Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Mani Ratnam filmography/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by SchroCat via FACBot (talk) 00:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Mani Ratnam filmography[edit]

Mani Ratnam filmography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): —Vensatry (Talk) 06:31, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mani Ratnam is arguably the greatest mainstream filmmaker in Indian cinema. The 'well-researched' list contains his directorial ventures and co-productions. I believe it meets the FL criteria. As always, look forward to comments and suggestions. —Vensatry (Talk) 06:31, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ssven2

  • A small note with the Ramachandran Naman source — The pages are not mentioned properly. Same with the Omar Ahmed reference.

Other than that, I can't spot any major issues with the article. So, you have my support.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 06:59, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Naman Ramachandran book has page nos. Added one for the other book. Thanks! —Vensatry (Talk) 07:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments fron Krish!

  • Don't you think Ok Jaanu should be added in his filmography? As the film article says he is the writer of the remake too.Krish | Talk 10:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm aware of the remake, but I think it's better to wait until the film gets significant indpendent coverage; I'm unable to find references which credit Mani Ratnam as the 'story writer' of the film. —Vensatry (Talk) 06:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well actually i also searched for the refrences but didn't find any. By the way, the article is flawless like your other works. Hence i Support the list. Well done.Krish | Talk 15:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Krimuk|90 (talk) 10:56, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
;Comments from Krimuk90
  • "He is credited with redefining the "range and depth of Tamil cinema"..." An attribution would help.
    • Since the book has a limited preview, I'm not sure if I can find the author. Unfortunately, the DFF site doesn't seem to have the corresponding archive. Let me look for alternatives. —Vensatry (talk) 17:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ratnam made his directorial debut, without formal training or education in filmmaking," ==> "Without any formal training in filmmaking, Ratnam made his directorial debut..." Also, since he won an award for writing Pallavi Anu Pallavi, it's best you mention that as well here.
    • Better not to start a sentence with 'Without' – in this case it's not even a substantial point. —Vensatry (talk) 17:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but "training" and "education" serves the same purpose here. Also, the "writing" point has not been addressed. Krimuk|90 (talk) 08:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By 'education' I mean a film school diploma, and by 'formal training' I mean apprenticeship. Do you mean to rewrite the bit as 'written and directed by him'? —Vensatry (talk) 10:42, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. But this part "which was a loosely based film adaptation" can be changed to "which was loosely adapted from the..." Krimuk|90 (talk) 08:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done —Vensatry (talk) 10:42, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1992, he made the romantic thriller Roja for Kavithalayaa Productions. The film was dubbed into many Indian languages including Hindi. The widespread success of the film brought national recognition to Ratnam." Firstly, why is Kavithalayaa Productions relevant here? Also, the three lines can be combined into a single sentence: "In 1992, he made the romantic thriller Roja in Tamil, which was dubbed into several Indian languages, including Hindi, and gained Ratnam national recognition".
    • I think it's worth mentioning because until then most of his films were made by his uncle/brother's production house (Geetanjali is an exception though). Kavithalayaa Productions (KB's production house) mainly made films which were directed by KB. Mani Ratnam chose to make Roja (and Thiruda Thiruda) for Kavithalayaa, not the other way round. Merged the latter two. —Vensatry (talk) 17:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comma missing before "including Hindi". Krimuk|90 (talk) 08:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done —Vensatry (talk) 10:42, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just say, "Although controversial for its depiction of religious riots..." Krimuk|90 (talk) 03:58, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done —Vensatry (talk) 07:05, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's "wide critical response"?
    • If you're questioning the phrase's usage, it's pretty much an acceptable one. Bombay received more attention (worldwide) than any of his previous films (even surpassing Roja). —Vensatry (talk) 17:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It will be better to know if the response was positive or negative. Krimuk|90 (talk) 03:58, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, hopefully —Vensatry (talk) 07:05, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "relationship between cinema and politics in Tamil Nadu" ==> "ties between cinema and politics in Tamil Nadu"
    • There are numerous scholarly articles on this topic. All of them unanimously use the word 'relationship'. —Vensatry (talk) 17:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • " "top-10 hits" " Nope. It was ranked among the top 10 films at the box office.
    • Rephrased, but what's the difference? Am I missing something here? —Vensatry (talk) 17:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Hits" is quite vague; what exactly happened is that the film opened among the top 10 films of the week at the UK box office. Krimuk|90 (talk) 08:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, got it! —Vensatry (talk) 10:42, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that, but the sentence reads much better this way. You can try some other variations as well. Krimuk|90 (talk) 03:58, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When you say 'nonetheless', it implies that the film won so many awards inspite of being a commercial failure. I think it reads much better in its present state. —Vensatry (talk) 07:05, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He returned to Bollywood after a six-year hiatus.." There is no mention of the fact that he had worked in Bollywood before this.
  • "Tamil-Hindi bilinguals". "Bilingual" not "Bilinguals"
  • " opened to positive reviews". The "opened to" part is redundant. Krimuk|90 (talk) 09:39, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two more points...

  • "production house" is informal. Say "production company"
  • A brief description about Guru and OK Kanmani will help, since they both are notable films in his career. Krimuk|90 (talk) 08:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Kailash
  • The dispute we earlier had about Ratnam's first hit – Idaya Kovil or Mouna Ragam – repeats here.
    • Back then, you cited a source (from Hindu/NIE) which clearly stated that Idaya Kovil was his first commercial success. What more do you want? —Vensatry (talk) 07:05, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because Ratnam contradicts this in Conversations. Or I think it's best that I write (in MR) that Ratnam considered it to be his first success, even if it wasn't. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:42, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • While Roja and Dil Se indeed have terrorism in them, I don't see how Bombay does; yet it is part of the "terrorism trilogy". I think that is more of a "political trilogy". Kailash29792 (talk) 04:32, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Our opinion doesn't matter. We have to go by what majority of the sources claim. Some might even include Kannathil Muthamittal and call it a 'terrorism tetralogy'. —Vensatry (talk) 07:05, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Pavanjandhyala
  • For non Indian readers, it would be better if you link Kannada before the mention of Pallavi Anu Pallavi.
  • The following year, he made the romantic drama Mouna Ragam -- I suggest you to rephrase the sentence as The following year, he made Mouna Ragam, a romantic drama film. After that, i advise you to tell the readers in brief what the film is about.
    • Done, not exactly the way you suggested though. —Vensatry (talk) 12:41, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the sentence about Geethanjali, Anjali, and Thalapathi, it would be better if you mention their genres before the film's description. For example: Geethanjali, a tragic romance which marked his Telugu cinema debut.
    • I think it's best to describe the genre before the film. —Vensatry (talk) 12:41, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you provide a source for this statement confirming the latter half -- "In 1997, Ratnam co-produced and directed the political drama film Iruvar, which was loosely based on the relationship between cinema and politics in Tamil Nadu."
  • Linking Bollywood would be very beneficial.
  • The commercial failure was the most successful film at the 50th National Film Awards, winning six awards including the award for the Best Feature Film in Tamil -- "...including the one/honour for the..."; only an attempt to avoid close repetition of the word "award".
  • Yuva was simultaneously filmed into Tamil as Aayutha Ezhuthu with a different cast. I feel that a source confirming this should be a part of the lead. Because, the filmography table isn't mentioning the same fact.
  • Weren't Kadal and OK Kanmani his production ventures? If yes, please mention that in the lead.
    • All his directorial ventures since Bombay were produced by himself. Do we need to mention that for each film? —Vensatry (talk) 12:41, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Absurd indeed. Guess he had no trust on outsiders. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 16:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Pavanjandhyala (talk) 08:49, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rest done. Thanks, —Vensatry (talk) 12:41, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nice job! Pavanjandhyala (talk) 16:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Source review
  • Spot checks on seven references are OK: the information is supported and no copyvios could be seen;
  • There are six books in the references that need the publisher's location to be added to the details;

That's it: all good to go after that one minor tweak. - SchroCat (talk) 08:10, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the source review, Schrocat. I believe Ssven2 has addressed the concern. —Vensatry (talk) 03:12, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Mani_Ratnam_filmography/archive1&oldid=1138488039"