Talk:Preity Zinta/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

Copyedit

I'll be working on copyediting this article, as requested at the LoCE. It may take a while. Feel free to contact me if you're unhappy with anything I've done or want to help. Akatari 16:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Not an actual GA Review, just some thoughts on the article vs. GA Criteria

This is how the article, as of January 16, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Article is written in clear and coherent language, but could probably use some copyediting. A Peer Review is recommended, and WP:LOCE wouldn't hurt either - I see that the WP:LOCE request is already underway, so you're good to go on that one.
2. Factually accurate?: Extremely well-cited throughout, utilizing information from (96) sources. I did not check every single cite for formatting, but from a quick glance it appears that they all utilize Wikipedia Citation templates - which makes it all the more easy to look through the sources, and the sources thus appear uniform and standardized, nice.
3. Broad in coverage?: Article is thorough, covering many aspects of the subject's life. Thematic progression of the article is easy to follow, utilizing both a chronological and topical style which both work well.
4. Neutral point of view?: I am not an expert on this matter, but I did notice that POV issues were brought up at the WP:GAR, currently viewable under Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 32. In so far as I can tell from a read-through of the article, as of this point in time (timestamp at bottom of comments) the article appears to be written in a neutral manner. I note that there have been a large amount of changes to the article since that Good article reassessment - so good work to whoever has been working on the article.
5. Article stability? As mentioned above, article has undergone massive changes between the last WP:GAR, and now, so stability is hard to assess, would have to wait a bit to see how it does after the changes. I can say that after a perusal of the talk page and edit history, it appears that all editors currently actively working on this article are working well together, and collaborating nicely, good work so far!
6. Images?: Good use of images, fits with image policy. List with minor comments for each image, below:
  1. Image:PreityZinta.jpg -- Image from Wikimedia Commons.
  2. Image:ZintaKya Kehnazinta.jpg -- Fair use, rationale on image page.
  3. Image:KHNHLS.jpg -- Fair use, rationale on image page. Could use additional rationale by using {{Non-free use rationale}}.
  4. Image:PreityZintakank.jpg -- Fair use, rationale on image page. Could use additional rationale by using {{Non-free use rationale}}.
  5. Image:Zinta4.jpg -- Image from Wikimedia Commons.
  6. Image:PreityZintawithNess.jpg -- Image from Wikimedia Commons.
  7. Image:PreityZinta2.jpg -- Image from Wikimedia Commons.
  8. Image:Zintagoair.jpg -- Image is Creative Commons, should be moved to Wikimedia Commons, so it can be made available cross-projects.
  • John Carter (talk · contribs) asked me to take a look at this article, and above is my assessment - this is not the actual GA Review, someone will be along to do that later. Good job to all who've worked on it so far! Cirt (talk) 08:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC).
For what little it might be worth, I think most of the recent changes are based on a proposed copyedit I did at User:John Carter/Preity Zinta. They may not necessarily follow the wording there exactly, but I don't believe that they are necessarily content revisions so much as the article's main writer reviewing some possible changes suggested and making the changes he thinks reasonable. John Carter (talk) 14:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing this up, John Carter (talk · contribs). Clearly if by the time the GA Reviewer comes through, the article has not changed much since now (at least as far as massive content changes or dispute problems) - then one could use a DIFF to point to this very review, and that would certainly show stability. I think the rule of thumb on these things is about 2 weeks of stability. Cirt (talk) 20:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC).

GA on Hold commentary

Below let me do the strikethrough. Why don't you use Green tickY.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Given the discussion at the GAR delist this page has an uphill battle to quell WP:RS concerns. Please use some refs from a respected non Bollywood source such as this: http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?query=Preity+Zinta Comparisons to Katie Holmes from the NYT will mean much more to en WP readers. Maybe find some BBC refs too.
  • Can the following terms be linked: single mother (seems to be linked twice later in the same paragraph), heroine, columnist, car accident, Los Angeles (using {{city-state}}), commissioned officer, Indian Army, literature, basketball, boarding school, psychology, criminal psychology, modelling, audition, commercials, catalogs, middle class, fiancee, Delhi, poetry, screen time, lead actress, Killer, critic, prejudice, reporter, protagonist, junta, accolade (transwiki), patriotic, hospital, ensemble cast, affair, Telethon, humanitarian, Blood donation, army base, temple, and paranoia.
I just don't want to overlink the article for the simple fact that some FA reviewers had problems with that during the last FAC. One editor helped us to address MoS problems, and removed all the (then) links to words like basketball etc which are not difficult, and almost everybody does understand them. Shahid • Talk2me 22:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I am just online for a few minutes. I will check tomorrow in the Old FAC and check the version with the problems. I still think most of the terms I mention above need to be linked although the article is very well linked. The article just references so many interesting topics that more links to interesting linkable topics would probably help. I will look more closely tomorrow and start striking through your progress.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 07:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
OK thanks. It was not the FAC, but the FA reviewer, Sandy. She helped us giving the article some MoS breaches, and removed many links. Go through the history. Thanks, Shahid • Talk2me 07:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • It seems to me that the lead seems to omit of her sex appeal. Footnotes number 2 & 3 quickly mention her dimple. You don't mention the dimple until well after someone who is trying to figure out what she is known for would have given up on looking for further information. Count the number of words before the word "mole" at Cindy Crawford and "dimple" here. Make mention of her initial foray into modeling. The reader should know in the lead he is reading about a hottie and the hottie picture seems to have been removed. So put it in words.
I think you've got the wrong image about her. She is not considered to be of a very sexy girl, but a sweet one, bubbly, vivacious and at the same time honest and straightforward. She is highly regarded for her acting performances, and for establishing herself without any filmi relations. But sex appeal is too much; I don't think it can be mentioned here. As for the dimple, I really don't know how the word dimple can be integrated into the lead. Shahid • Talk2me 21:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
She is known for her dimple-faced image based on the fact that the first couple refs I checked mentioned it. If her dimple is any of the NY Times articles you are going to need to add to qwell your RS concerns please mention it. Mention that her vivaciousness is always noted if you can find a quality RS for it. If my perception of her as sexy is wrong I apologize. I just link her to Ms. Rai in my mind and consider the two of them sexy.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
She is sexy, but she is not of a sex symbol at all. All the refs are reliable now. We have gone through it and replaced all of them. Shahid • Talk2me 22:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I am not understanding what you are saying you did based on recent edits. However, unless you swap out about five or ten refs for NYTimes articles I am not going to stand against the GAR decision. The only way to oppose that vociferous objection is to significantly retool the sources. You could within seven days easily swap out five or ten refs if you want a GA. If you don't it will fail. I would have passed this as a GA in the abstract, but overcoming the delist requires you to do this.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, you're wrong. I mean, since the FAC and the GAR we have replaced all non-RSes. All the references here are reliable. The fact that they are Indiand doesn't mean they are unreliable. The Times of India, Rediff and Variety are IMO way better than NYT. The RS problems back in time were with other sites such as Bollyvista etc and different blogs. Now we have mostly newspapers and reputable sources. She is an Indian, not an American, so I can't see how an American newspaper can describe her better than an Indian one. We have RSes and that's what matters. Shahid • Talk2me 23:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
PS: When I added my last message, I accidentally removed your word "swap" from yours. I was too dreamy, as I thought I was editing my previous message. I guess I was too dreamy! Sorry for that. Another user added it. Shahid • Talk2me 06:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
There is no right and wrong. I am getting parochial as an American with respect to the NYT. Lets look at it like this. Suppose you said critics from Bollywood had an opinion on one hand or critics from Bollywood to Hollywood had an opinion on the other. Doesn't it sound more reliable to say the latter. If instead of swapping out refs you add a few NYT refs it would beef up your article in the sense that there would be ratification by one of the most respected publications in the Western world. It would make sense to me to add such opinions for completeness and breadth. In fact, an article could be failed for POV for not including the Western view of her if a significant one exists. I would imagine any actress with 13 articles in the NYT search for her name has significant Western press. Thus for both WP:POV and WP:BLP standards you should add some NYT and equivalent press.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 07:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
OK. I was in any case planning to add this very Salaam Namaste review. I'll do it later today. The main problem I have with the NYT reviews (specifically reviews) is that they are too short, and almost never comment on the actor and his performance in their reviews. Anyway, I'll work on it later.
As for POV issues, I still disagree with that (just to note). Indian newspaper get no sake in praising her too much. Well it doesn't matter. Shahid • Talk2me 07:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I have added a review from NYT; other ones are not really valid since they don't even talk about her. As I said, the NYT reviews are too short. Thank you. I would also like to add some BBC reviews, but there are way too muchpraise for her at the expense of other actors at times. For example, one review for the film Armaan says, "Gracy Singh gives a pleasant performance but somewhat gets over shadowed by the superb acting of Priety Zinta." and I can't add it. It's unfair, and definitely can be preceived as POV. Shahid • Talk2me 15:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
If she is a showstealer, I want to know. Please include such superlative praise. Just note some of her most superlative praise comes from the BBC. It is interesting to note such. You are right she is sparsely mentioned in the reviews. The first notes her as contributing to the starpower in Jhoom Barabar Jhoom. You describer her as not sexy but, the NYTimes describes her as cheerleader-homecoming queen-fraternity sweetheart pretty and hard not to like even in an antagonistic role. I find that review interesting and relevant for those points. She draws comparisons to Katie Holmes and Doris Day in the Western press would be an interesting statement. This is an important review for the Western reader to understand this woman. The fourth one makes extensive statements on the types of movies she appears in and their importance to expatriots in America and Britain. It should be incorporated. The eighth one shows that the western world recognizes her as one of the biggest Indian stars. The ninth compares her to Ann Margret. The tenth give you the ability to describe her appeal as much like Julia Roberts. I think you should reconsider adding the Western view. I was too lazy to read the second page of stories, but you get the point here. Our Western readers need to know what she is like from a Western view. You have the sources to do so. Do it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 17:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
It would not be inappropriate to say that She is an award winning, top grossing Indian actress who has drawn Western comparisons to Katie Holmes, Doris Day, Ann Margret, and Julia Roberts.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 17:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello Tony, I'm really afraid. In the FAC, they had so much problems with praise and reviews. According to some FA reviewrs, saying that she is an award winning before mentioning her being ac actor is POV. Some people were to cruel during the FAC and took it to GA reassessment although it didn't deserve to be delisted. You know, not every other editor is so nice like you are.:) If you look, there are also reviews for Jhoom Barabar Jhoom which praise her. I noticed your support on the FAC, and I will use these sites from NYT. If you look here, according to the Indian Box-Office, she is the most successful female actor of this generation (this decade). I did mention in the Armaan part that she was praised in particular for her performance, and added two reviews indicating so. I'm immensely grateful to you for your help. I will try to do the best and improve it, using your suggestions. Shahid • Talk2me 17:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I remain very disappointed in the WP:LEAD. I would open with a precise inarguable lead such as Preity Zinta (Hindi: प्रीति ज़िंटा. Pronunciation: /priːt̪ɪ zɪɳʈaː/ born January 31, 1975)[1] is a Filmfare Award-winning Indian film actress who has performed in many of the highest grossing Bollywood films from 200x-200y. In 2003, she appeared in the three highest grossing Bollywood films, and she has drawn comparisons in the western press to Katie Holmes, Doris Day, Ann Margret, and Julia Roberts. Then later in the lead and the article I would say her success and appeal seam to draw on a appeal that much like Julia Roberts' is a combination of her personality and good looks. I will go back and look at prior versions of the article that were previously hotly contested to make sure this would fly. Remember you get four paragraphs in the lead for an article of this length if you need it. Unless you go see indie and foreign films you won't have any preconception of this woman so you have to back up stuff so it does not sound like you are boasting inappropriately. In her case, almost no boast is inappropriate but must be backed up.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 17:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
    • O.K. I have read through the WP:FAC and understand your hesitance to follow my advice. Here is the problem. In the Western world almost no one knows who she is. In Bollywood she is a goddess of film. The majority of English wikipedia readers are from the western world. You are citing sources they are unfamiliar with. Previously, some of your sources were very suspect. They are less so now. What you need is the strongest possible sources to backup the strength and breadth of her accomplishments in a way that will command respect as opposed to cynicism. Basically, state facts that convey encyclopedic attributable information. Think about each phrase in each sentence of the lead and whether it does this. This will address the lead. The heft of the article is another issue that I have to think about. However, adding as many New York Times sources as possible is a good start. BBC will help. The superlative praise is not as much of a problem if it comes from the right source. I do not know British news, but my perception is that the BBC is the gold standard in British news. Thus, I perceive them on the same level as the New York Times with respect to being a WP:RS. Don't despair. You have a lot of good text. You need the right support. You will do well with much more NYT commentary such as that which I previously noted.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Your willingness to help get this article better is much appreciated. You know, it's good to note that most of the guys who questioned its neutrality and reliability were... Indians! Yes! Back in time, in the FAC, there were so many unreliably Indian sources like bollyvista.com, planetbollywood.com, apunkachoice.com etc. That's why they required the most reliable sources, like The Times of India, Rediff, The Indian Express, The Tribune, The Hindu, Hindustan Times and so forth. During the peer review, one editor questioned the neutrlity of some reviews, because he was particularly displeased with having rviews by Taran Adarsh (one of the best known film critics today in India) and asked whether his comments are representative. I worked very hard, went through numerous newspapers, collected the best reviews from the most reputable net sources and created an analysis section, which proved that the reviews indeed represent the majority view. Then he agreed with me. That's the story. I've gone through major problems. The most important aspect, reliability was addressed; the reviews are fair and I can't see why a westerner, who is not familiar with the subject should be skeptical about it. In any case, I'm taking your comments very very seriously, and am planning to add as much western reviews as possible, to make it understandable for all groups of readers. However, I'm not doing that to address some concern (as there is no one. The article contains the most reputable sources from India, and Indian newspapers definitely can judge an Indian actress better than western ones). I'm doing that because I want the article to be more informative, and readers to see that she is recognised for her talent in western countries, and.. because you suggested so. Now I guess I have to go. I'll keep working tomorrow. My best regards, Shahid • Talk2me 22:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Here is my problem with the current lead. All award winning actress WP:FA's except Judy Garland state clearly in the first paragraph a summary of her awards in a manner similar to two-time Filmfare Award-winning actress:
          Angelina Jolie - She has received three Golden Globe Awards, two Screen Actors Guild Awards, and an Academy Award.
          Jenna Jameson - By 1996, she had won the three top newcomer awards from pornographic film industry organizations. She has since won more than 20 adult film awards
          Bette Davis - two-time Academy Award-winning American actress of film
          Diane Keaton - Academy Award-winning American film actress,
          Vivien Leigh - She won two Academy Awards
          Miranda Otto - Logie Award-winning Australian actress
          Sharon Tate - Golden Globe-nominated American actress.
        • I would revert back to the first sentence I had authored. APR will almost always tell you a four paragraph lead is too long. However, WP:LEAD says 3-4 paragraphs is proper for long articles. I have been trying to shorten Tyrone Wheatley, but will keep four paras I think. If you want to go with three that is fine. The other FA foreign actresses have all had roles in either British or American cinema or television even non-award winning ones, so there is no comparison to Zinta. I was suggesting adding some NYT/BBC info to help Western readers understand who she is. If you don't want to add it to the lead that is your call, but you must add it to the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
          • But I will do it. Just give me time... Must? Well there are endless comparisons between actors on the net; Zinta has her own style and I don't think I have to add that she is compared to someone else by no means. Reviews, it's great. Also good to note that all these ones you added to the lead except one (which is on the article) are not reviews so you can't say that they are film critics. Plus, the BBC show stealer note was not claimed by a British critic, but an Indian one. She is an Indian; American reviews can definitely help, but they are not a duty. Indian newspapers can describe in the best way her performances, her image, features and drama. But yes, to a western reader, it would impress him to see a NYT review so that's great and that's the main reason I'm so keen to do it. Also because it is an an international recognition to her work. But I found only one film review which discusses her performance and acting (the one on the article). Most of the NYT reviews do not really discuss performances by actors. So I'm trying to find some other American newspapers. The NYT is not the only American newspaper in the area I guess. But for that, please give me time, it's not an easy task. It takes some time; I have the time -- 5 days. You are too eager to see results ASAP, but there is time. Give me this time please.
          • As for the Indian Filmfare Awards, this was causing much speculation back in time. If you were from India, you would understand the concern, but I'll try to explain that later. Apart from that, you are the reviewer, and if you have problem with the results, you're free to fail it; but don't forget that I have 5 days to work on it. Now I'm extremely busy, but it doesn't mean the page is left mid-way. We don't have to hurry. I faced a lot of criticism because of the way the article looked in he FAC and the GAR times. I won't agree to that anymore. I don't want the article look like a fansite. You are someone who supported the FAC, perhaps because you don't have any problem with too much praise. And I think it's great, but what about all these editors who hate that eg Tony1 etc, who put strong oppose because of such things? Please give me the time I have. I will do everything I can; I won't leave it mid-way. Thanks, Shahid • Talk2me 19:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
            • Sorry if I seem impatient. Good luck with continued progress and enjoy life outside WP.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
              • You don't!! :) I wish every editor on Wikipedia was like you. I really liked the way the lead looked, stating her accomplishments, but at the end of the day, it is an encyclopedia, and many good editors would oppose to it saying... "POV!". Only editors like you and Blofeld can see it as an appropriate thing to do, because the truth is the truth, but others cannot be like you guys and it's a pitty. Best regards, Shahid • Talk2me 23:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
                • Well then some of the lead should have stayed. It might be inappropriate to say who she is similar to in a lead, but the two-time Filmfare and the roles in top-grossing moives is not POV.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 17:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
                  • Yeh but the grossing films are already mentioned in the lead. So what's the sense in adding it twice? As for the Filmfare Awards, if you know User:Zora, back in time there was an issue about that. The Filmfare is perhaps considered the most prestigious film award in Bollywood, but not as the National Film Awards, and it is far from being as important as the Oscars. According to the old dicussion, Filmfare awards are not cricket scores, they should not be used to "rank" actresses in terms of awards won. I would rather expand her public image. The Filmfare winning fact is already well noticed in the infobox and even the lead itself mentions it. The only thing we don't mention in regard to the top grossing facts is that she starred in the three highest grossing films of 2003. We mention that she starred in two consecutive annual top grossers in 2003 and 2004. Shahid • Talk2me 18:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
                  • I would also like to note, that I wanted to add that she "appeared in the three highest grossing films of 2003" but then it sounds a bit odd because the claim that "she played the lead role in two consecutive annual top grossers" makes it sound repetitious. In fact, she has one more record: she starred in four consecutive annual top grossers in the overseas market. Shahid • Talk2me 19:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I think the lead should portray her personality, which is repeatedly referred to in all kinds of enthusiastic adjectives in your sources such as spunky, cherubic. The lead should make it clear her looks and personality have fueled her success.
  • Footnote 7 should be 3 separate footnotes or since the are from a redundant source rephrase so that only one is necessary such as "By 2003, Zinta had established. . ."
  • Fix all other multiple ref citations.
  • Can you tell us in the lead whether she is a dramatic or comedic actress or has her range transcended that categorization?
No. There is no such categorization. She is an actress; that's what matters. In Indian cinema, actors usually star in different roles, comic, dramatic, action altogether. She played all kinds of roles. Shahid • Talk2me 21:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Would succession boxes link her to other notable persons? If so, add them.
  • Why are all the commons images on talk page redlinked?
The license has been invalidated; the images have been removed. Shahid • Talk2me 21:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • What is English honours. Is it honors level study of the English language, a study of english literature, a study of English titles and honors? Is there a link?
Green tickY - Well it is English literature. As you see, she majored in English honours because of her love of literature. Shahid • Talk2me 06:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
The section should say English literature so that the reader does not think she studied English Composition or the English language. I.e., change the linkage to something like English honours, which is the equivalent of English literature.
  • Does degree mean high school diploma or college degree? Link it.Green tickY
  • three of the highest is vague. Does it mean 3 of the top 5 or 3 of the top 100? Green tickY (by John).
  • Add cost numbers and convert to dollars and euros if possible for "most expensive Bollywood film of the year"
  • "The drama, set in a hospital, deals with the trials and tribulations among its personnel and its principal, Dr. Akash, who is desperate to sustain the hospital financially. Zinta played Akash's schizophrenic wife Sonia Kapoor." could be shortened to "In the hospital drama, Zinta played Dr. Akash's schizophrenic wife."
Well, to say that she plays Akash's wife, we have to introduce Akash. And that's what I did. Shahid • Talk2me 21:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Please link the first use of Rs and convert to $s and Euros for international readers if you can find conversions for that year. It is linked way too late in the article after too many unlinked uses. Green tickY
  • When you say the year's biggest hit overseas, what does that mean. I presume it means the highest grossing Bollywood production. If so, say so.Green tickY
  • What is a folk comedy and is it linkable?
Indian folk comedy. It is different from comedies like Salaam Namaste which are very western. It's not linkable. I can remove folk if you want. Shahid • Talk2me 22:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Can you find a source to help explain it. The NYTimes articles seem to attempt to do so for the Western reader. Please reread them.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 17:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • link first Mumbai Green tickY
  • If she is known for being outspoken say so in the lead Green tickY
  • change following three consecutive years (2004–06) to subsequent three years.Green tickY--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I just noticed your refs are inconsistent. Sometimes the work/publication is linked and sometimes it isn't. Make sure they are linked throughout.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 07:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Green tickY made it consistent. Shahid • Talk2me 15:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
No you didn't.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Why? Are there some more? Please tell me, I don't find them... Or am I confused and misinterpret the matter? Regards, Shahid • Talk2me 21:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Green tickY resolved. Only one ref doesn't work now. But it is a temporal problem. Shahid • Talk2me 15:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean by a temporal problem?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 17:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Well it will work again in a few hours or days. It is a server problem. Shahid • Talk2me 18:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll be watching.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
No problem:). Back in time, I checked the links quite often. There was some time that some refs didn't work, and now they work properly. Regards, Shahid • Talk2me 21:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 08:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Failed Good Article Nomination

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article has improved tremendously while over coming concerns at prior discussions at WP:GAR, WP:FAC and WP:PR. In the abstract, I would pass the article and someone else might without much further change. However, given the extensive comments in prior discussions, I feel certain things should be done to the article before it is repromoted to Good article.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    Well done
    B. MoS compliance:
    The comments have questioned WP:RS because refs were not from sources deemed reliable. I believe the refs are much more reliable. I am now more concerned that although reliable refs for this Indian actress have been included, the majority of english wikipedia readers are not Indian and would appreciate some western reviews. I suggested several New York Times articles for WP:POV and WP:BLP reasons, which encourage that all perspectives be represented in an article when it is easy to do so. This was not done.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    There is still a major problem with multiple refs in footnotes.
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    Again, I would like to see some more reliable Western refs to round out the article.
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    I feel better perspective of how a Westerner might view her would help many readers who are likely to be Western.
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    Could use a main image.
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    I still think many additional terms should be linked. I continue to be unsure what kind of degree she attained. Wouldn't mind rupee conversions.

--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 16:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think this review is completely unfair. She is an Indian, not an American. All the refs on this article are Indian newspapers and other reliable sources, and there is one from NYT which is the only review describing her performance on this site. The fact that she is not American and there are no other NYT reviews commenting on her, is not my fault. Why should I care for Western/Eastern readers? This article is on an actress, a performer, regardless of which country she comes from. I repeat, she is an Indian, not an American, so I can't see how an American newspaper can describe her and her performance better than an Indian one. Nobody said that she is an international superstar. I am not forced to add Western reviews (when actually there are no other reviews at all). Why don't you add some reviews from Indian newspapers to Angelina Jolie's article? Why not?! I can also say that many Indian readers would appreciate Indian reviews. Shahid • Talk2me 17:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with User:Shshshsh in that, this review seems to be unfair. I was the one who had marked this article for GA reassessment, but since then this article is improved significantly. "the majority of english wikipedia readers are not Indian and would appreciate some western reviews" - This statement is at best just the POV of the reviewer. Wikipedia articles are not meant to please the Western readers. Also asking reviews from NYT in particular, is completely unacceptable. is NYT the default bible as a reliable source for Wikipedia? Policy on reliable sources doesn't say so. The claims in an article must be well-referenced from reliable sources. Period. No where in any of the policies, I have seen something like, "everything must be referenced from Western reliable sources" or from NYT. How can we expect citations from a newspaper, when it doesn't publish articles related to this subject? My 2 paisas (not cents). - KNM Talk 17:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you so much KNM.:) Apart from that, I tried my best to add Western reviews. I have ones from Variety, and one from NYT itself. But there is no other NYT review describing her performance. The NYT usually do not comment on performances. I'm quite shocked with this review. I did my best, Dwaipayanc did his best, John also helped, and there are still concerns. And I'm not saying that because of the hard work there shouldn't be concerns; the matter is that these concerns are not even supported by any WIAFA criterion. Regards, Shahid • Talk2me 17:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree that while I think one or two reviews (if they exist in principle from NY Times) would be a good thing I believe KNM and Shahid have a strong point. Would anybody on the Angelina Jolie article expect to see reviews from Indians? Absolutely not. I'm afraid this is a reflection of bias and a prime example of what I am about on wikipedia, to try to change the view point of this encyclopedia from the UNited States and look at the world from a neutral view point e.g view the globe from space rather than where most of us are living. I believe that the article uses sources from reputable Indian sources, would anybody ever dream of searching for Indian references for an American cinema article? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 17:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's wait and see what TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) says in response to these concerns. Cirt (talk) 17:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I said I think many might pass the article with few changes, but that I would not. I also pointed out that there are problems with the refs and I still don't know what type of degree she obtained. Suppose 90% of English WP readers are not Asian or of Asian descent. Then, an article might seem deficient if it is easy to incorporate the perception of critics that represent that 90% if it could easily be done. You are free to take this to WP:GAR based on the article as is, to resubmit it without correcting the refs, degree or alternate perspective, or to revise it and resubmit it. I am quite certain the article will eventually be promoted. I hope it passes with all of these things having been addressed, but maybe just some of them.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I can't invent "well respected western reviews". This requirement of yours is not supported by any WIAGA criterion, and is merely your personal view. All the refs are reliable (newspapers, leading websites), reviews are representative and represent the majority view, there is one NYT review (the only I could find. I have no other ones. What can I do?) and two Variety reviews; everything is well measured, well balanced and well sourced. As said one editor, we are not here to please Westerners. She is an actor (BTW, not an American one), and we are here to present representative comments by critics on her performances, from well respected newspapers, regardless of what country they are published in. I still can't see the point. The Times of India, The Hindu, The Tribune, Rediff all of them are reliable and well respected, not less than American newspapers. Please don't underrate them. Shahid • Talk2me 22:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Most of the Bollywood pundits are Indian in origin, so the reliance on Indian reviewers is to be expected. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

If GA is now demanding "Western sources", perhaps ya'll should go to a broader audience at FAC, where such a stipulation has never existed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, what is this issue about multiple ref citations? It's done all the time. Look at Alzheimer's disease as a recent example, or Tourette syndrome, ref no. 67. And please don't WP:OVERLINK the article pre-FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

What happened to all the free use images?

Where did they go? Cirt (talk) 17:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Sarvagnya managaed to get them ALL deleted several hundred of them evne though I made a valid agreement with the site and it was OTRS. Terrible isn't it. Wikipedia threw away a gift of a possible several thousand images because of the pathetic concerns of Professor Snape himself ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 17:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
No, it isn't terrible at all. In fact, its a very good thing happened to Wikipedia. A copyvio can never be a gift! Wikipedia would do better without those copyvios. Whatever valid agreement you had made with the site, is no more a valid agreement and your case did not stand in WP:AN. The chapter is closed.
Cirt: To answer your question, see: this discussion and this too. - KNM Talk 18:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Did you make the agreement KNM?. No. Did you have knowledge of the contractor that licences images to Bollywood websites. No. The images were deleted because we couldn't get a reply from the discosed media corporation to 100% confirm that the images can be used freely and to confirm that Bollywood blog were telling the truth that we can use them. The agreement should have been made with the contractor ratyher than the blog which owns many of the TV and film images also but as we unfortunately didn't get a reply from them we had to assume that the Bollywood blog images were not free to use to be on the safe side as the existing agreement had some valid questions about ownership. It will only be a matter of time until another agremeent is made anyway. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 18:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Why are you writing same comments in multiple talk pages? I have already responded in my talk page. If you are continuing the discussion here, please do so, and do not paste into my talk page, and vice versa. - KNM Talk 19:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Please guys, let's wrap this discussion up and get back to the matter. We are not here to discuss the bblog images and their status and it is not related to this article whatsoever. Cirt had asked, received the response, and that's the end of the story. This is not the right place to discuss it further. Shahid • Talk2me 19:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

If you all are concerned about the images, please ask Elcobbola (talk · contribs) or Pagrashtak (talk · contribs) to evaluate pre-FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Good article reassessment

This article was nominated for good article reassessment to determine whether or not it met the good article criteria and so can be listed as a good article. Consensus has determined the article is to be promoted to GA. Please see the archived discussion for further information. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 02:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Scartol

  • She has appeared in Hindi cinemas of Bollywood... Is "cinemas" different from "films"? If not, use the latter.
  • In the lead: Please indicate (a short phrase -- "as a ____") what her role in Dil Se was.
  • Is "BBC News Online South Asia" the name of the website, or a division? I just want to be clear on what we're referring to, so that we're sure we're naming it correctly.
  • I added the bit in the lead about "in her columns and during interviews", based on my assumption. Please fix this if it's not accurate.

Okay, the lead's all done. More soon (probably tomorrow). – Scartol • Tok 15:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, changed to films. Her role in Dil Se was actually very small, so I don't really think a role decription can be added. BBC - it's a Website I guess. Well columns and interviews is not as accurate. She is known for her outspoken views and forthright manner in the media, everywhere, so I can't say it's only interviews. Also, right after the sentence you can see the Bharat Shah case, which is another example. Thanks, Shahid • Talk2me 16:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Do we know what Manish does for a living in LA? If so, it should be mentioned.
No we don't. Shahid • Talk2me 14:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I removed the bit about her writing poetry herself; it's really not very relevant here.
Fine. Shahid • Talk2me 14:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
All happened in the same year.
  • she was eventually noticed for her role, particularly for the forthright character she played This is confusing to me. Could we get more specific? Who noticed her? What does "forthright character" mean? Please clarify. (In fact, the wording "she was noticed..." and variations of it appear regularly throughout the article; these are very imprecise, and are better worded as "CRITIC X said her acting was [whatever]."
Yup... We don't have that many reliable reviews for films of the 90s. But she was noticed for her forthright character, which is described in one example - a quote from the film. Shahid • Talk2me 14:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Has there never been anything negative written about this woman? It sounds like everyone is always 100% positive about her work. I worry about POV bias. (The first not-totally-positive comment comes in the discussion of Lakshya.)
She has mostly received favourable reviews, particularly in her early days. It was already discussed in a noticeboard. In this very talk page, you can see an analysis of reviews she has received in order to make clear that the reviews on the talk page are indeed representative of the reception. Shahid • Talk2me 14:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The numbers and appearances of the phrase "top-grossing film" are very repetitive. I don't know exactly how to fix them, but it feels like we need more variety in the descriptions of these movies.
Yeh that was a problem - that's a problem when you are being part of so many hits. :) Shahid • Talk2me 14:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The film tells the story of a contemporary cohabiting Indian couple. Zinta played the female protagonist... We have two different tenses for the movie here. ("film tells... Zinta played") We should pick one and stick with it. I prefer the literary present ("Zinta plays"), but it should also be consistent throughout the article. (Many other sentences will need to be changed.) The same two-tense problem returns in the discussion of Kabhi Alvida Naa Kehna.
Well, in some places, it's very difficult to describe both the film and her role in one sentence. Shahid • Talk2me 14:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The New York Times, so far as I know, doesn't do many editorials about movies. (Editorials are the only time it's really fair to describe the paper itself as saying something.) Could we get a name for the reviewer?
Yes, but he has no a Wikipedia article about him. Shahid • Talk2me 14:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • What does "cynosure" mean? I doubt it refers to cynosure?
No. You can find it on Wiktionary. Shahid • Talk2me 14:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "...her third Yash Raj film, Shaad Ali's comedy Jhoom Barabar Jhoom..." This is unclear. A film should generally be ascribed to one person as being theirs. (The other can be listed as a co-star or some such.)
  • What did she so in the world tours? Sing? Act? Dance?
She sang, acted and danced... I'll add it later. Shahid • Talk2me 14:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Zinta used to visit her native town Shimla when not busy in shooting. In 2006, she moved into her own home in Mumbai. These two sentences feel isolated and tacked-on to the start of the Personal life section. Could they be worked more smoothly into some other paragraph?
  • We should get more detail about her near-death experiences.
Ye but it will be too long.
  • Zinta is particularly known in the Indian media for her straightforwardness and for honestly expressing her outspoken views and forthright opinions in public, be it about her on-screen or off-screen life or raising a voice against any social injustice. This sentence doesn't really say anything that hasn't been said earlier in the article. It also feels POV, like cheerleading for her greatness. I recommend removing it. (The rest of the paragraph is repetitious as well – more comments about the Bharat Shah case – and the item about the dimple is just fluffy. The bit about the "bubbly image" is worthwhile, but it should be merged with another paragraph. Perhaps combine it with the living arrangements bit mentioned above?)
But it was only mentioned in the lead. And the lead is here to summarise the article, so that later it can be mentioned in details in other sections. Shahid • Talk2me 14:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, looks like that's about it for me. Good luck with this article, and please let me know if you have any questions. – Scartol • Tok 13:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very very much for the help. Shahid • Talk2me 14:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Wish Preity Zinta!". Rediff.com. January 31, 2006. Retrieved 2007-11-07. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Preity_Zinta/Archive_7&oldid=1141484709"