Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Preity Zinta/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates | Preity Zinta

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hedgehog Kanna (talk | contribs) at 17:24, 3 November 2007. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Preity Zinta

Support This article has had considerable development since its promotion to GA status and recently passed A but due to strong support I am now proposing it for an FA. It is well written, structured and informative and is an excellent source for encyclopedic information. It covers every aspect of her career and life and has over 100 references which are correctly filled out and professional. For me this is therefore just about up to FA quality. An article on a living actor is a pretty difficult one to write and this does a very good job of it - and this is better in my view than some of the actor articles which are already FA. Please could you review as soon as possible thanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 10:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Preity Zinta will become only the second Indian cinematic person to achieve a FA - an amount I believe is incredibly low considering India has the biggest film industry in the world. I'm sure the move if proposed will become incredibly popular and lead off a spark of several other Indian articles becoming a FA.
Summarising, my points, Preity Zinta's FA status will become a positive turning point in Indian cinema pages on Wikipedia. Universal Hero 11:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am going to read the article more thoroughly later today as I have the time, but on a cursory glance, it looks like it could use some more copy editing. Probably worth listing with LCE for the meantime. I'll see what I can scrub up a bit myself when I get the chance, too. Girolamo Savonarola 12:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The image is believed to be not a screenshot of the film, but a photograph of Zinta on set - note she is looking into the camera. According to the website the Bollywood blog often has photographers on the set of films in Mumbai also but this particular image appears to be a promo photo. If you see the Angelina Jolie article which is already FA it has three screenshots of her so quite reasonably this article could have one or two more . ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 13:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The one reservation that really comes up is the unusual phrasing of some of the content. I didn't mention this in A-Class review, because I'm not sure of existing norms for grammar and suchlike outside the central United States, and can't be sure that such usage might not be common elsewhere. But if others mention that concern as well, I think some copyediting might be in order. I can try to pitch in myself a bit as time permits today, but can't make any guarantees. I do think the reservations about the photo questioned above have been address, however. John Carter 13:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just want to register that User:Blofeld of SPECTRE left me a message on my talk page asking me to come here and support the nomination. I have no knowledge of this article whatsoever and therefore won't give an opinion, but I have concerns that he may have selected me because of perceived sympathy with his cause. If he indiscriminately messaged everyone, then I object to receiving unsolicited messages of no relevance to me. It may be worth it for whoever closes this discussion to investigate how much support, and from which corners of the community, came from similar get-out-the-vote activities. Croctotheface 17:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply to Croctotheface Sorry sorry sorry, but you have provided wrong and false info here. You have removed Blofeld's message, writing in the edit summary "Go away, spam". Let me copy your words: left me a message on my talk page asking me to come here and support the nomination. - not true at all. Blofeld left the same message to all the users. Here it is (and it is copied from your talk page, a message you've removed): "I would therefore be very grateful if you could give it a final review in your own time and leave your comments and views at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Preity Zinta. Thankyou, your comments are always valuable." If you could provide where exactly Blofeld asked you to support it here, I would be extremely grateful Croctotheface. Shahid • Talk2me 17:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment to Croc Absolute rubbish. I would never ask somebody directly to support an article. Please don't insult me. Correct me if I am wrong but is "I would be very grateful if you could give it a final review in your own time and leave your comments and views at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Preity Zinta. Thankyou, your comments are always valuable" asking to support it?. I merely asked for your opinion and to respectfully review. I am very disappointed in your response Croc. I made sure I asked a diversity of people which is probably how I came across you. Now why would I have assumed you would have been sympathetic to it??? There is absolutely nothing wrong with asking people to review the article themselves and leave their own views and comments. Nobody around here (with the exception of one or two) is a fool and even if I had said "OHhh please support this article" on my hands and knees nobody is going to be forced to do anything. People are able to think for themselves and anyway the article speaks for itself. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 18:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • To the idea that Blofeld was not looking to garner support for his position, that's just nonsense. It is certainly possible to try to influence the outcome of a discussion sucha s this without saying, "come support this FA nomination" or something like it. To suggest that Blofeld, who clearly wants to see this article promoted, had something else in mind by publicizing this discussion is disingenuous at best. Setting that aside, WP:CANVAS says, "Even if the goal is not to influence the outcome of the debate, indiscriminately sending announcements to uninvolved editors is considered 'talk-page spamming' (or e-mail spamming) and therefore disruptive." Considering that I had never edited this article, I am an uninvolved editor. Considering that I never expressed interest in the topic, this action was disruptive. It is not somehow evil or terrible of me to complain about it or to remove the spam message from my talk page. To the extent that it was clear to me that such messages as the one I received could influence the outcome, and since I had no knowledge of how widespread these messages were or whether anyone else was involved in sending them, I felt it appropriate to bring this to light. That's all I have to say about the topic. Croctotheface 07:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • comment Well why on earth do you think I would have asked somebody like you if I didn't want a neutral turn out? You are not involved with this or our paths have never crossed before, so why would I request you to review it if I expected you to support it? It is quite insulting to other editors Croc that you think by asking intelligent people to review the article and state their opinion of it is suddenly going to propel them into supporting it. Publicizing a FA candidate is not a crime - it is to avoid the restrictions of the same limited group of editors and get some broader perspectvies across a range of fields ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 11:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article is well written and well researched. Tovojolo 18:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article is well written and in my opinion should be FA status. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Mainly MOS breaches and 1a.
    • There is a punctuation error in the beginning of the lead.
    • Some of the week events—possessive.
    • …performed at the…to help raise money for the victims of the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake.—a little awkward; there is a redundancy here.
      •  Done
        • That doesn't look like you did anything. O2 (息 • 吹) 00:10, 02 November 2007 (GMT)
    • Zinta donated her winnings, from her 2007 appearance on Kaun Banega Crorepati to the Shimla District Red Cross Society in Himachel Pradesh, along with Rani Mukerji.—How does this flow if one takes out the phrase in between the commas?
      •  Done
        • Not done yet. You've just made it worse and harder to articulate. O2 (息 • 吹) 00:10, 02 November 2007 (GMT)
    • In August of that year, Zinta along with Mumbai-based artist Gurcharan Singh, painted for the cause of street children for the Non-governmental organization Khushi.—punctuation and capitalisation errors.
      •  Done
        • Not yet. O2 (息 • 吹) 00:10, 02 November 2007 (GMT)
    • This article is extremely long; please condense some of the long sections into detail pages (SS and SIZE). Make sure people with short to medium attention spans can read the article comfortably.
    • There are inconsistencies between U.S. and British spellings. Examples of words that are inconsistent are honour and criticise. Please convert all U.S. spellings to British so that this article can be easily read around the globe. (SPELLING)
    • Please check this article's image licences; I got one from hollywoodblog that has a fair use rationale, and the rest are under a CC licence. All images must have acceptable copyright.
    • That's all for now; I may find more as I read. O2 (息 • 吹) 21:37, 01 November 2007 (GMT)
      • Please do not strike out a commenter's objections until the commenter determines if they have been fulfilled. O2 (息 • 吹) 00:10, 02 November 2007 (GMT)
  • Support Very well written and very well cited article. El Greco(talk) 22:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per The Giant Puffin. Way to go, Blofeld! Cliff smith 23:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I hereby note my support for Preity Zinta.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 00:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support definitely FA quality. —Anas talk? 00:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Well written and comprehensive article. Definitely FA worthy. -- Grandpafootsoldier 00:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Impressive work. igordebraga ≠ 01:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose, 1a, 1c, 2. It's disappointing to have to swim against this sea of fan support, but prose is not sufficient for a good article. Girolamo indicated a copyedit was needed: I noticed the following examples only on scanning. Throw-away sentence, inconclusive: "Since then, apparently this controversy has come to an end." "It was not the first time that Krishnamurthy has accused Zinta in this issue." "The press came up with no findings, and this rumour was considered to be false." "She told the court that she had received threatening phone calls from the mafia, trying to extort money from her while shooting the film Chori Chori Chupke Chupke, and told her that she would have to bear the consequences if she did not pay up." "In January 2007, Zinta visited Hisar, Haryana, and spent a day at the army training base to boost the morales of the jawans ... " (what are morales?) The grammar and prose is not to a functional level, and definitely not close to the brilliant and compelling level expected of an FA. An independent copyedit by an uninvolved person is urgently needed. Youtube is not a reliable source (I suspect a number of the other sources may not be reliable either, just glancing at the sources, I wonder about sites like www.bollyvista.com). Don't start sentences with numbers (see WP:MOSNUM). Also, see WP:MSH: is Stage Shows a group or proper noun or what? It's surprising to have to make basic MOS fixes after more than a dozen supports. WP:DASH fixes needed (see sample edits), for example, endashes, not hyphens, should be used on year ranges. I am sorry to have to enter Strong Oppose, which I rarely do, but the support level for an article which needs a basic copyedit is surprising, and this article is not ready for FA status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose—Peacockery is evident throughout, not just in the lead. Oh my heavens, just reading the lead gives me indigestion. Most popular ... commercial success ... widely recognized ... her versatility ... film heroine ... commercially successful ... commercial success ... much critical acclaim ... praised ... prominent leading actress ... highest success ratio ... noted columnist ... . Is this fancruft or what? It's not the kind of authoritative account that WP aims to give. Perhaps her publicity agent wrote it. The whole thing needs to be toned down; it's OK to have a bit of positive commentary, but not the continuous gushing we're faced with throughout, I see. This publicity brochure is not worthy of promotion as it stands. I echo Sandy's comments about referencing. Oh, and the writing—love this one: "and there were some speculative issues whether she is doing it for her boyfriend rather than for her own interest". Tony (talk) 08:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment I've tried to tone it down a little and have suggested that we introduce more negative reviews if there are any ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 16:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Perhaps some of the sentences could be toned down a bit but Tony I don't think you are aware of how much success Preity Zinta has actually had. She has received a high degree of acclaim and what appears to be mostly strong support for her film work in, and to hide all information that she is a success would be a lie. This isn't some small time actress. According to box office figures she is , correct me if I am wrong the biggest selling actress in India today, and in a country with 1 billion + people that is huge. The article does cover the negative side of her life also. Are you proposing we add in false negative comments about her or remove that she has received any success at all for her film work just for the sake of it? It is very difficult to write an article on a living actor who has received so much acclaim for her work and make it not appear in the slightest bit gushing. You have repeated the phrase biggest commerical success several times. This in fact is true and is fact. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 11:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think he's suggesting that some of the praise be toned back from the lead, while some neg. criticism be added to the lead--because WP:NPOV requires a "fairness of tone", which is presenting both sides of the argument, as well is not being overly critical or praiseful. Meaning, just because you have 20 sources saying "she's the greatest thing on Earth", but with different wording, doesn't necessarily mean that it would be appropriate to say that on Wikipedia...at least not 20 times. But, I have to agree that there isn't a neutral balance in the lead when it comes to how much she is praised and how much she is criticized.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well yes I am also all for presenting both sides of the argument and it is very important to have a balanced tone in a NPOV but I guarantee if you google Preity Zinta you'll find a huge amount of praise and success and little major criticism in her acting ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 11:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rejoinder—The lead need not necessarily contain negativity, although it might if appropriate. What you say in response above just needs to be said ONCE, not again and again and again, through the constant barrage of attitudinal items and through the general tone. It's meant to be an account, and attitude should be measured and attributed to others, not WP itself. Yes, tone it right down throughout. It's too long, anyway. And it needs a copy-edit. Tony (talk) 14:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes I can certianly see what you mean about some of the positive wording. It is very difficult to write about somebody who is at the top of an industry as big as this and to remove anything which might appear gushing.The trick is the try to reduce the number of words which repeat that she is a success and that leans towards a tone written in her favour but still convey the same information. The thing is most of her career particularly since 2003 has been a major success. Perhaps it could be toned down and shortened slightly in places and minor structural/copy editing work but it certainly isn't the major flaw that Sandy Georgia is highlighting. I remember it took four months to pass Casino Royale partly because she had issues with what appeared to many people to be a satisfactory article. I agree it still needs some copyediting still and polishing to ensure it is fully of an FA quality. Hopefully anybody who opposes to it can help correct what they see is wrong and work together with everybody to achieve an FA for everybody's benefit including Sandy. As for British English, I can't help being from the UK -english is named so for a reason. I believe Indian english is based on British also. However as this is an American site I have no qualms over which people want to use, but I feel it is important to be consistent in all articles and we must stick to one either British or American spelling. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 14:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think Sandy made any comments about English² or American English, the other comments were mainly requesting that it be kept in a standard format, which should probably be English². - Francis Tyers · 14:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - it would be well worth contributing editors to have a long look at WP:NPOV. I'm not saying that because I believe that any of you don't understand the concept or are actively pushing POV, but more because the policy demonstrates some common mistakes which have happened here and shows how to fix them. Check your weasels and peacocks, too. And if any editor is worth listening to during this nomination, I would strongly recommend Sandy; she comments on almost every FAC I've been aware of in recent memory and has a clear grip on how this process works and what an FA does and doesn't have. Girolamo Savonarola 16:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for the kind words; we need to find an independent copyeditor here, and I'm no copyeditor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've had a look at the article again, and I think it should also be noted that while it's not quite there yet (IMHO), a lot of progress has already been made on these issues between the start of the nomination and now. So I give credit to everyone. Girolamo Savonarola 16:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Another note: can we lose the parenthetical years of the film from the lead? That's too much detail for a lead, and makes it look cluttered. If anyone cares about the years, they should be in the film article or in her filmography (or whatever) section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        •  Done
      • Another random issue I just found while making a WP:ITALICS correction. This sentence (At school she met Shagun who has remained her best friend for life, and is frequently mentioned during Zinta's interviews) talks about a Shagun person, who apparently isn't discussed anywhere else in the article. Who is this person and why do we care? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        •  Done
  • comment As far as I am aware this Shagun plays a major role in her daily life and she regularly discusses her in interviews. Normally I would have thrown this sentence out for triviality but the fact she has remained a strong figure in her life since childhood I beleived made it adequate. However important she is, it may not be appropriae for an encyclopedia article as there is little context ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 16:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, but some (many?) of us have never heard of Zinta or Shagun, and the article introduces this person randomly; we don't even know who s/he is or why s/he is relevant. Last name? For that matter, we don't know if it's a she or a he. The article itself gives no reason for this sentence to be there; that's why you need someone independent to go through the article. It doesn't appear that you are writing to the portion of the world who has never heard of Zinta. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • comment Well I did suggest to Shahid earlier on that it may not be a suitable sentence fir an encyclopedia and yes you do have to look at it as an article in a huge book in relation to all the other articles and question whether it is necessary. If I remove this sentence I think Shahid may object. I don't think it is of the uttermost importance but as she appears to be a ,ajor figure in her life I thought it may help ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 17:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not asking for its removal; I'm offering it as an example of why you need someone unfamiliar with the topic to copyedit. The sentence needs context for those of us who have never heard of Zinta or Shagun; that may be hard for someone close to the subject to see. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Yes I am fully aware that Sandy participates in most FA's. I am impressed by her will to comment on the majority of them and I am fully aware she has a very strict criteria , one of the highest for FA articles. Perhaps this is a good thing for ensuring FA articles are of the uttermost gold standard but it can be difficult when the article is made to look inferior when most of the issues which I believe are minor can be addressed and can be corrected reasonably straight forwardly if the opposers would help correct what they see as a problem ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 16:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blofeld, if you want me to do MOS fixin' on this article, you only have to ask. However, what it mostly needs is copyediting, and I'm not a good copyeditor. Also, it doesn't make a lot of sense to adjust the MOS issues yet, since a lot of the article may be rewritten. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have polished up some words and phrases today and rid up some shorter snappy sentencing and made it flow but I believe there are still some minor grammar and wording issues which an independent copy editor could correct. You can see the improvement already when reading it. However the controversy section which will need th most attnetion that I haven't got around to yet. I have also suggested to Shahid who has done most of the work on this to find any negative reviews she has received and perhaps introduce them to areas where it may appear to be slightly too gushing to demonstrate neutrality and to avoid the perception that the article is written to promote Zinta, Feel free Sandy to address any issues that you see a problem. I would be very surprised if you aren't a great copy editor as you appear to have an intricate knowledge of the mechanics of FA's ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 16:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an example of the citation issues that need to be addressed:

  • "Actresses Filmographies". Retrieved July 14. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)

No publisher is identified, and when you click on the link and then click on "Home" to try to find authorship of this website, you get a dead link. What makes this a reliable source? All of the sources should be checked for reliability. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Yes I don't know why that home page isn't there. But it is the official Indian box office website and would normally be regarded as reliable. Most of the sources are retrived from mainstream websites that are prominent sources in discussning Bollywood film. Maybe ther eis still one or two that need addressing ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 17:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can you fill in the Publisher field on the cite template so we know what organization is behind the website (and make sure all sources have an identifiable, reliable publisher)? I will go through tonight (about six hours, my time) and work on overlinking and, if it's OK with you, I'd remove those years in parens from the lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes thats fine Sandy I want this sorted and based on your experience any issues you have with it -I would be very grateful if you could help and correct. I want you also to be happy that this is really up to FA standard. I have addressed the above issues you have borught to my attention thankyou. I have now removed the Shagun part which unless the context can be filled is too obscure , I've adjusted the parens per standard only leaving the relevant years to the awards in question and have addressed several of your other issues ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 17:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only sections I feel which need real copy editing are the personal life and controversy sections which cover a difficult subject but may appear to read like a blog. Other than this i would suggest introducing some negative quotes if they can be found to try to give a balanced view in the career section and waying it up equally so it gives the impressio of meing an encyclopedia entry and not a promotion. Other than this I really can't see any major issues at all now. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 17:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blofeld, I prefer to strike my own comments as I review; I will sit down tonight my time (in a few hours) and go through everything, do as much as I can, and strike what I can. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not a good copyeditor, but from my pass at the lead, you can see there are still redundancies, WP:MOSDATE issues (don't use – present) and some unnecessary adjectives (most prominent = prominent), as well as basic ce needs still.[1] I'll keep working. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It was rough going in the first paragraph of the body; the copyedit needs of this article are more than I can handle. I am not that good at copyediting, but more seriously, there is too much in the text that isn't explained to someone unfamiliar with Indian cinema, so I don't know how to fix it.[2] I'll focus on the MOS and other fixes, but I really shouldn't be trying to fix the text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still working, but the copyedit needs are substantial, from tons of misplaced commas, incorrect use of WP:ITALICS to sentences I can't decipher at all, flow problems (two death escapes are discussed early in the article, but not explained until the end), to basic grammatical deficiencies like "Initially Zinta kept silent and refused to talk about the issue, waiting it to disappear for itself." I'm working on it, but the article still needs sustained copyediting and flow improvement. I'm also having a hard time understanding how she was involved in so many box office flops in which her performances received unanimous acclaim. Now that some of the MOS issues are addressed, I'm going to strike what I can (above), but the ce needs are substantial. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm really grateful to you. Yet, a film wouldn't necessarily be a hit if it was critically acclaimed. Art films and parallel cinema films are almost always declared as flops, but they're almost always critically acclaimed and actors actually win awards for their performances, regardless of the film being a hit or flop. Shahid • Talk2me 00:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does anybody think about merging the personal life and controversy section?. Isn't this personal life? And where it discuss her boyfriend this could all be in one section ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 17:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • We have 4 controversies. Merging them is a mess and not necessary, unless there are ToC problems (and there aren't) Shahid • Talk2me 18:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am not a fan of separate controversy/criticism sections; they are often POV forks, and I believe criticism and controversy should be woven seamlessly into the rest of the article in the appropriate section. If it's criticism of her work, there; if controversy in her personal life, there. On the other hand, I don't feel strongly about this yet, as I need to carefully read the entire thing. I just generally don't like separate criticism sections, as they imply the rest of the text isn't written in a balanced way. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have to agree. Merging is necessary I believe and the personal life section now needs cutting down as this section was a bit excessive and this is the final section for me which now needs a copy edit. I think it is is very neccessary to avoid specific sections on taboo subjects such as controversies particularly to have a different sub section for each case as if it is some kind of legal historical event - this is not really acceptable for a biographical criteria. Words such as rumours should really be removed. Before it mentioned her boyfriend in three different places in the article which wasn't good. It needs to be covered in one section to make the information flow to the reader and to avoid confusion. It is now in some form of chronological order which I believe enhances understanding and consolidates the section. Remember we are looking for the most concise way to convey information to the reader ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 18:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • As for criticism, the career section is very well balanced in the matter. There are comments of criticism. Preity Zinta is widely known for her controversies in India, so I believe they must be put in a separate section. Furthermore, the controversies are neutral and don't show her in a bad light. The Bharat Shah case is one of the biggest issues in India during this decade. It was a shock for the whole film fratrnity to discover the underworld links. Zinta was the only film personality to come to the court and testify, that's why she is always called "The only man in Bollywood" and that's why she won the national honour for her "brave". That's only one controversy I introduce to you, out of the four. And BTW, there are more controversies which I didn't find good enough to write here, such as Shakti Kapoor's casting couch accusations against several filmmakers and actresses, all of whom kept silence. Zinta again was the only one to express herself against him publicly. Her statements shocked the industry and people were amazed to witness Zinta's guts. She was again described in the media, "There is no doubt, this lady has the biggest mouth in India, be careful the next time"... That was only to note, Best regards, Shahid • Talk2me 18:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am fully aware of how widely regarded Zinta was in regards to her remaining strong in the face of death threats from the mafia and sticking to her word in the court. It is undoubtedly a major controversy and of major significance but it still falls into her personal life if she was personally threatened even if it involved some of the other stars. Anybody reading that section can clearly see how significant it was in her life. I am also fully aware that she is one of the most controversial figures in Bollywood but I genuinely think seperate sections on controversies for a biography should be avoided primarily for purposes of tone and neutrality not in the content but in terms of article structure. Generating controversy by four or five different "cases" looks like we are building an argument specifically to emphasise blunders in her life when it really should be toned down ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 18:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think the sentence "During her years in the Indian film industry, Zinta has been the subject of numerous controversies and media speculations, which put her among the most controversial celebrities in Bollywood" clearly asserts her controversy and the reader in proceeding is clearly aware of it ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 18:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I truly feel that this article is not only one of the best articles on Indian cinema but one of the best on Wikipedia. The article covers the most important aspects of her life and everything is truly at its best. It is also well written, flows easily, comprehensive, very interesting to read and overall the most important factor of an encyclopedia: informative. Someone who doesn't even have a clue about her can find out so much by reading this article. I am not saying all this because I am an Indian but I strongly support in Zinta's article in becoming a FA. The article has improved by leaps and bounds thanks to the hard work and dedication of the two editors and it truly meets all the criterias. --Bollywood Dreamz Talk 20:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further rejoinder. What does "truly" mean in the comment above? The reviewer is using the same density of peacock eptithets as are in the article itself, so no wonder it's a support declaration. I'm suspicious about the appearance of a cabal-like generation of support for this nomination. I'm not blaming reviewers here, but their inexperience in matching the FA Criteria to the nomination is quite clear.
I draw the contributors' attention to Wikipedia:Avoid_peacock_terms, and in terms of the legal requirements here, to the MOS on Words to avoid. I've added the Template:Peacock to the article; please let me know when it's no longer required and I'll remove it. Tony (talk) 23:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? What are you talking about? Every editor has equal rights to support an article as you have, even if he is not aware of the criteria at all, it is still his right. Your complaints were mostly adressed, the lead was toned down. In fact, according to the Indian box office she is the most successful actress in Bollywood - and it is a fact. She is popular, and it is a fact; see the in the media section (which was removed BTW).
Now, before adding these tags of yours, you have to discuss, provide good examples, and finally you can't do it for your own and decide to do it just because you want. Apart from it, this article is an FAC, people are reviewing it, so I guess you want them to automatically oppose. So I disagree. I'll remove it. Shahid • Talk2me 00:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've worked on reducing some of the peacockery; some of it was due to a large emphasis on the films rather than the actress, which I tried to reduce. I cannot figure out what this sentence means, and the source gives me no idea what a 65% success ratio means, how it's measured, or by whom. "According to the Indian box office, she has the highest success ratio of 65% among Bollywood actresses of this generation." I've done all I can; the article still has ce needs, the prose is still rough, and I've left numerous inline queries, which you can find by searching on <! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment thankyou sandy that is appreciated. But what is being strongly opposed here are trivialities or minor problems certianly not a cause for "the strongest oppose possible". I do find that some people exaggerate at FA's ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 10:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, I have no problems with your opposing (yet it's not a big deal to STRONGLY oppose). Please see Angelina Jolie. It is written, "Best known and highest paid" so what's wrong with writing "prominent"? And if you change to strong oppose, you must provide some examples. Where do you see more peacock words? Tell me please. Shahid • Talk2me 03:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't tell me what I must do. There was an edit conflict.
  • Excuse me Done, the peacock tag is not mine, it's there for articles just like this one. No, reviewers should not come in and declare support just on a whim: you misunderstand the process here. Now, let's start on the prose, which is quite inadequate for an FA. Here are a few random examples from one small portion that indicate that THE WHOLE ARTICLE requires treatment, preferably by fresh eyes:
    • "Zinta then gained some experience in the Tollywood film industry"—Spot the redundant word. Done
    • MOS breaches: use logical punctuation. Have you read MOS?
    • "the third highest grossing film of the year"—potential ambiguity: hyphen required.
    • "her performance garnered positive reviews"—garnered? Hello? Done
    • "released after a one-year delay due to the trial of producer Bharat Shah." Oh, where are we told about this "trial"? Suddenly, we're expected to know what on earth it was. Is it a trial in the legal sense (more information required) or a metaphorical trial (difficult period)?  Done
      • They originally had a section on that, and a link to that section, but when they deleted the section, they didn't re-explain what the trial was. I tried to fill something in, but there's not enough. Similar situation on the two near brushes with death; discussed before context is given, the article needs to be re-worked for flow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "she was welcomed with unequivocal praise for her performance and recived a Best Supporting Actress nomination at the Filmfare"—nice spelling; and isn't it enough to mention the nomination rather than ... again ... that word "praise"? But you've removed the peacock tag I posted, of course. Perhaps I'm not allowed to mention this. Tony (talk) 03:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC) Done[reply]
      • I took out about three or four praises, and got it down to only three left in the article; that one came back after I finished. We need to watch the word "praise" here, as it tends to be overused. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you being so rude? And why are you so angry? We are trying to get this article to a featured status, and I believe that you have no personal problems with this article, and would also like to see it reaching a FA like we all do. So please, I ask you to calm yourself. Shahid • Talk2me 04:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Consequently, she became sought after by some of the best known filmmakers." - That statement is unsourced in the article.
To address Tony's comments, anytime you have to tell the reader how great the subject of the article is, you're most likely using a peacock term. The reason being, if you showed how great they are, based on their actions, then you wouldn't need to qualify that with a word like "great", "wonderful", "best", "famous", etc etc. If they are famous, show that with discussion on how they are famous. Don't simply say "they're a famous actor", because that says nothing to the reader.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! You are ver nice. I'll take it into account. Regards, Shahid • Talk2me 04:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object --
  1. needs a copyedit. eg phrases that cannot be quantified, meaningless: "has two brothers both of whom she is very close", "and returned home only on vacations", "Durganand Zinta died" -- use a less harsh term (eg passed away / killed in a car crash), "which *became*? one of the year's..." (these are a few, not all)
  2. Her first advert for Perk chocolates -- what year?
  3. Convent of Jesus and Mary (Delhi) -- link to correct article
  4. Credibility of sources -- How credible are sites such as bolloywood spice etc?

=Nichalp «Talk»= 07:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm accusing you of bias now. I'm going to report you.
A) This user just had an inpolite discussion with me, and that's why he opposes.
B) He didn't provide examples of such sources. Shahid • Talk2me 07:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
C) I striked your comment. You claim that boxofficeindia is unreliable, while Lage Raho Munnabhai which is a featured article, and was on "Today's featured article" section on the main page even. It is reliable so stop it. Shahid • Talk2me 08:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible oppose - Can an admin talk some sense into Shahid. Can someone let him know that he cant edit others' comments, more so on a discussion like this. This article is reeking of non-RS sources and fansites. bollyspice.com, bollyvista.c, desiparty.c, apunkachoice.c, boxofficeindia.c, santabanta(!!!)... is this a joke or something? How did this thing make it past PR? Also blatant fair use violations on the article which Shahid keeps bring back after I've removed it. Sarvagnya 08:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment on redundant vote I have to say that this vote appears invalid and is done out of spite following a confronation on the article -please see Shahrukh Khan history. It looks very suspicious to me that the above user came across this page after checking the contributions of Shahid following the edit war on that page and come here specifically to give the "strongest oppose possible" -I find this utterly unacceptable. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 12:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm accusing you of bias now. I'm going to report you.
A) This user just had an impolite discussion with me, and that's why he opposes. He had also wikistalked me.
B) You claim that boxofficeindia is unreliable, while Lage Raho Munnabhai which is a featured article, and was on "Today's featured article" section on the main page even. It is reliable so stop it.
All the FU images are used in the same way on Jolie's page, which is also an FA. Shahid • Talk2me 08:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shahid, who are you going to report Sarvagnya to? why? Sarvagnya is entirely correct in opposing this nomination as per WP:WIAFA. The article does not cite reliable sources so it fails 1c. Regardless of what differences you had with Sarvagnya, the oppose is a perfectly valid. Secondly, editing another person's comments is considered to be bad form, and in the event you report Sarvagnya to any dispute process, it will be used against you. So please stop resorting to underhand methods to get this article featured and provide reliable sources and references. I fully stand behind Sarvagnya. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stand behind him. I don't care. I will change the necessary. Yes I will. But BOXOFFICEINDIA is used in other FAs so please stop saying that it's unreliable. And how do you know that these sites are unreliable? Who said that? How can you know? According to WHAT? It is very easy to say non-rs thousand times. Shahid • Talk2me 08:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, the article from Santabanta.com for example, is written by Subhash k. Jha who writes for the times of India. And what's wrong? Shahid • Talk2me 09:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your attitude is most disheartening. I have not singled out boxofficeindia.com, rather the presence of unreliable sources. If you're unsure of what is a reliable source, please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources for more information. Briefly, what I can tell you is that sites such as planetbollywood.com etc may not contain reliable source. If tomorrow you were to open bollywoodgossip.com, how would it be reliable information? Who has fact checked? Is there a peer review. Having such links are your word against mine. You may ask the question, how would planetbollywood be considered to be reliable? My answer would be to check for independent credible third party sites (eg rediff.com) that cite planetbollywood in their film articles. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look I don't know why this has flared up , calm down Shahid, but I find the comments by Sarvagnya with "Strongest possible oppose" as delibrately antagonising. If the article has any problems with professional referneces these can wuite straightforwardly be corrected and any unreliable references removed. This most certainly isn't a criteria for strongest possible oppose -damn you make it sound like it is an unwikified stub up for feature. Oppose or strong oppose but this Sarvagnya I find is over stepping the mark. Rediff.com is one of the major Bollywood sites and should be considered reliable but I'm afraid there will be some bias and indeed concealed racism from western users who may find Indian websites unreliable. PLus BOXOFFICEINDIA is the official statistical organization that registers Indian takings -I'm aware of the dead link that needs sorting but this is certainly one of the most reliable sites on the web for statisticss in Bollywood movies. However I certinaly agree with Sarvagnya that fansites should try to be avoided. Now whats all the fuss? Can anybody seriously say the article is very poor? No. To those who oppose I would be very grateful if you would try to wrok together with us and correct and problems you see and help promote the article rather than seemingly going against it ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 10:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments As someone completely unfamiliar with who this person is (I have never heard of this person at all), but familiar with article quality, I'll just offer a few comments (mostly related to layout and style, as the content seems to have been covered above by those familiar with the subject). First let me say, with regards to the "canvassing" accusations, Blofeld left me a very nice message that basically said the article was up for FA, and he valued my input. In no way was it a request for a "support" of the FA, but came across to me as requesting input on how to improve the article. With regards to the article itself:
  • Images: I'd like to see the image under the "Breakthrough (2000–2002)" header moved to the right. Per WP:MOS#Images, ("Generally, right-alignment is preferred to left- or center-alignment. Do not place left-aligned images directly below second-level headings, as this disconnects the heading from the text it precedes.") I'd also suggest that the forced oversizing be removed from images, (MOS: "Specifying the size of a thumb image is not recommended:") as users can set their preferences in "My preferences", and forcing images to over-ride these preferences again can cause display errors for users with large fonts/low resolution. (MOS: "Bear in mind that some users need to configure their systems to display large text. Forced large thumbnails can leave little width for text, making reading difficult.") I find oversized images distracting from the article, and appropriate only in some situations, but not something I'd use with general images of people.
  • Quotations" Per WP:MOS#Punctuation, the {{cquote}} template shouldn't be used: ("No quotation of less than four lines should be in blockquote format.") This article uses that template three times, and the quotations could just as easily be incorporated directly into the prose.
  • References: All IMDB references should be removed from the inline citatsions completely (refs# 15, 28, and 102). As anyone can add any (incorrect) information to IMDB, it is not a reliable source. Instead, use the {{imdb}} template in the External links section. Where IMDB was used as a reference for awards, I'm sure that the awards would be covered in reliable news media sources.
  • Tables: I'd personally like to see the filmography table centered to provide visual symmetry.
If any of these items are already mentioned, my apologies, but I personally think these things should be taken care of to have the article in line with the manual of style, and with regards to accessibility for all readers. Ariel♥Gold 11:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, do we need to tell everyone to focus on the article and not on each other? Please focus on the article, and not on each other--that's for everyone, including me since I'm focusing on everyone focusing on each other.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My words exactly. I'd rather people spent more time fixing what is apparently wrong rather than confrontation. ♦ King of Baldness ♦ "Talk"? 16:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - Impressive work done on this article. This article seems to be very well written and thoroughly researched. I myself whole heartedly beleive this article is definitly worth a FA status. Hedgehog Kanna 17:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Preity_Zinta/archive1&oldid=168974975"