This article has gone under some improvement in the last few months. It is probably time to get some input from the community. -- ppm 17:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi - its great to see a prospective FA on this great man's life. Here are some points of criticism:
I hope this helps - this article needs re-organization and some copyediting, but only because the subject matter is so damn diverse and important. Cheers and good work! This Fire Burns Always 08:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Lead: I see a pov in the opening sentence. It is not encyclopaedic.
- Cribananda 20:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it is POV per se, see Gauss or Muhammad Iqbal, for example (both featured article). If one thinks the statement is false, that is another question.-- ppm 21:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi - there is a problem with the fact that most of the pictures are fair use as screenshots, posters or book covers. The fact is fair use probably is not justified here because the topic is Ray, not these respective works. I think most of these pictures will have to go. To make this an FA, you need more pictures of Ray (which is not hard since all prior to 1946 are PD). However, you'll have many object votes citing improper FU images and an over-dependence on images that don't depict Ray. This Fire Burns Always 02:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
IMO, the large size of the article can ne decreased by creating some fork articles. For example, the whole section of "Career in Films" can be decreased in size by creating a number of daughter articles like "Early film career of Satyajit Ray", "Later film career of Satyajit Ray" etc. I am not sure if such namings sound good though! But creation of daughter articles are needed, as such large critical discussions about the films in the main article can make people relucatant to read the article thoroughly. Also, precis form should be followed as far as possible. This job is difficult for those who are not familiar with Ray's works, but with an author like ppm (who is absorbed in Ray!) we can do it.
And Rama, can you give us an example on such kind of a template ( Template:Satyajit Ray)? If not available, we can start one anyway. -- Dwaipayan ( talk) 13:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi - a continuing issue in the data/substance of this article and of potential forks, as well as pictures is that there is a lot of detail about his films but not on the person. The argument that Ray lived through his work is POV, and you need to focus on the person, and through him on his work and personal life. I don't get much information on Ray's character, thinking, behavior and day-to-day life, which is supposed to be first in a biography. If the article is asserting the Ray lived through his work as a fact, the article should then make clear what the reader should understand about Ray by reading so much about different films. This article is not "The Making of Pather Panchali," etc.
Are these necessary? The infobox is ugly and merely repeats the details of his birth given in the first line of the article, and given he is not a political office-holder, I don't think it is called for at all. Also the timeline has a paucity of events to record, which makes it unnecessary - most details on when he filmed what are already well-covered in the sub-sections, aren't they? These two boxes add nothing to this article, so I request their removal. This Fire Burns Always 21:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I see there is a new template now - films directed by Ray ( Template:Satyajit Ray). However, this template seems not appropriate for this article, as a template for this article should contain not only films, also literature. Also, the present template merely repeats the filmograohy incompletely (the template does not contain the English names). IMO, this template is very good for individual movie articles, but not for this article. Also the placement of the template is odd.-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 18:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Template:Works of Satyajit Ray must not display FU images. This Fire Burns Always 20:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
General comments: The Apu years section is too long. Perhaps it can be reduced by 5 to 8 sentences. Same goes for section 3-5. Many of the sections provide brief summaries of his films. Since this is a biography article, you might consider reducing those summaries to one or two sentences ... interested readers can always go follow the film article link.
These are my comments for the time being, I'd try to add some after going through the rest of the article (which is quite long at 49KB, should be reduced to at least 44KB or so). -- Ragib 20:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I was asked to have a look, but there is so much productive commentary already, that I feel like I should have a look again in a few days. For now, a couple of really trivial suggestions:
I hope that's a start. I don't know that the article is too long, as much as the prose is overly verbose and can be tightened up. Regards, Sandy 22:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
This article has gone under some improvement in the last few months. It is probably time to get some input from the community. -- ppm 17:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi - its great to see a prospective FA on this great man's life. Here are some points of criticism:
I hope this helps - this article needs re-organization and some copyediting, but only because the subject matter is so damn diverse and important. Cheers and good work! This Fire Burns Always 08:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Lead: I see a pov in the opening sentence. It is not encyclopaedic.
- Cribananda 20:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it is POV per se, see Gauss or Muhammad Iqbal, for example (both featured article). If one thinks the statement is false, that is another question.-- ppm 21:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi - there is a problem with the fact that most of the pictures are fair use as screenshots, posters or book covers. The fact is fair use probably is not justified here because the topic is Ray, not these respective works. I think most of these pictures will have to go. To make this an FA, you need more pictures of Ray (which is not hard since all prior to 1946 are PD). However, you'll have many object votes citing improper FU images and an over-dependence on images that don't depict Ray. This Fire Burns Always 02:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
IMO, the large size of the article can ne decreased by creating some fork articles. For example, the whole section of "Career in Films" can be decreased in size by creating a number of daughter articles like "Early film career of Satyajit Ray", "Later film career of Satyajit Ray" etc. I am not sure if such namings sound good though! But creation of daughter articles are needed, as such large critical discussions about the films in the main article can make people relucatant to read the article thoroughly. Also, precis form should be followed as far as possible. This job is difficult for those who are not familiar with Ray's works, but with an author like ppm (who is absorbed in Ray!) we can do it.
And Rama, can you give us an example on such kind of a template ( Template:Satyajit Ray)? If not available, we can start one anyway. -- Dwaipayan ( talk) 13:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi - a continuing issue in the data/substance of this article and of potential forks, as well as pictures is that there is a lot of detail about his films but not on the person. The argument that Ray lived through his work is POV, and you need to focus on the person, and through him on his work and personal life. I don't get much information on Ray's character, thinking, behavior and day-to-day life, which is supposed to be first in a biography. If the article is asserting the Ray lived through his work as a fact, the article should then make clear what the reader should understand about Ray by reading so much about different films. This article is not "The Making of Pather Panchali," etc.
Are these necessary? The infobox is ugly and merely repeats the details of his birth given in the first line of the article, and given he is not a political office-holder, I don't think it is called for at all. Also the timeline has a paucity of events to record, which makes it unnecessary - most details on when he filmed what are already well-covered in the sub-sections, aren't they? These two boxes add nothing to this article, so I request their removal. This Fire Burns Always 21:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I see there is a new template now - films directed by Ray ( Template:Satyajit Ray). However, this template seems not appropriate for this article, as a template for this article should contain not only films, also literature. Also, the present template merely repeats the filmograohy incompletely (the template does not contain the English names). IMO, this template is very good for individual movie articles, but not for this article. Also the placement of the template is odd.-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 18:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Template:Works of Satyajit Ray must not display FU images. This Fire Burns Always 20:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
General comments: The Apu years section is too long. Perhaps it can be reduced by 5 to 8 sentences. Same goes for section 3-5. Many of the sections provide brief summaries of his films. Since this is a biography article, you might consider reducing those summaries to one or two sentences ... interested readers can always go follow the film article link.
These are my comments for the time being, I'd try to add some after going through the rest of the article (which is quite long at 49KB, should be reduced to at least 44KB or so). -- Ragib 20:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I was asked to have a look, but there is so much productive commentary already, that I feel like I should have a look again in a few days. For now, a couple of really trivial suggestions:
I hope that's a start. I don't know that the article is too long, as much as the prose is overly verbose and can be tightened up. Regards, Sandy 22:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)