This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
This article was copy editedbyStfg, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 1 January 2014.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles
This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Filming, para 3: "One producer, after learning of Ray's plan, contacted the widow of the novel's author ...". Google books appears not to recognize the isbn 8172153678 given for Ray 2010, but the same information is given in English in Ray 1996 (pages 33-34). Shall we use this instead? Also, Ray 1996 names the producer in question as Mr Bhattacharya of Kalpana Movies. Is there any reason we just say "one producer" rather than naming him? --Stfg (talk) 16:34, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ray 2010 is a Bengali book, and may be that is why not recognized by Googe Book? Not sure. I have access to the book, and hence used it extensively, as opposed to the Ray 1996 (English version of the same book) which I do not have complete access to. If you are able to see the same info in that page in Ray 1996, you can use that.
Yes, the Bengali version (Ray 2010) provides the same name (Mr Bhattacharya of Kalpana Movies). The reason I did not include the name in the text is I did not have the whole name of Bhattacharya (which is the last name).--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's OK to name him as Mr Bhattacharya in that case. I've changed to Ray 1996 because more people will be able to verify from the English version. I can see those pages in Google Books at the moment. --Stfg (talk) 15:38, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Release and reception para 4 Crowther: "even though he praised the deftly crafted, yet slow, emergence of a poetic theme of lament" is well beyond what the source says. Re-summarized as "even though he praised its gradually emerging poignancy and poetic quality". --Stfg (talk) 18:15, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Themes para 2: "Cooper has analysed that the immersive experience of the film corresponds to this epiphany of wonder." Uncited and I can't find it in the reference. The book doesn't contain the word "immersive". Generally, I find this paragraph nearly impossible to understand, and I think the concept of "epiphany of wonder" needs to be explained a bit more. --Stfg (talk) 19:34, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This page seems to explain it (the word "immersive" must have been added later over here). Couldn't understand it myself and they need to elaborate more on this in the article. Good job with all this, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Ugog Nizdast. Reading that, I think I was probably wrong to use the plural ("epiphan[ies] of wonder") in one place. We speak of people "having an epiphany", but this seems rather different. Robinson's phrase is extremely poetic, but it seems to me a rather strange term for the camatkara defined there. Immersion is mentioned in that passage, by the way. Can anyone see how to unravel this, as we need something that can be understood by readers without looking at the source? --Stfg (talk) 16:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This would be very challenging to unravel in the text. If we explain properly, that would take up a lot of space. However, one alternative could be explaining camatkara in an explanatory note. What say?--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a very good idea. Would you be willing to prepare it, Dwaipayan? I would find it difficult. I'm confused by the phrase "epiphany of wonder" used for a state of immersion, because an epiphany is an event rather than a state. Sanskrit dictionaries on the internet seem to translate camatkara as astonishment, but that's different from what's being described in the link Ugog Nizdast provided above. As you can see, I don't quite get the intended meaning here. --Stfg (talk) 15:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Funny reference: Reference Cooper 2000 gives an ISBN that lead to the book where the cited statements can be found, but it also has a link to a short PDF, which doesn't, and which appears to be a different source altogether. --Stfg (talk) 19:34, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
'Legacy: The sentence about Apur Panchali is the only one that deals with work by anyone other than Ray, so sticking it anywhere in the middle of the section makes it seem out of place. That's why I shifted it to the start of the section. --Stfg (talk) 20:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Citations need a bit of sorting out. The article mostly uses {{sfn}} but the Explanatory notes use {{harv}}. The mixture of in-text and footnote citations in the Explanatory notes is particularly ugly. --Stfg (talk) 20:29, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now, this is a problem I faced in some other articles as well. For unknown reasons, the sfn template does not work if used inside efn templates (the template that is used in this article for explanatory notes). That is why had to use harv template for citations within explanatory notes.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry that I missed the FA review. I will make a few comments here as time permits.
There is another source for the run time:BBFC says 110+ for the original, 115 and 120 for videos. Maybe that can help explain some of the discrepancies. BollyJeff|talk15:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence of the second para of Influences section (The realist narrative style...) could be better placed at the beginning of the first para, since it appears to summarize that one. I also do not see why the entire last sent of second para needs to be in parans.
Translocated the sentence to the beginning of the first paragraph. Indeed it fits much better there. The entire last sentence of second para in parenthesis:I am not sure either why this is in parenthesis. I cannot remember how it got the parenthesis. I think it may be as well without. I did not change it though.
Boral is mentioned almost back-to-back and with no link. Try Garia, which mentions the film.
Boral, the village, has probably become a satellite part of Garia now. Ok, will do so.
Done.
One section says the widow agreed and another says the widow declined permission. Which is it, and if she declined how did they go forward?
Tried to make more clear.
"It has also been cited as a major influence on The Beatles, specifically George Harrison". Not so sure about that. The book says that Shankar was an influence, but not necessarily the film itself, which only gets one minor mention. Would need another source to back this up. BollyJeff|talk15:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I removed "major" from the sentence. Yes, to make that a major influence, it needs more citations. How about just "an influence"? D you think one source is sufficient?
Actually, you didn't miss anything, the FAR was closed due to lack of interested reviewers and was advised to open it some other time when the backlog was cleared. About your widow comment, the first statement refers to Ray himself getting permission from her while the other one refers to her refusing a rival producer who had plans to make his own film with some other director. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Then it could say that she declined because she already had a verbal agreement with Ray, or whatever the truth was.
Run on last sentence in first para - mixed usage of , and ;
I think the usage of comma and semi-colon is correct here. The semi-colons divide the awards by years, while within each year the individual awards are separated by commas.
Got it.
Misplacement of "New York in 1959" and the source.
Corrected.
First para of Release and reception has five of the same source in a row. Try to reduce or find something else to throw in between. Same in Script section.
Well, same source for consecutive sentences is not a problem. What can be done is not providing citation superscripts for every sentence. The citation may be given at the end of, say, three sentences, or, at the end of the last sentence that uses that citation. Do you think that should be done?
Something else: The infobox lists four distributors that are not mentioned elsewhere in the article (so no sources), including Sony from 1995 (presumably for DVD?). Then the 'Release and reception' section lists two different distributors for DVD. So where is Sony, and how do all those other distributors fit in to the puzzle? BollyJeff|talk02:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I support the last one. It's the most simple-looking one. Besides Apu trilogy isn't really an official title, just a handy way to describe three films together (that were never made with the intention of making a trilogy). The article should accordingly be moved to Apu trilogy.—indopug (talk) 12:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that I have requested that this article be included as Today's Featured Article for August 26th, the 60th anniversary of its Kolkata premiere.
Dylanexpert (talk) 18:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified 6 external links on Pather Panchali. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
