Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Priyanka Chopra/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 list was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Priyanka Chopra[edit]

Priyanka Chopra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): BollyJeff | talk 17:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because Priyanka Chopra is a popular and award winning Bollywood actress/dancer and former Miss World, who is now attempting to break into the American/International music scene as a singer. In the last 4 months this article was promoted to GA, received a copy edit from the GOCE, had a peer review, and a thorough source scrubbing. I think it meets the FA criteria now. BollyJeff | talk 17:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would like to kickstart this review. The problem is, in the six days since the nomination there have been 60+ edits to the article – before any review comments have been made. This raises the question of whether the article was really ready for FAC when it was nominated; I notice some uncertainty on this point in the peer review discussion. Maybe the main editors can agree not to tinker for a while and let the reviewers get busy on a stable text – it is difficult to review a moving target! For the time being I'll just raise a few minor issues:

  • Why it is necessary to triple-cite in the opening lead paragraph the fact that Priyanka is a leading contemporary actress? Generally, except in the case of direct quotes, citations are unnecessary in the lead since the information should be evidenced and cited in the main text.
  • I notice in the main text a couple of paragraphs (both in the "Early success" section) which end with uncited statements.
  • Long inline lists (see "Endoesements") should be avoided; give two or three examples.
  • Some italics usage is contrary to MOS, e.g. Ahlan Bollywood Concert

These are pretty trivial points. Overall the article looks solid and comprehensive. Brianboulton (talk) 11:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the lead sources and MOS. Un-sourced statements were just to highlight some film special appearances. Is a source really needed? They are in the filmography table also, and can be verified in the film articles. Or does it just look bad that the paragraph ends without a source? I am still deciding which of the 20 or so endorsements are the most important to show (was trying to be comprehensive). BollyJeff | talk 00:34, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and fixed the other two points as well. BollyJeff | talk 23:21, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have struck my specific concerns, which seem to have been adequately addressed. My original purpose (as stated) was to get the review going, and that seems to have worked. Unfortunately it is most unlikely I will find the time to go through this rather long article and give it a full review. I appreciate the effort that's gone into it, and wish it success. Brianboulton (talk) 23:51, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment regarding sources - At Bollyjeff's request, in early December I performed a quite ruthless audit of the references for accuracy and reliability. I did find many non-reliable sources at that time, but they were improved almost immediately and with nary a quibble. Obviously the article is very active and has changed a great deal since December, though, so another source review is needed; I will try to do so soon. In the meantime I concur with Brian: please let's try to let the article rest a bit during FAC, aside from reverting vandalism and making changes agreed on during the FAC itself, so that reviewers are commenting on more or less the same version of the article. Maralia (talk) 13:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do concur with the sentiments expressed by both Brian and Maralia. I had raised this concern at the PR itself. I would say give it one last brush and then stop with the vigorous content changing and sourcing. Especially User:Pks1142's edits which creat more problems. Let the reviewers critic on a stable version of the article. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 06:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Check your eyes User:IndianBio. My edits were linked to providing more notable sources. Bollyjeff told me to do so. Please, No one here is interested in your comments. You haven't even contributed to the article. So don't point your fingers to me. Read the discussion first and then, comment.Prashant  ✉  06:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Stop with the personal attacks, try to understand the points regarding the numerous edits. You might decide for these major edits as beneficial, but ultimately this leads to the article kosing its stability. That is the point everyone is trying to make. And many a times I have seen Bollyjeff having to revert your edit because of this. As I had pointed out in the Peer review, stability is pretty important. Anyhow, continue editing then and fall to deaf ears like you are. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 07:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
further comments from Maralia- I have reviewed the sources again, and I am satisfied that meet WP:RS. I did find some other quibbles, though:
  • Appropriate context is necessary: remember the international audience, and consider that the international aspects of Chopra's career make assumption difficult. Here are a few examples where context is crucial to understanding:
    • "Mujhse Shaadi Karogi, which was a major commercial success with worldwide gross earnings of over 56 crore (US$10.19 million), and was the third-highest grossing film of the year." - the clarification needed here is that this was the third-highest grossing film of the year in India. It is particularly necessary to explicitly state this as the early part of the sentence (worldwide gross earnings) would lead to a wrong conclusion. There is at least one other case of similar phrasing within the article that needs clarification.
    • "A survey conducted by AdEx India declared her as the queen of brand endorsements" - in India.
    • The bit we have about her song—"The song was a commercial success, selling more than 130,000 copies in the first week after its release, and was certified triple platinum in India"—implies that it saw success across the board but particularly in India. A check of the source indicates that it sold 130,000 copies in the first week in India, and "had been [slow] to catch on" in the US. This needs more careful phrasing. Further, the portion "was certified triple platinum in India" is cited to an interview in which this assertion is only made by Chopra herself, as a direct quotation; a reliable independent source is needed here.
  • "the song was released to iTunes Store" - the iTunes Store, please.
  • "In 2007, Chopra judged the Miss India pageant" - this rather implies it was a one-[wo]man job; can we say she was a judge of, or one of x judges?
  • Can we have DesiHits either consistently with or consistently without the exclamation mark?
  • "Chopra has often featured on Rediff.com's annual listing of "Bollywood's Best Actress" - surely this is Bollywood's Best Actresses?
  • A quoted phrase (as opposed to a quoted sentence) should not include ending punctuation inside; please fix "shows no promise." so that the full stop is outside the quote.
  • The second paragraph of the Philanthropy section tends toward the hagiographic and needs work. Referring to Chopra as "The star" is not exactly encyclopedic. Further, mentioning that she has supported a zoo by adopting animals would be reasonable—giving the names of said animals and providing the precise amount she donated is entirely trivial.
  • Is there no more recent source for the Endorsements statement ("Chopra has a number of endorsements and in this respect she is one of the highest paid Bollywood actresses"), which is cited to a source fully two years old?
I believe that these points are all now addressed. BollyJeff | talk 00:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see a few more source spotchecks done by a reviewer, to ensure that sources are being properly represented (see my comment above about the song, and my earlier review on the article talk page). Altogether this is in pretty good shape. Maralia (talk) 20:38, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These issues have been resolved to my satisfaction. I'm going to give the article another read-through. Maralia (talk) 16:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Read through the Column writing section, and will try to read the rest within a couple of days.

  • "She earned critical appraisal for her portrayal of a seductress...". I'm pretty sure that "appraisal" is meant to be "praise", but I don't know how they term it in India. Seems odd to me, though.
  • Debut and breakthrough: "and a nomination for Filmfare Best Supporting Actress Award." Needs "the" before the award name.
  • Similar tweak is needed at the end of this subsection.
  • Critical acclaim: "for which she was being considered for inclusion in the Guinness World Records book for being the first film actress...". I never like to see a prose redundancy like "being" is here, especially when the first one isn't needed and can be removed without doing anything else.
  • "and" is needed before "performing at live shows including the Miss India pageant".
  • General comment: There are a lot of paragraphs that start with "Chopra" or "In xxxx". Some more variety would be nice for the sake of the prose.
  • Recent work: If "box-office" has a hyphen elsewhere, it should in the second paragraph here as well. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed most of the points.Prashant  ✉  03:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed the rest. Thank you. BollyJeff | talk 14:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Philanthropy: "She also appeared at the launch a of campaign...". "a" and "of" need to be reversed.
  • Public image and personal life: "Chopra was featured on Verve list of most powerful women in 2009 and 2010." "Verve" → "Verve's"?
  • ""is talking about my personal life." and said...". Can't have a period followed like this. For the sake of the sentence, you might consider adjusting the punctuation in the quote; we are allowed to make reasonable style changes like this.
  • All caps in refs 74 and 84 need fixing. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:25, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. BollyJeff | talk 12:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Since my comments have all been addressed, I'll offer my backing now. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:05, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments – Just a few initial comments for now; more to come! While I was reading the article, I noticed that there were several prose issues. I'll take a stab at it and see what I can do!

  • I notice that the article has some Soft 404 link problems. Please see its Checklinks entry! You might want to consider fixing the other links too! Some of them change domains! -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 01:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Majority, if not all, of the sources used are reliable. However, I did notice the use of some unreliable ones like Radiosargam, Planet Bollywood, Glamsham—please replace them! -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 20:25, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These first two items are done. Checklinks now runs spotless. BollyJeff | talk 02:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Early life and pageantry" section, it states that Chopra began receiving film offers after she was crowned Miss World. However, in the following section, it goes on to say that she "started getting film offers right after Miss India and before Miss World". This confusion needs to be cleared up! -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 01:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. This has been fixed. BollyJeff | talk 02:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I found the article's fragmentary writing style (She did this ... she did that ... she did the other ...) rather difficult to read. One example of what I'm talking about: "Her personal website, iampriyankachopra.com, was opened in August 2010. Chopra lives with her family and Brando, her dog. Chopra has a tattoo on her wrist that reads "Daddy's lil girl", referring to her loving relationship with her father." Added to which there seems little effort to gather related information together. For instance, that piece of trivia about her tattoo really belongs with the rest of the material on her relationship with her family members. Sorry. George Ponderevo (talk) 15:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting. These were my exact comments (She did this ... she did that) to the copy editor from the WP:GOCE who worked on this at the time; see. The article was a more flowery read prior, but I deferred to their judgement. Seems like you can't please everyone. I will try to address your specific comments as best I can. BollyJeff | talk 15:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't seen that, but it is indeed interesting that you had the same impression as I did; I'm not sure that the GOCE copyeditor really did you any favours. What's really needed is to get some coherent flow back into the text. I can't make any promises, but I make take a look at one or two of the sections later to see what can be done. I can see that Priyanka Chopra is a significant figure in Indian cinema, and it pains me to have to oppose at this time, but I really can't see how this meets the "engaging, even professional prose" requirement as it stands. George Ponderevo (talk) 17:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
After our edits to the Public image and personal life section, I have gone back over several other sections to try and make it a more engaging read. BollyJeff | talk 00:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, myself and a couple other editors have now gone through the whole article again to give it a better flow. BollyJeff | talk 02:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – The article has improved since its nomination. I thinks, it meets the criteria now. Excellent work from BollyJeff! Zia Khan 16:04, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support : As one of the contributors (the main contributor is BollyJeff) of the article, I believe the article has improved a lot since its nomination. The article meets Wikipedia:Featured article criteria; it's well-written, comprehensive, well-sourced, neutral, stable, properly formatted and constantly up-to-date.Prashant talk 17:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate's closing comment - Indeed the article has improved since the nomination, but the prose is still not to the required FA standard. It needs more work, preferably from an uninvolved editor who can bring some strategic distance. This is best done away from the pressure of FAC. Graham Colm (talk) 23:28, 14 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Priyanka_Chopra/archive1&oldid=1142602611"