Wikipedia:Peer review/Priyanka Chopra/archive1

Priyanka Chopra

I've listed this article for peer review because it has passed GA review, had a thorough cleansing of the sources, and a copy edit from GOCE member, so this is the last step before going to FAC. Just want to see what may be missing from FA criteria. Thanks, BollyJeff | talk 17:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Right after the first sentence, the lead now reads, Her parents are former Indian Army physicians. During Chopra's childhood, she often moved to different cities in India because of her parents' occupations and their frequent reassignments, and she spent several years in the United States. "

This is unnecessary information for the lead. Lead does not necessary have to have summary of all sections of the text, rather it should be a functional summary, and, if possible, be interesting. I'd rather have Miss World sentence as the second sentence. I think you should simply remove those two personal life sentences from the lead, its trivial for the lead.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Agreed, too minor for lead; removed. BollyJeff | talk 01:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• More comment "Chopra was due to made her film debut in 2002 opposite Bobby Deol and Akshaye Khanna in Abbas-Mustan's romantic thriller Humraaz, but she opted out because of her work commitments. She said, "I started getting film offers even before I won the Miss World title. Right after Miss India I signed Humraaz, which was my debut film. Then I went for the Miss World contest due to which the film got delayed by a year". So, Chopra opted out of the film because she had to participate in Miss World, right? Then, why the film got delayed? Did the producer delay the film in the hope she would return to do it? This needs either clarification, or modification of sentences. Why use a quotation here? This information can be converted to plan text easily.

• "It was her first negative role, the film was a moderate success at the Indian box-office,[36] and Chopra's performance was critically acclaimed." Can be changed to " Acting in her first negative role, she was praised by the critic; the film was a moderate success..." or something else. The present form has three somewhat oddly placed commas, and themes are detached.

• "the category has been retired since 2008". Won't it be discontinued, rather than retired?

• "...live electrical wire and was almost electrocuted". You either get electrocuted or not. Almost electrocution is not possible. Also, which film was she shooting for when this happened?

• "...and was the second most popular film of the year" How do we know that Krissh was the second-most popular film? It's second-highest grossing for sure.--Dwaipayan (talk) 00:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done. I think most of the above is fixed now. BollyJeff | talk 02:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• " and her performances in them received mixed to negative reviews" (in Critical acclaim (2008–2011)) section. Thats a wrong sentence. Remove and, capitalize Her.

• "Later that year, Chopra starred inMadhur Bhandarkar's Fashion, a drama revolving around the fashion industry as seen Chopra's protagonist character Meghna Mathur...". Probably a "by" is missing.
• "earning her several awards for Best Actress including the National Film Award for Best Actress" Three superscripts (citations) follow this clause; why do we need 3 references for one non-controversial award?

• "Her final film role of 2008 was Tarun Mansukhani's romantic comedy Dostana with Abhishek Bachchan and John Abraham" Remove role.

• "Produced byDharma Productions, the film was a financial success with a worldwide revenue of over 86 crore (US$15.65 million)[39] Chopra received positive reviews..." Punctuation missing.
• "Her role earned her several awards and nominations including a second Filmfare Award for Best Actress nomination[76] and an Apsara Award for Best Actress in a Leading Role, her second consecutive award in that category". Do you mean second consecutive Apsara award? What was the first one? That's probably not mentioned in the text. ANyway, is this a quite famous award to mention in the text?
• "Chopra subsequently appeared in Ashutosh Gowariker's romantic comedy What's Your Raashee?, for which Chopra was being considered for inclusion in the Guinness World Records book for being the first film actress to portray 12 distinct characters in one film" -- that's not a good sentence construction, two "being"s, the second Chopra should have been "she". Try something different and less complex.
• "Chopra's heavy workload—filming for several productions, travelling for endorsements, performing at live shows, and appearing in the Miss India pageant..." Appearing in Miss India? Why?
• "Anglo-Indian ". Any wikilink?

• " Chopra turned down the role of Phaedra inTarsem Singh's 2011 Hollywood fantasy film Immortals because of the film's conflicting shooting schedule." This sentence suddenly appears in between sentences on 7 Khoon Maaf, and breaks the flow. Should be re-positioned.

• "Chopra reprised the role of Roma, which received positive feedback from foreign critics." That's suspicious! Why suddenly mention specifically foreign critics? Nothing that follows indicates about foreign (!) critics.

• "...Chopra became the first mainstream Bollywood actor to be signed by..." Is there any non-mainstream bollywood actors to have the feat?

• "This is a great follow-up [after the Universal Music Group/Desi Hits! signing].". The readers were not told about Universal Music Group/Desi Hits signing.
• "Upon release, the film broke the highest opening day collections record..." Highest opening record of what? Indian films? Bollywood? in India?

• "To follow the success of Agneepath, Chopra co-starred with Shahid Kapoor in Kunal Kohli's Teri Meri Kahaani, a love story set in three different eras" You mean, she tried to follow the success?

• "As of January 2013, Chopra is due to appear in K. C. Bokadia's much-delayed film Deewana Main Deewana[118] Chopra will reprise..." Punctuation missing.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow, some of the above stuff occurred during the copy edit. The first issue is because her first couple of films of 2008 were bad, but Fashion was where she took off. I tried moving those up to the previous section, but then you get 2005-2008 and 2008-2011; '08 gets repeated. Do you have an alternate suggestion? BollyJeff | talk 13:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The first point above (and her...) is merely on prose issue, not content. The sentence preceding it missing a punctuation. So, I suggested to put that punctuation, remove the word "and", and then capitalize the H of the word her, so that this becomes a sentence.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. These will all fixed fixed later. BollyJeff | talk 20:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Think I got them all. BollyJeff | talk 01:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comments from PKS: "She was later noted for experimenting with different character types in the 2009 caper film Kaminey, the 2009 comedy What's Your Raashee?, the 2011 neo-noir 7 Khoon Maaf, and the 2012 romantic comedy-drama Barfi!."

1. Are you saying she was only noted for "experimenting". For which films? critically acclaimed? Or what?.
2. She was only noted for "Experimenting". Are you saying she is an average actress who is only noted for "Experimenting with roles".
3. She is not noted for her acting prowess but for "Experimenting"......Like...."She is a average actress but critics commends her "for experiment". That, what are you saying??
4. Are critics only noted her experiment not her talent.? Are critics views are like....."Chopra is okkkk, but god she tried something different" but still only tried, not shown versatility or anything like that. It is confusing.

—PKS ^(TALK) 05:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

It's funny how you are always so protective of her. We can reword it a bit, but it is certainly not trying to say she is only average. I think what it is meaning to say is that she tries various kinds of roles, and even though she is a beauty queen, is not afraid to go after non-glamorous roles like in Barfi and the young girl in Raashee, etc. I don't see how you think that is implying that she is not a good actress. BollyJeff | talk 20:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

How about replacing that sentence with something like this: "She was later noted for experimenting with different character types and being unafraid to take challenging and un-glamorous roles, while also appearing in several blockbuster action films. BollyJeff | talk 01:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you may use but Remove "Experimenting" use "shown versatility" or critics noted her versatility in her performance or like that.

You should mention that "2008 marked to be the turning point in her career" or "path-breaking" or "she starred in fashion which proved to be career defining role for her" or something like that.

This should be followed by She further played strong and independent women in critically acclaimed films like....." —PKS ^(TALK) 04:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• More comments

1. The article say that Bluffmaster and Aap ki khatir are loosely adapted from certain films. I have their DVDs and they don't even mention about their adaptation from films. If it was adapted then it suits better in article of those films. Also, the producers didn't even mentioned that those films are adapted officially. Its quite strange.

It seems properly source and can stay. It can be added to film articles as well. BollyJeff | talk 20:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

1. Artistry sections just after acting career seems repetitive. It would be helpful when it would appear after personal life. Balan's article is best example. It also has influence section which come before Music career which is strange.Prashant  Conversation  05:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

At least three reviewers here have expressed that the article has too much WP:fancruft, and much of it is the Artistry section. I am proposing to move just the influences sub-section back to where it was, and eliminate the Acting style and analysis sub-section entirely. I don't believe the article can pass FA with this section intact. BollyJeff | talk 20:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not following up whether the suggestions are utilised in the article.

• "Chopra credited her fondness of singing to her upbringing in a musical family home and exploited her ability during her pageantry career."

Musical family is ok, 'home" is not needed. Also, she exploited which ability? Also, exploited is probably not the best verb to use in this instance.

• "She declined to sing "Tinka Tinka" in her film Karam..." You can use the word playback with appropriate wikilink here.
• "Chopra's unsettled childhood...", what is meant by unsettled childhood? It reads as if she had troubled childhood.
• "In My City" trended at number one on Twitter a few minutes after ..." Do you mean worldwide trend, US trend or India? And also a few minutes after which release? Indian or US release?
• "the song was released to iTunes Store on December 4, 2012 for digital download". Use d-m-y pattern for dates.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• 'In 2010, Chopra became a television host with the reality show Khatron Ke Khiladi,...'. Not sure, but probably it would be "...host in the reality show..."
• "She performed most of the stunts herself" Why are stunts necessary in a TV show? I think a small explnationof the nature of Khatron Ka Khiladi is warranted.
• "...nineteen stage shows worldwide'. Nineteen-->19.
• "In 2011, she was signed to become the brand ambassador of Blenders Pride Fashion Tour". Why do you dedicate one sentence to this specific endorsement while all other brands are mentioned together in the succeeding sentence?
• "In 2006, a day with Chopra was auctioned on eBay India to help the auction winner spend a day with Chopra, proceeds of which were donated to an NGO called Nanhi Kali which helps to educate girls in India" Something is wrong in this sentence. "...to help the auction winner spend a day..." sounds odd.
• The whole philanthropy section is too much detailed. Her primary notability is not for the charities. This section is boring, monotonous and needs trimming.
• "Chopra's biggest influence is Amitabh Bachchan..." needs citation.
• ' at the famous Salvatore Ferragamo Museum in Florence, Italy in 1999". Remove famous. In 1999? She was not around then.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment After the first sentence, the lead reads "She became known as Miss India and Miss World in 2000 before beginning her film acting career."

Doesn't sound right. Could be changed to "Her Miss India and Miss World titles in 2000 had made her well known before she began her film-acting career." or "She was a “Miss World” and “Miss India” in 2000 before she started her film-acting career." or something else. Naveed (talk) 06:44, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

 DoneThank you all for your advice. I have implemented most of it. Anything else? BollyJeff | talk 03:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• Again, "In 2011, she was signed to become the brand ambassador of Blenders Pride Fashion Tour". Why do you mention this? What is the specialty of this endorsement? Why not just enlist this as one of her endorsements in the preceding sentence?

Well, the rest are product companies, whereas a "Fashion Tour" is not really a company. I could say "Blenders Pride" and forget about the tour if that is acceptable. BollyJeff | talk 17:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• So far as I remember, she was a Model who started to act in cinema. This is not mentioned, and indeed this should go in the lead as well. She continues to be a model I guess.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

We could not find any reliable info on her early modelling (despite what certain websites may say or people may remember), so it was left out. If you can suggest sources, it will be added. BollyJeff | talk 17:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed that she may not have been a model before winning Miss World, but after that, she has worked as a model, right? She has done some ramp walks, and has been used in many advertisements (as discussed in endorsement section). So, she is also a model, besides an actor, and a quite good and popular one it seems.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• Some random
• "She also launched a campaign called "Save Girl Child", aiming to change Indians' mindset towards girls" It seems on reading this sentence as if she was the person behind this campaign. The source differs. According to the source, she merely inaugurated it.
• "In 2007, she visited Jawan troops in Tenga in eastern India to boost their morale for a special episode on the NDTV show" I may have missed, but did not find anything on "boosting morale" in the source.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
• Overall The article still has the appearance of Wikipedia:Fancruft. There are scattered sentences that need to be toned down. And the charity section is unnecessarily large. The word "criticized" has been used only once in the whole article. I believe she has been criticized many more times in her acting career. (I know this is a wrong mathematical method to argue something, but overall the article does look like too much praising her, rather than remaining neutral). No negative criticism in the "Acting style and analysis" section? If you have such a section, you should include varied aspects, not only flowers and garlands. Additionally, a lot of trivial (to me) information is there in the article.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, some fans were/are involved here. I will try to smooth it out. BollyJeff | talk 17:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I added a negative review for her debut film. It is actually pretty hard to find any more negative reviews in reliable sources. There are additionally a few summarized at the beginning of the Critical acclaim section, as well as the one that you saw, and one for Anjaana Anjaani. I consolidated the charity section, but I don't want to remove valid info; an FA needs to be comprehensive. BollyJeff | talk 16:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you think there is hope to make FA with that "Artistry" section, particularly the "Acting style and analysis" sub-section? It was the last section added by some other editors, and I am not very fond of it, nor do I know a good way to fix it. Suggestions are welcomed. BollyJeff | talk 21:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

That artistry section has actually become a complete fancruft instead of critical analysis of Chopra's acting style and endeavors, her migration from one role to another, whenever she fails to do so etc. I had a wonderful plot and structure in mind, seeing FAs like those of Maria Carey and Janet Jackson, where such sections are included. But I think it was fan-user Pks1142 who made a complete utter rubbish of the section with the same fancrufty praises and idolizing with borderline shitty glamorous lists and all. Guess what, that section has become a bloody repetition of the biography actually. I can even show you how the initial draft was turning out, and it was NOT this. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 12:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay then, we either have to fix it or remove it. I can see leaving the influences, and some words about her choice of roles, but not much else. BollyJeff | talk 13:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I completely concur with IndianBio (though I would tone done my language a bit :D). That section, especially, reads like a fan page. The only other issue I have with the article is that very few negative critical reviews have been quoted, while much of the career section goes on praising her. I think that some negative comments should also be highlighted instead of just focusing on the positive parts. For example, only a couple of lines like "In 2008, Chopra acted in six films; her first four—Love Story 2050, God Tussi Great Ho, Chamku and Drona—were critical and commercial failures. Her performances in them received mixed to negative reviews" talk about her unsuccessful films, and then we have several paragraphs dedicated to praising her for the films that worked. Even for Balan's article I ensured that the Heyy Babyys and Kismet Konnections were highlighted as much as her successful films.--smarojit ^{(buzz me)} 16:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I added some detail, but its hard to find much coverage of these below average films in reliable sources. BollyJeff | talk 21:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Genuine concern — Will this article ever be ready or stable with the amount of tweaks and changes and rearrangements going on and on each and every day, every hour? There should be a stable version for the reviewers to review, for the editors to work upon as well as to have consensus on if anything needs to be changed. But I don't see that as the case here. Bollyjeff has put in a lot of hard work, and other editors are also trying to help. But sometimes I'm seeing content being removed, being added on whim, then removed again for no apparent reason at all. I'm just saying that this article is a classic example of "too many cooks spoiling the broth, as well as the main course itself". I hope you guys get my point. PS, a new artistry section was again proposed. Now since I was the person who had put forward the idea of an artistry section, I have to say "NO". The artistry section was not supposed to be a re-hash of Chopra's achievements and film role summary. It was a different approach, of analysing her career, her decisions and her acting style etc. Not just critic's description of how she acted in so-and-so film, but rather a journalistic and academic approach as to how the role impacted, how it was scrutinized. Its a pile load of recycle now tbh. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Have you seen the massive changes to Kareena Kapoor even during the FAC review? I am putting in tweaks while following that review, to hopefully head off some of those questions when this one comes up. I agree though that we should mostly leave it alone now except for important new info, which always happens with popular people. Do you think it is ready to nominate now, or what else is needed first? BollyJeff | talk 12:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

No, the article is not ready. Bollyjeff wait for sometime.Prashant  ✉  12:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

What else remains? BollyJeff | talk 13:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually Nothing, Yes everything is in the form. You may nominated it. Best of luck.Prashant  ✉  14:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Pks, I really don't have clue what you say most of the times. You said there are issues, but immediately back-tracked it. Please don't confuse editors. Bolly, I believe the initial prose of the article is pretty good in shape, sans minor glitches. However the recent work section is seemed with recentism diatribes and proseline effect. By this I mean that the general coherent flow evident in the previous sections breaks here. Ideas and content are thrown in here, without connecting them together. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Another thing I noticed was the absence of quotes from the artist herself. There are ample amount of quotes from the reviewers themselves, but very few from Chopra herself, except Barfi! about how the role influenced or was inspired from. Since we are proposing to remove that darned artistry section, I believe the addition of one line quotes from the artist herself would give a different perspective and nullify the proseline effect. You don't have to give it for every film, just the major ones like Kaminey, 7 Khoon Maaf, Fashion, Krrish etc. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 07:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea about what you are talking about...details. Where I should include her perspective on Barfi.Prashant  ✉  07:30, 1 February 2013 (UTC)