Talk:Production of Pakeezah/GA1

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Z1720 (talk · contribs) 19:38, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I will be reviewing this article shortly. Please ping me if you have any concerns. Z1720 (talk) 19:38, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the

   list incorporation

   :

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with

   the layout style guideline

   :

   B. All

   reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines

   :

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it
   neutral
   ?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing

   edit war

   or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are

   copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content

   :

   B. Images are

   suitable captions

   :

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Please ping me when you are ready for additional feedback. I am going to place this article on hold. Z1720 (talk) 20:16, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 07:17, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about my delay to re-review this. Please see my comments below:

Additional comments

• "The film revolves on a dejected prostitute" -> "The film focuses on" to avoid
  WP:IDIOM
• "and he wanted to make a film that would establish him as a filmmaker and be a tribute to Kumari,[6] and reflect his love for her." Delete the "and" after filmmaker.
• " and was motivated to make a film better aesthetically than Asif's." -> " and was motivated to make a film that was aesthetically better than Asif's."
• "decided to produce it himself under his Mahal Pictures," -> "decided to produce it himself under his Mahal Pictures company,"
• "either 17 January 1957, which coincided with Amrohi's birthday, or 18 January 1958." Are those the correct years?
• "role of Shahbuddin when filming was resumed." Delete was
• " but her unwillingness to wear dresses not she chose herself upset Amrohi." -> " but her unwillingness to wear dresses she did not choose herself upset Amrohi."
• "Deep narrated that Nadira," -> "Deep stated that Nadira,"
• "while most film sets would use plywood for walls, for those of Pakeezah were made of cloth first" -> "while most film sets used plywood for walls, Pakeezah's sets were made of cloth first"
• " Padhye noted even a nail could be seen from outside. " Seen outside of what?
• " In appreciation, MGM permitted him to not pay for the agreed rentals." -> " In appreciation, MGM waived the rentals fees for the lenses."
• "It was only after Amrohi being impressed by his work in Mirza Ghalib (1954)," -> "Nevertheless, Amrohi was impressed by his work in Mirza Ghalib (1954),"

Source check

• Version reviewed: [1]
• Sources checked with no concerns: 2, 51, 59a, 68a, 123
• Ref 40 is after, "Contemporaneous journalists jokingly regarded Pakeezah as Kumari herself," but I could not verify this in the source. Can you provide the direct quote from the source that this verifies?

Image check

• File:Meena Kumari in Baiju Bawra.jpg has a PD-India-URAA licence, which states that an image is public domain in the US if it was also public domain in its home country on January 1, 1996. From what I can tell from the PD-India licence, the image entered public domain in India 60 years after its publication, or on October 5, 2012. Therefore, I think the US pd template needs to be changed to Template:Non-free video screenshot.

Baiju Bawra was released in 1953 and is now more than sixty years, thus entered the public domain. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 08:33, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Pakeezah shooting, 1958.jpg requires a US copyright template, which will probably also be Template:Non-free video screenshot. In addition, the link to the image in the summary is not to The Times of India, so where does this image come from?

The image is actually from The Times of India; the link itself mentions toiimg ("toi" is an abbreviation for Times of India). Here is the original link (click). Since the image was taken in 1958 and, if I am not mistaken, is more than 60 years old, thus the picture does not need a "non-free" template. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 08:33, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my thoughts. Z1720 (talk) 23:32, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 08:33, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in responding. Real life has been busy.

Regarding images

@Nicholas Michael Halim: The copyright banners currently used in the image's file page says that in order to be public domain in the US, "it was in the public domain in its home country (India) on the URAA date (1 January 1996)." I'm going to ping another editor who is very familiar with image copyright on Wikipedia, buidhe (talk · contribs), and ask them to weight in about if File:Meena Kumari in Baiju Bawra.jpg and File:Pakeezah shooting, 1958.jpg have the correct banners, and if not which ones needs to be put in place. Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 23:42, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Images need to be freely licensed in the US to use on enwp outside NFCC. Z1720 has the correct understanding of how it works. Unless it was PD in India on 1 January 1996 it needs to be removed or put under NFCC. (t · c) buidhe 01:38, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so the images should be removed? I do not get it. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 02:17, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nicholas Michael Halim and Buidhe: Pinging buidhe again, as I am unsure myself. My opinion is that these might need to be proposed for deletion on commons, then re-uploaded to en.wikipedia with Wikipedia:File copyright tags/Non-free banners. Thoughts? Z1720 (talk) 16:46, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What Z1720 suggests is the correct way to do it but trying to get files deleted on Commons is annoying as they often ignore their own copyright policy. (t · c) buidhe 19:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: You might want to edit the formatting above when you have a better connection. :P Z1720 (talk) 19:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Er yes. Bug in the reply link on mobile I guess. (t · c) buidhe 02:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: Hiding these pictures for now. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 10:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]