page.

Regards, Mspraveen (talk) 15:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

== Re: Response to the GA Review ==

  • Image captions (still) do not adhere to manual of style guidelines - please recheck the review
  • The quality of the article is suffering as a result of the excessive length (although not all the details are entirely superfluous on reading it again). I think it is a problem with expression. Tighter, simpler expression will make it a better read. Ideally, if a reader were to pick a random sentence out of the article, it should be able to sit on its own, while conveying something that hasn't already been conveyed. (Think of it as a general rule when writing, and as with all general rules, there are exceptions). Complicating expression does no favours as readers should find it both informative but readable (Rather than "But for a small portion in the film which was shot in Darjeeling, most of the film was made in Kolkata." try "Most of the film was made in Kolkata, but a small portion was shot in Darjeeling." Simple and easy.) The following is one such example that could be (and should be) further tightened: "About the cinematic adaptation, he gave due credit to Sarkar and the film's cinematographer, Natarajan Subramaniam for the providing vintage visuals to the movie.[1] On the contrary, in an interview given by Saif Ali Khan who portrayed Shekhar in the film, these vintage visuals would not have been possible. He said that the film was initially attempted to be made in a contemporary way. However, with the film's crew not finding the depiction apt, they began filming the movie with a 60's look. Chopra once cited an interesting anecdote about his belief in Sarkar's film making abilities. He said that he never personally signed the cheques for the film's expenditure." There are several improvements that can be made to the expression here. In the first sentence alone, "When speaking about cinematic adaptation, Chopra gave due credit to Sarkar, and Natarajan Subramaniam (the film's cinematographer), for providing the vintage visuals of the film." Keep it clear, simple and specific. One more example: instead of "Chopra's previous films such as 1942: A Love Story (1993)[11] and Mission Kashmir (2000)[12] provided award-winning music to the audiences. Going by his previous films, Parineeta's music had high expectations from the critics.[13]", try "Critics had high expectations for Parineeta's music because of the award-winning music that was provided in (some of) Chopra's previous films (such as 1942: A Love Story (1993)[11] and Mission Kashmir (2000)[12]). A glaring example of poor expression can be seen here (although I'm not sure if it was a deliberate use of double negatives?) "Released on June 10, 2005, one of the critics went to say that the film wasn't tipped to do much at the box office given that the novella wasn't not one of the author, Sarat Chandra Chattopadhyay's lavish creations."
  • The neutrality issue still needs to be addressed on a brief look at this sentence: 'Chopra even confirms the authenticity of the piano used in the song, Piyu Bole[1] and of the toy train used in a song (Kasto Mazza).[1][7]' Unnecessary use of the word 'even' don't you think? There is also an issue of tense. Confirms or confirmed? Said or says? There may be a preferred style - but it wouldn't be a problem if the same tense was maintained throughout, unlike in this article.
  • This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper or a promotion. Expression has to be adjusted accordingly even if such a 'reliable source' is used. Reliability is not the issue - neutrality is. I apologise for wrongly terming it POV as opposed to neutrality.
  • The lead section is better. You have made this point about other FA/A articles not mentioning DVD availability, however, I will point out that the criteria for becoming an FA grows more and more stricter, and this is one that will become one of them. A lead section should summarise the main points of the article as stated in the manual of style guidelines. I suppose we could scrap the entire DVD/Sountrack section if it isn't a main point? Btw, another typo!

The review has been adjusted accordingly to reflect any other changes that have been made, as well as this reply. Good luck! Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

== Re: Re: Response to the GA Review ==

  • My apologies, but I was not able to figure out what is still wrong with the image captions. If it is pointed out, the needful shall be done.
  • The superfluous nature of the article has been addressed and wherever pointed out and wherever I felt, the sentences have been re-framed.
  • The neutrality issue has been addressed wherever pointed out and the tense also has been sorted out. The other instance of neutrality, I hope, was seen to have been addressed. I retained "one of the best sellers" part because it is a fact. And, I certainly do not agree with even this being termed as not being neutral. At least, I did not mention it as 'the best seller'.
  • The lead section now contains references to the DVD and film festivals too. With this, I suppose it covers all the major topics addressed by the article. The mentioned typo was corrected. However, I believe that your take on the mention of DVD in the lead article is your opinion alone. Isn't it? Coz, I didn't really see any mandate on that.

Any further changes will be addressed if pointed out. With best regards, Mspraveen (talk) 13:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

== Final Reviewer Response to the GA Review before GA Assessment completes ==

  • As mentioned earlier, what is expected in a lead section are detailed in the manual of style guidelines, including summarising the main points. Even if this is overlooked in some articles review, it is clearly stated in the manual of style guidelines, and editors are expected to have conformed to these, especially when alerted where they haven't like in this instance.
  • Using the term 'bestseller' so loosely in this article will be deemed to have violated NPOV policy and/or using a word that could be avoided (and hence fail the GA review) unless what bestseller list is specified with a reliable, verifiable source to back it up (an example; the New York Times Best Seller list). This will apply at any later stage of assessment too. The reason this is considered POV is because of how loosely the term has been used, especially by the media. So how can one be sure of its reliability/verifiability in this particular matter? By ensuring it is from a best-seller list to begin with. For now, I am editing it so that it is closer to passing. I'm sure you will understand that this isn't an essential for the article to exist.
  • There is an excessive sense of quoting in the reviews section - this needs to be reduced as readers detract from what is being said, and so there is a lack of clarity and focus again. [ A reviewer from About.com said that it is "contemporary retelling of...[an] engaging and timeless tale rich with human emotion and universal drama". The reviewer appreciates the film in most of the nuances of film making saying that this is "enhanced by a brilliant musical score, and accentuated by superb performances by Sanjay Dutt, Saif Ali Khan, Raima Sen, Diya Mirza and debutante Vidya Balan in the lead role of Lolita". ] Compare reading this on its own to the sentence that has been written. Similarly, the rest of the reviews section needs to be cleared up. The whole sentence Released on June 10, 2005, one of the critics went to say that the film wasn't tipped to do much at the box office because the novella was not one of the author, Sarat Chandra Chattopadhyay's lavish creations. should be reworded. It does not make sense. Be brutal when editing. Do you want to say because it is not by the author, or is it because it is not one of the author's lavish creations? Choose 1!
  • Image captions must end with a full stop. Again, some editors/reviewers overlook these details of the manual of style guidelines either out of ignorance, or laziness. It is clearly specified there, so it can be held accountable for an article's fail/pass having been alerted of its existence in the manual of style guidelines, like with the lead section summarising the main points. I've passed it assuming this will be dealt with in due course.

It has been 10 days since the hold was issued, and a extra time of 3 days has been granted. Please ensure that all of the above is met within the next 24 hours, and recheck for any other potential problems like NPOV in other areas of the article. If this is all fine, then this article is likely to pass. Best wishes - Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

== In response to the final review ==

  • Agreed to MoS guidelines as pointed out.
  • You have a point. The usage by the media might not always be true and factual. I'm not sure about a best-seller list for the book though. The article can do without it, I guess.
  • The reviews have been re-written so as to flow like a sentence. I hope it is in order now.
  • I didn't put a period for the "Parineeta DVD cover" because it is not a complete sentence. This is according to MoS.

Hope all is clean with the remainder of the article. Best regards, Mspraveen (talk) 14:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

== GA verdict ==

In terms of this particular GA process, despite the delays and the obvious lack of regard to the deadline in this case, there has been an outstanding improvement to the article across the board, especially in the final response (in the reviews section) and in the production sections. In its current version (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Parineeta_%282005_film%29&oldid=179423903), all criteria have been satisfied in my opinion, however, I did not concentrate too much on a certain criterion (except in an obvious case). Despite this, I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors, notably User:Mspraveen who worked hard to bring it to this status. Congratulations!! Ncmvocalist 14:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 12:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 02:17, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Parineeta (2005 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:14, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Parineeta (2005 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:47, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Parineeta_(2005_film)&oldid=1209521353"