Wikipedia:Peer review/Satyajit Ray/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Satyajit Ray[edit]

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)[reply]

Review by User:Ambuj.Saxena
  • I have found problems starting the lead itself.
    • Infobox can be more detailed.
    • ...regarded as one of the greatest auteurs of...(WP:PEACOCK)
    • ...he was profoundly influenced by the humanism of Rabindranath Tagore...(how do we know that)
    • His inspiration came when he attended a screening of Vittorio De Sica's The Bicycle Thieves in London, which convinced him of his future in filmmaking. (Can be copyedited for clarity)
    • Compeleted in 1955, Pather Panchali is a milestone of humanist filmmaking and changed the course of Bengali and Indian cinema. (POV)
    • -- should be replaced with —(—)
    • Ray was profoundly affected by the people and the prevailing socio-economic conditions of Bengal...(how do we know that. Also POV)
    • Due to Ray's level of involvement in every aspect of filmmaking, his films demonstrate a level of personal expression rarely experienced in the cinema. (Original Research)
    • Look for these issues throughout the text.
  • — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll agree with all of Ambuj Saxena's concerns except the one involving WP:PEACOCK. I belive this falls under "Don't Hide the Important Facts".--ppm 18:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My comments[edit]

Hi - its great to see a prospective FA on this great man's life. Here are some points of criticism:

  1. Lead it appears to fragmented (6 segments), and monotonously beginning with "Ray..." A lead must be a cohesive and succinct summary of the article, written in brilliant prose that should compell the reader to actually read the whole article.
  2. Satyajit or Ray? please refer to him consistently, and as Ray. Also don't add his name to subsections - no need for "Satyajit Ray's Craft," as nobody expects you to talk about someone else.
  3. I don't think Shatranj Ke Khiladi is an "Urdu" movie - its pretty much Hindi with Urdu overtones.
  4. Filmography please see WP:MOSBIO - I don't think this section should be included (it should be placed into one of Wikipedia's sisterlinks or Filmography of Satyajit Ray). This is also vital in reducing the article size from 60kb.
  5. See also template consider creating Template:Satyajit Ray in which you link forks, films and associated articles.
  6. Reception, Influences and legacy deal with common subject matter. Please subdivide the content of these sections into "Criticism and legacy," and "commemoration" (Indian and foreign reception should be added here).
  7. Organization while the prose is very good indeed, I'm afraid the organization isn't - the "Career in films" section begins with analysis of "Pather Panchali," becomes a summary of periods of his work, and then again breaks into specific "documentaries" and "unfilmed." I suggest an organization on the lines of one main section of period summaries, which focuses on his personal life and succession of works and progression in the industry - the importance of "Pather Panchali" in this section should not be for the film itself, but on how it played a role Ray's life. This section should discuss how Ray's career transformed, changed and moved through different levels - also discuss relationship with other artists, filmmakers and actors - and personal life is very crucial. A second main section that tackle specific films types - Bengali, Hindi/Foreign, documentaries, which discusses Ray in specific context to work done on these films - include your analysis of "Pather Panchali" and other notable films through this section, but don't talk about just the films - keep focus on Ray.
  8. Filmcraft should incorporate more of how Ray's filmcraft was received, analyzed and understood now.
  9. Balance of POV please make sure that along with praise of Ray, there is substantial discussion of any failures, criticism and personal episodes of difficulties in Ray's life. It is important to describe how Ray received the Oscar on his sickbed.
  10. Bengali Politics while Mrinal Sen and others are openly communists, Ray was their contemporary and his political and social outlook must be elucidated.

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)[reply]


  • Very valid arguments. I must object on Satranj, though. I saw it yesterday (:) yes I am hooked on Ray), and the certificate that they show at the beginning indetifies it as a Urdu (and only Urdu) movie.--ppm 18:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • One more point. I understand the need to focus on the person and not his films. But Ray pretty much lived through his art, unlike say Tagore or Nazrul Islam. Chapters of Ray's biography by Robinson read like: The Trilogy, Charulata, Days and Nights, The Calcutta Trilogy, etc :)--ppm 18:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No it is not necessary, but you have to make an assessment of how to reduce the article size. At present even the timeline seems unnecessary and space-takin - I mean, doesn't the biography itself offer a timeline of events? And is the infobox necessary for a film director, when his date and place of birth are given in the first line of the article? Some articles like Katie Holmes are not as copious, and the filmography is not large. This Fire Burns Always 20:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cribananda's comments[edit]

Lead: I see a pov in the opening sentence. It is not encyclopaedic.

regarded as one of the greatest auteurs of twentieth century cinema for his subtle, austere and lyrical style of film-making
sounds more like an essay to me.

- Cribananda 20:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

My objection is less to 'one of the greatest...' (though I would rather have a prominent) than it is to subtle, austere, and lyrical. I have no issues with calling someone one of the greatest. In fact I strongly supported this in the Shakespeare article. - Cribananda 01:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good point--ppm 16:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures[edit]

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)[reply]

Some comments[edit]

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)[reply]

See Template:Muhammad Iqbal. This Fire Burns Always 19:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Focus[edit]

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.

I mean here you have a versatile man of versatile work and skills, living in the tumultuous era of Bengal, and its so hard to extend beyond a listing of his films and foreign reception? This Fire Burns Always 20:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Great point which should (and will be) addressed. However, Ray openly claimed to be uninterested in politics, almost never made speeches, almost never signed a document protesting or supporting this and that (which I contrasted to Tagore before). Someone is interested about what he thinks about naxalite movement (for example)? She must see Pratidwandi, there is simply no other way. --ppm 01:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, I think the issue is very important and I am trying to make changes to take this in consideration.--ppm 02:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline and infobox[edit]

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)[reply]

done--ppm 23:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The new template[edit]

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)[reply]

Template:Works of Satyajit Ray must not display FU images. This Fire Burns Always 20:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. That was a bad mistake. Thanks for removing the images.--Dwaipayan (talk) 10:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Ragib[edit]

  • Early life
    • "took a decisive turn" - from what? Did they migrate to west bengal? Did they start participating in arts and literature? The sentence is confusing.
    • "nonsense rhyme" - why is it withing quotation marks? The word is already wikilinked.
    • Norman Clare - redlink, either create article or get rid of the redlink

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)[reply]

Review by SandyGeorgia[edit]

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:

  • Put the categories and interwikis in alphabetical order
done--ppm 01:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Put the References in alphabetical order
done.--ppm 01:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use the smaller font size in notes (see the Notes section in Muhammad Iqbal)
done--ppm 01:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lots of inline citations – very nice. On first glance, I did see some paragraphs with no citations, though, so double check that everything that needs to be cited is. Also, someone can doublecheck me on this, but:
    • Seton 1971, pp. 33
    • Seton 1971, pp. 112-115
      • I believe it should be p. 33 and pp. 112-115 (isn't pp. only used when there is more than one page?)
done--ppm 01:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't had a detailed look at the prose yet, since it seems like there is still a lot of work going on, but the article does feel a bit longish, and some of the text is overly verbose. I can see right out of the starting gate some ways to shorten it up - picking a random paragraph - combine and shorten some of the sentences, and take out some of the overuse of adjectives (make sure it reads like an encyclopedia entry rather than a fan review):
    • Ray's last three films, made after his recovery, have a very distinctive style, largely due to the strictures put on him by doctors. Shot mostly indoors, they are much more verbose than his earlier films.
      • Ray's last three films, made after his recovery and with medical strictures in place, were shot mostly indoors, have a distinctive style, and are more verbose than his earlier films.
    • Ganashatru (An Enemy of the People), made in 1989, is regarded by some as a weak film by Ray standards, and seen as an exercise to get back into filming after prolonged illness.[26] Made from an original screenplay in 1989, Shakha Proshakha (Branches of the Tree), , is seen as film of greater qualities.
      • The 1989 Ganashatru (An Enemy of the People) – his first film after the prolonged illness – is regarded as weaker than his other films,[26] while Shakha Proshakha (Branches of the Tree) is considered superior and of "distressing beauty".[27]
    • In this film of "distressing beauty",[27] an old man, who has lived a life of utmost honesty, comes to learn the corruption three of his sons, and the final scene shows him finding solace only in the companionship of the fourth, uncorrupted but mentally ill son.
      • In this film, an old man who has lived an honest life learns his three sons are corrupt; in the final scene, he finds solace in the companionship of his fourth, uncorrupted but mentally ill son.
    • In Agantuk (The Stranger), his last film, Ray lightens the mood, but deals with issues more universal. A stranger visits a family claiming to be a long lost uncle. Through his experience, ranging from eager acceptance by the child of the family to apathy and suspicion by the elders, Ray weaves questions about identity, nature and civilization with characteristic lightness of touch.
      • Ray lightens the mood in Agantuk (The Stranger), his last film. A stranger, claiming to be a long lost uncle, visits a family, whose reactions to him range from eager acceptance by a child to apathy and suspicion by the elders. Ray weaves questions about identity, nature and civilization into the film, with characteristic lightness of touch.
    • In 1992, Ray's health deteriorated due to heart complications. He was admitted to a hospital, and would never recover.
      • In 1992, Ray's heart condition deteriorated, he was admitted to a hostpital, and he never recovered.
    • An honorary Oscar was awarded to him weeks before his death, which he received in a gravely ill condition. He died on April 23, 1992.
      • While gravely ill, he received an honorary Oscar, and died several weeks later on April 23, 1992.

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Satyajit_Ray/archive1&oldid=1138565262"