Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gemini (2002 Tamil film)/archive1

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 not promoted by Ian Rose 10:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Gemini (2002 Tamil film)

Nominator(s): Sriram ^{speak up} 03:08, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria. The article has been largely improved after passing a GAN and have gone through a copyedit. Sriram ^{speak up} 03:08, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by ColonelHenry

This is a well-written, well-researched, well-organised, and comprehensive article that I assert almost complies with the FA criteria. A few issues:

CRITERIA 3 (MAJOR): The image of the DVD cover (File:Gemini DVD Cover.jpg) needs more "meat on the bone" in its non-free use rationale--(1) it should have an author or copyright owner listed, I do not believe "Third party" is sufficient and that some attribution to its creator or the studio/production entity that owns the copyright needs to be mentioned; (2) "n.a." is NOT acceptable for the statements of NFCC#1 and NFCC#2; and (3) "Just a CD cover" is not a suitable explanation of the intended "Minimal use" per NFCC#3. The entire point of providing a non-free use rationale is to provide a non-free use rationale. "n.a." and non-answer answers defeats the purpose. Please address.

Done. -- Sriram ^{speak up} 17:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed. Thank you.--ColonelHenry (talk) 06:36, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

STYLE (MINOR): In the "Inspiration" section, footnote 8 is located after "Saran recalled" and not after the quote. Logically, it should be after the quote.

I Agree. Fixed now. -- Sriram ^{speak up} 17:38, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed. --ColonelHenry (talk) 06:36, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

STYLE (MINOR): In the "Inspiration" section, part of the "Character map" is redundant given the mention of the first two items in the paragraph above, and the rest should be prosified (as a better alternative to including a list), per WP:LIST - "Do not use lists if a passage is read easily as plain paragraphs."

Have tried my luck at "prosifying" it. Hope that works. -- Sriram ^{speak up} 17:51, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed. --ColonelHenry (talk) 06:36, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

QUESTION: Some readers only look at the infobox, and the data should be clear for the larger reading audience. Is there a reason (beyond that it's explained in the article body) why you don't have a US$ or GBP equivalent, or a number equivalent used by the rest of the world for the relatively unknown "Crore" in the infobox. Crore is unused in the West, and not used by about 5/6ths of the world. While I recognize WP:ENGVAR, this usage is a head-scratcher for most non-South Asian readers. Comparatively, British weights in "stone" in infoboxes are generally translated into pounds and km, or a measurement in "stone" is avoided. Crore should be avoided here, or better explained for universal readability.

Fixed. -- Sriram ^{speak up} 08:51, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

QUESTION: Film was released in 2002, it's now 2013. Are the US$ figures offered in the article in current 2013 dollars or unadjusted 2002 dollars, because there is an purchasing power/inflation conversion factor of about 130%, per [2] and [3]. If they are 2002 dollars, or there is any adjustment to be made, please considering noting that.

I have added the year to the INRConvert template. Is that right? Does that solve the issue or is it something else? -- Sriram ^{speak up} 19:12, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed. The template works well here. Thank you. Could you address my question regarding the use of crore in the infobox that wasn't addressed above.--ColonelHenry (talk) 06:36, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will be glad to support this when these few things are addressed.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SUPPORT My concerns have been satisfied--~~except one which is minor and subjective (i.e. doesn't impact the greater application of FA criteria)~~. As I stated above, this is a well-written, well-researched, well-organised, and comprehensive article, and in my estimation complies with the FA criteria.--ColonelHenry (talk) 06:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kailash

@Sriram, I wanted to ask u this question ever since the article's GA review: where is the source that Gemini Ganesan made a cameo appearance in this film, which also happened to be his final onscreen appearance? ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 09:05, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if there are sources out there to support either of the claims. While his name has been credited in the film to prove his appearance as guest, the claim that it was his last film is a fact. His filmography doesn't list any films after this. I believe it qualifies as WP:OBVIOUS, unless can be proven otherwise. -- Sriram ^{speak up} 10:22, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now I have sourced that statement in the lead, although the source does not mention his appearance as special, but just says it is his last onscreen appearance. ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 16:23, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, "The film received a U/A certificate from the Central Board of Film Certification". Since I cannot find a source for this statement, can't u photograph the censor certificate and use it here as a source? ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 04:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can. But is that utterly necessary? -- Sriram ^{speak up} 06:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is not instantly obvious that the film was certified U/A (who knows, it may have had chances of being certified as "U"). ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 07:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will adding the link of a sample video from a video rental site (bigflix) suffice? -- Sriram ^{speak up} 08:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Either that way, or u could use the "Print screen" option on ur keyboard to capture the certificate on picture. ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 08:08, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But then I would have to upload the picture to some photo sharing sites like photobucket or in facebook to cite the image. I prefer citing the sample video. -- Sriram ^{speak up} 08:11, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do as u please. I use a photobucket to upload pictures from non-online sources such as books and magazines. ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 08:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- Sriram ^{speak up} 08:48, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Sriram Vikram: See the box office section of the featured article Sholay, that could help settle any inflation/currency issue in Gemini. ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 09:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Soham

After I went through the development section of the article in response to a request for comment I found few claims which were unsourced like After the successes of Kaadhal Mannan (1998) and Amarkalam (1999), both starring Ajith in the lead, Saran announced his third film with Ajith. The film, which was to be produced by A. Purnachandra Rao for Lakshmi Productions, was titled Erumugham ("Upward mobility"). As with most of his films, Erumugham was also a gangster film. Laila and Richa Pallod were to play the female leads. The song recording began on 16 March 2001, while shooting was to start in middle of June and continue through July and August 2001. Soham 16:11, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This source has been used to fill in the void. ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 16:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. Do you mean to say every single sentence need to be sourced? Since a few sentences are from the same source, I have made the citation at the end. Is that a crime? -- Sriram ^{speak up} 17:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes if the claims are such. In this case the sentences which are not backed by sources should be removed. Soham 09:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As long as each claim comes from different sources, I have cited them then and there. There are no claims left unsourced, even to the extent that almost each sentence ends with a ref. Just this once instance, since I felt using the same ref again and again could hinder the reading pleasure, I added them at the end. No offense intended. -- Sriram ^{speak up} 01:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Next up BO collections should be in million and not crore per WP:VNE. I would have changed them myself but it would make the article unstable. Soham 16:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will do soon. ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 16:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why should box office collections be in millions? There was just a discussion about using Ind Eng. Indians don't use millions. Sholay, a Fa, uses crores. Am I missing something here? -- Sriram ^{speak up} 17:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not an Indian site, is used by billions across the world and so that Non-India don't trip on the word crore and to keep the article region-neutral, i.e. it can be understood by everyone across the globe. The policy I quoted is WP:VNE or Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Opportunities for commonality, WP:MOS I believe is one of the principal pillars a FA should have. In this case it violates the MOS. Sriram, stay calm mate, your last few replies exude a hint of anger. Soham 09:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mean to. But if I did, I apologize. I just checked out current FAs Sholay and Taare Zameen Par. In the boxoffice section of TZP, every time currency is in INR, crores has been used. In Sholay they have used both crores and millions. I was just asking for a neutral judgement. Since crores ha been used in majority, I too put it that way. -- Sriram ^{speak up} 01:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, the correct thing to do is add ^[1] in those places after each sentence to make sure they are not labelled as unsourced. Soham 16:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing the films BO collection in 2002 was ₹200 million (US$2.4 million) right? Even after inflation ₹4.21 billion (US$50 million) seems exaggerated. Even CE could not collect that much! Soham 16:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have used the INRConvert template. If the equivalent collections is exaggerated, then there is something wrong with the template. Is there any other way possible to convert them without using the template? -- Sriram ^{speak up} 17:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

INRConvert as far as I know does not calculate inflation, it simply converts the given amount preferably in million/billion/zillion/trillion to USD using conversion rate of the time. I will take a look at that. Plus I think you got it wrong 20 crore in 2002 will in no freakin' or flippin' way translate to 421 crore in 2013. Soham 09:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the figures are now correct. Bit too much of notes though. Soham 16:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Bollyjeff

There are a couple instances of wikilinks within quotations, which is not encouraged.

The wikilinks are used in not quoted text as far as possible. But when there are no other instances of that word appear, I was left with no choice but to add them within the quotes. If there are any policy discussing the matter, can you direct me there? -- Sriram ^{speak up} 17:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here: Wikipedia:Mos#Linking. They are not forbidden. BollyJeff | talk 18:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above link says "as much as possible". There are exactly two instances of wikilinking within quotes. I can do away with 'Malayali' but not with 'Sethu'. In this regard, I'm left with no option. I believe it should be there. -- Sriram ^{speak up} 01:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better if the sources for budget and gross were in the box office section instead of, or in addition to, the infobox.

I have used existing FAs as reference. So, Taare Zameen Par has references within infobox. Moreover here, the sources in infobox and box office section are different. -- Sriram ^{speak up} 17:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any sources in box office section for those figures. BollyJeff | talk 18:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ref no.2 titled 'April bring cheers..' s the source. Sources have been provided a couple sentences later since a few more info are taken from that source. -- Sriram ^{speak up} 01:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is the basis for the inflation adjustment of these figures? A footnote or source is needed. I also do not think that inflation adjusted figure belong in the infobox at all.

The INRConvert template created them. Can't find any info regarding how they work. Could you help me find it? -- Sriram ^{speak up} 17:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here: Template:INRConvert The year is optional. BollyJeff | talk 18:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note...I agree the inflation adjustment isn't necessary for the infobox. Perhaps for the infobox you can format it as INR to USD(2002) rather than conveying something inaccurate that inflation adjusted figures to 2013 rupees and dollars would express. When I mentioned the inflation adjustment above in my comments, my intention was for the later explanation in the article body where the issue of box office revenues/total revenues were mentioned at length.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... I agree. It doesn't look good in the infobox. I'll look into it. -- Sriram ^{speak up} 01:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dwaipayan

"the film grossed more than 20 crore (equivalent to 421 crore or US$6.4 million in 2013). " What? 20 crores in 2002 is equivalent to 421 crores in 2013? Are you dreaming? What source?--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is an ongoing trouble for us editors, regarding any statement here related to money. We are trying our best to fix it. ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 09:26, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

it would amount to $US 3923423.91 in 2012. Soham 09:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In INR it would be close to ₹40 crore (US$4.8 million) or 393913908.87. Soham 09:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing, in the article converting the amount to million solved the problem. The conversion algorithm of INR Convert might have experienced problems due to the use of crore. I ask the associated editors to add the following line along with converting all the figures to million.

₹200 million (equivalent to ₹760 million or US$9.1 million in 2023) Wiki-markup:{{INRConvert|200|m|year=2002}}

Soham 09:54, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- With no activity for a couple of weeks, this review has stalled so I'll be archiving it shortly. Per the FAC instructions, pls wait a minimum of two weeks before renominating it, or nominating another. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 07:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ Cite error: The named reference name goes here was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[name_goes_here-1] Cite error: The named reference name goes here was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[1]