Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Preity Zinta: Difference between revisions

Preity Zinta

previous FAC

• Featured article candidates/Preity Zinta

Featured article candidates/Preity Zinta/archive1

This article, about an Indian actress, is already a WP:GA. It has had a long history on WP. It first achieved GA status, A status thanks to the great help of User:Blofeld of SPECTRE, and after failing its first FAC, was nominated for GA reassessment, delisted and returned to B. However, it marked the beginning of new understandings, collaborative work, and with help from User:Dwaipayanc and User:John Carter, it has improved a lot and came back to the GA position.

Now, after months of hard work, two peer reviews, I think it finally meets the FA criteria. Please leave your comments, and I'll be more than happy to address any of them.

With best regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note: double-check links; current ref 52 ("Preity Zinta's column for BBC website gets overwhelming response") appears dead. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 18:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed. Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Support -This article in my view has been FA standard since Christmas time at least and on assessment of why it failed FA before I believe this has been improved even further and any outstanding issues have been addressed. Well referenced, informative, well written article, an excellent source of encyclopedic imformation, uses the most reliable sources possible, given that she is an Indian actress not an American. It looks like a solid article all round and given the incredible amount of work and nurturing put into it over the last 9 months is a clear FA for me. Any outstanding issues which caused it to be demoted before I believe have been fully addressed. I think Wikipedia should be proud to have such a developed article on an Indian actress, many editors on here are using the article as a prototype for how an article on an Indian actor or actress should look like and has since seen the development of other articles based on the structure of this one. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 18:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note: Significant contributor. Please don't forget WP:FAC instructions: "If you have been a significant contributor to the article before its nomination, please indicate this." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Moni3:

• I strongly suggest you put the article at WP:LOCE right now to have experienced English writers assist with those elements of style that continue to elude even accomplished writers. For instance, the first paragraphs in Personal life have very little variation of beginning. They mostly start with "Zinta..." You're offering a very well-researched article that needs minor (but many) tweaks in the style to make it flow brilliantly.
• Some of Zinta's films seem to have made an impact due to their addressing complex social issues in Indian culture. Those social issues may not be self-explanatory to non-Indians. You may have to include examples of her impact. For example, she played an young single mother in one movie. This would not be a big deal in the US. Can you provide perhaps phrases from critics, or examples of the reaction to these apparently controversial roles?

I wish you luck with this article. --Moni3 (talk) 19:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, and for the encouragement. The article has been listed on WP:LOCE for over half a year now, but results are still pending.

In regard to your second comment, yeh, these roles were quite racy by Indian standards, that is why she has been credited with bringing a change. But these roles are by no means new to Indian cinema. I did add critics' comments for almost every role, but some films miss reviews on the net, and if there are, they're either unreliable or missing details regarding those particular issues. I will try to find something. Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment - just because she's written a couple of columns (which, in the case of celebrities, are pften ghost written/rewritten by somebody else) doesn't make her a columnist. indopug (talk) 19:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with you, and I didn't want to write that she's a columnist initially. But the sources you can find in the section, clearly describe her as columnist. Furthermore, in the lead, right after writing that she is a columnist, there's a sentence "having written..." which makes it quite clear why she is described as columnist, giving the reader the space to make his own conclusions. Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment — I should have added "She was seen blowing kisses at Yuvraj Singh" :) Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

LOL!!! Well done, I'll add that ASAP! :) Shahid • ^Talk2me 07:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://ibosnetwork.com/default.aspx
  • http://boxofficeindia.com/index.php
  • http://www.indiafm.com/index.html

All other links worked and checked out fine for me. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

indiaFM is the leading Bollywood entertainment website in India. All the Bollywood stars make appearances on there, it is one of the best known sites featuring content re Bollywood, reviews, news, interviews. It is also rated always very highly on Alexa's ratings.

boxofficeindia.com is a leading site for box office figures in Bollywood. Their "about us" and "disclaimers" sections are quite clear and detailed about their way of working. Not only Wikipedia, but famous and reputable newspapers like The Times of India, Hindustan Times etc use it as a source of information (see this article for example).

IBOSnetwork.com is also a well-known site for box office figures in India. Again, their sections prove that.

Shahid • ^Talk2me 07:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll leave these out for other reviewers to see your answers, since we don't see a lot of Indian films at FAC. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeh, Lage Raho Munnabhai and Satyajit Ray are the only Indian cinema-related FAs so far. Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment In the February WP:GA discussion I stated:
• 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.

  • Miss Zinta still does not make clear the nature of her success in the first paragraph of the lead like the vast majority of other FA actresses. Critical recognition is one of the first things a reader looks for when reading an actor/actress page. Please consider adding the phrase "two-time Filmfare Award-winning actress" to the first paragraph of the lead.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 06:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello Tony! The reason I don't add this, is a decision taken by editors of Wikiproject:Indian Cinema. If it was a National Film Award, I would have definetely added it, like we mostly do on Indian film related articles. But Filmfare, as it was decided, are not cricket scores, they should not be used to "rank" actresses in terms of awards won.

Another reason is the previous FAC, at which one user said it was POV to start an article like that. And believe me, there is a big difference between Filmfare awards and the Oscars.

Thirdly, the awards are already mentioned a number of times. In the first paragraph it says she won a Filmfare Best Female Debut award; in the second, she won the Best Actress award. Also the infobox provides that.

I'm enormously impressed with your keenness to see this article in better shape. I'm grateful for that. Best regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 07:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes remember I added this before but it was removed. I thought it should be more specific to mention it in the intro too ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 10:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• From what I gather National Film Award is the top award and Filmfare Award is a lesser award. In the U.S. there are four or five lead worthy awards: Academy Award, Golden Globe Award, Emmy Award, Tony Award, Screen Actors Guild Award. If you have won or been nominated for any of these, the totals go in the lead paragraph. All other awards basically don't make the lead. I am not sure of an in between solution where they belong in the lead, but not summarized in the first paragraph. Thus I am confused. You currently are standing behind having a summary of who she is scattered throughout the lead. If Filmfare is important enough for the lead, it should be in the first para, IMO. It is probably as big as a Logie Award, but I don't know. I don't really buy this argument, but if Filmfare is the equivalent of a lesser US award I would let it slide.
• I absolutely do not buy the argument that saying she is a "two-time Filmfare Award-winning actress" would be POV. It would not. See actresses above.
• Your third argument about standing behind scattering the awards is not so hot. Basically, it seems to be the prevailing standard for important critical acknowledgement, but if it is not an important award, it can slide.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 07:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why you always compare this article to American actresses' ones. See articles like Cillian Murphy, Eric Bana. I'm doing something which was already decided a long time ago. The Filmfare is an important function, but as many here, I think it's a big POV saying she is award-winning before mentioning her occupation.

Filmfare Awards is definitely a prestigious award ceremony, it is, and one of the oldest and most prominent film events, alongside the NFA.

However, in contrast to the National Film Awards, which are decided by a panel appointed by Indian Government, the Filmfare Awards are voted for by both the public and a committee of experts. Also, National Awards are given to every possible actor in India for his work, in all the regional languages, regardless of what industry he works in, while the Filmfare — only Hindi films (Bollywood).

It was a decision, and as you see, several articles don't introduce awards in the first para, ie Cillian Murphy, who won some Irish award, and received a Golden Globe nomination.

Shahid • ^Talk2me 07:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

SUPPORT - Despite my continuing unresolved quibble, the article is fantastic. It continues to evolve toward a higher level of quality and refinement.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment Why not "In addition to being an actress, Zinta has written columns for BBC News Online South Asia..." since you agree with about her not being a columnist? Please delinks individual years in the filmography table. Didn't she change her name from something like "Preeti Zinta" a while back due to numerology issues? (Hence the weird spelling) Please try to ensure that a word is not repeated many times in close proximity, it reads very poorly--"The film, based on the 1991 film". indopug (talk) 13:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but the sources show otherwise. She was born Preity Zinta, she was never known as Preeti. These are not individual links, they link to list offilms of each mentioned year, but I'll remove it if you want.

As for the latter comment... What do you suggest? Maybe to change it to "movie"? :) Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Yeeah remove those year links, how is a list of films released that year useful? No, I think "movie" is not professional/formal. The Silence of the Lambs (1991) is fine. I don't think we have to go with the sources on the columnist; its not as simple an issue as fact or non-fact. If somebody is of the opinion that somebody else (who is already famous BTW) is a columnist after writing just four columns, then it remains just that—an opinion. The only reason she was given the opportunity to write a column in the first place was because she was already a famous actress. Ask around for other editors' opinions too, maybe we can reach a consensus. indopug (talk) 14:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You're right, I'll remove them now. I have asked one editor for his opinion re columns/columnists. Thanks, Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well - rephrased as you suggested, removed links to years. Still waiting for the editor to reply. Thank you. Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'm the person mentioned above or not. I might change the phrasing of one sentence to "In addition to her work as an film actress, Zinta regularly perfoms on the stage, and has written a series of popular columns for BBC News Online South Asia". I also note that I am probably less than objective about the subject myself, having been involved in the article for some time, but do not see any serious impediments to Supporting the article. And if there are any other specific concerns about phrasing, I ask that anyone specificy them here, so that we can all do what we can to address them. John Carter (talk) 15:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. Removed columnist, and rephrased as suggested by John on my talk page. Thanks for the comments, Indopug. Now what are we gonna do with the "Columnist" section? Shouldn't it be renamed? Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Changed to column writing. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - This article seems to have improved tremendously since the last time I saw it. Congratulations to everyone involved for that. However, the question here is whether it is ready for FA-hood. The answer, imo is a firm NO. The improvement of the last few months notwithstanding, the article falls short on many counts. For one, sources - boxofficeindia.com, ibosnetwork, indiantelevision.com etc., are not WP:RS sources for claims as exceptional as box-office figures etc.,. Secondly, though I am not a stickler for "brilliant prose" as long as it flows smoothly, is reasonably well-written and all other more important things like sources, NPOV, UNDUE etc are taken care of, I must still say that this article needs several rounds of cpedit before I can call it even "reasonably well written". More than the prose, the article needs to be checked for content and encyclopedicity. Sentences like --

"Zinta, a self-confessed tomboy in the early stages of her life, was influenced primarily by her father.[10] As a child groomed in an army household, she grew up with values such as discipline and punctuality.[10]"

are not even encyclopedic. It goes without saying that every child is influenced by its parents and "grew up with values such as discipline and punctuality" is just fluff. And all this is sourced, I think (correct me if I am wrong) to an indulgent page 3 interview with a newspaper(?). I am sure, the article has more such instances.

Also, "References" are not the same as "Notes"/"Footnotes" and it would greatly help if the ==References== section listed all the references which the notes source from. Also, I think the footnotes need to be made consistent for style and syntax. And given that the entire article is sourced to websites, it may be a good idea to explore some way of optimising the referencing, so editors dont have to keep tripping over lengthy {{cite web|....}} tags in edit-mode. Sarvagnya 22:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Box Office India the official website for statistics on the Indian Box Office not a valid source???? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 11:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Sarvagnya, boxofficeindia.com is a leading site for box office figures in Bollywood. Their "about us" and "disclaimers" sections are quite clear and detailed about their way of working. Not only Wikipedia, but famous and reputable newspapers like The Times of India, Hindustan Times etc use it as a source of information (see this article for example). So let's assume we can't use BOI, but we can use Hindustan Times; they use it as their source of information, as you can see in the ref. So what else can you do? It's clearly reliable. And I'm not going to discuss it here, it was already discussed and accepted by User:Spartaz and User:Nichalp who are great contributors, and you are not the one to decide what a WP:RS source is, and what a WP:RS source is not. Your way of presenting your views as obvious facts is IMO wrong, the right way is to ask what the reliability of the source is, in an appropriate manner, as it was done by another editor in this very FAC. We cannot always wander around the same issue. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, disregarding my personal preferences for books and non-tabloid newspapers, which are not available anyway, if someone is used by another as a source of information that doesn't mean the first is reliable, since reporters interview eyewitnesses who are primary sources, but the eyewitness put up their own blog, that doesn't become reliable. Unfortunately the way the world works is that the "reliable news sources" get stuff of random people and turn it into "solid info" - I'd like to get a personal benefit if being used by a reliable source makes one reliable - because the ToI copied my Wikipedia articles - then I could declare myself to be a notable cricket pundit and put my OR on Wikipedia. Unfortunately not, from a pure vanity point of view. :( Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeh I agree, but there must be some guideline for that. Boxofficeindia.com is a very well recognised website, and the info on there is precise and correct. I know that ToI have unreliable sections like cricket.indiatimes, ipl.indiatimes, but the original site newspaper is very reliable, and it uses and mentions boxofficeindia quite a few times. But let's assume we cannot base ourselves on only one source even if it's a newspaper, but we have also Hindustan Times (! the link given). All of them, major newspapers, use the source -- and use means, they say "according to boxofficeindia.com..." Why shouldn't Wikipedia? If they can, I can't see why Wikipedia cannot.

The site iteself looks great in terms of readability and reliability. Everything, their "disclaimer", "about us" sections are detailed. Their way of working is clear, they are very clear about everything. They also often answer questions addressed to them be readers. It's clearly a credible/reliable source. Sarvagnya was the only one to claim that it's unreliable during the first FAC and during this one. If I wasn't sure of this site's reliability, I would certainly have removed that in the time of the very first FAC. The main problem with Indian sites is their lack of international/wide recognition. That's why they're often considered unreliable. Shahid • ^Talk2me 04:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, your point "not even encyclopedic" is not valid unless you write what policy you are basing your claim on. This sentence was copyedited several times, and is now very well balanced and sourced. We say that she was primarily influenced by her father, and it is not an obvious fact. Also, you never know what kind of a family a girl can be grown up in. It can be a poor family or a criminal one. Other FAs about actors/singers also describe the person's childhood. I believe it is encyclopedic. I was quite sure you would oppose when you see this article, but nevertheless, it's your decision. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, as Sarvagnya has told, many sentences in this article are based on Zinta's interviews (page 3 or not). However, I don't think this can be a point of objection, since the words are from the horse's mouth. Regarding the syntax of references, the article consistently uses one style (cite web), which is not only ok, but recommended. --Dwaipayan (talk) 13:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding influences on the subject, such content is obviously very relevant when on is writing an encyclopedic biography article. In fact, I have reason to believe that, in at least some encyclopedia articles, it is even expected. I would ask the person who objects to such content to examine that such information is even included in some infoboxes, like Template:Infobox artist and Template:Infobox philosopher. If information on the influences of a person is significant enough to even be included in those infoboxes, I cannot see how similar information is not significant enough to be mentioned in the article itself. John Carter (talk) 15:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment:

Along with Ness Wadia and others, Zinta in 2008 acquired ownership rights for the Mohali Twenty20 cricket team of the Indian Premier League.[104] The group paid $ 76 million to acquire the franchise, and have since renamed the team Kings XI Punjab.[105]

• Shouldn't this be in the ==Other work== section.
• Was it really renamed the team "Kings XI Punjab" or simply named? If the franchise was renamed then what was the previous name?

Side comment: A controversy not mentioned in the article which was telecated by TV channels that some of the players of the team were shabbily treated and asked to move out of the Taj hotel to a less opulent place to accomodate some her guests". KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 10:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments. I changed it to "named" - you're right. But I don't think these two sentences can be shifted to the other work section. There is one - columns, one - Humanitarian work, and one - stage performer. So I don't know where I can add it in. Regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

As the craze and coverage of IPL increases, and Zinta has involved herself in a heavy way with the team, perhaps it was time to create a subsection for her owning the cricket team. The subsection has now been created. Please see if it suffices.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes it does suffice and the section shall grow as the IPL progresses. BTW I feel the title should be something like "Ownership of IPL team". KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 17:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Subsection renamed "Ownership of Indian Premier League team".--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Support - The article has tremendously improved since its last FAC. Overall, it is well-written, informative, cohesive and most importantly, well-sourced. Great job guys and all the best with this article!! --Bollywood Dreamz ^Talk 18:51, 1 May 2008

Oppose—Much improved, although I still had to remove some overlinking. Not at all sufficiently well-written. Needs fresh eyes by a good copy-editor throughout. Here are just a few examples from the lead (you'd think the lead would be better than the rest, actually).

• Now why would I object to the linking of "English language"? Second sentence, too. Makes fools of us.
  • You mean you want the link to be removed? Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• There's flab and a lack of cohesion here, right at the start: "She subsequently displayed her range, taking on a number of roles as characters of a diverse nature, and in doing so, has been credited with bringing a change in the image of Hindi film heroine." "Range" means what? I don't want to have to ponder it in reverse after finishing the sentence. "Roles" and "characters" are hardly worth differentiating here, are they? "characters of a diverse nature"—five words could be just two. Remove comma after "so". "bringing a change in" could be just one word.
  • Done - Changed to "She would subsequently take on a variety of character types, and in doing so has been credited with changing the image of Hindi film heroine." Please tell me if that's OK. Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• MOS issues: " the science fiction Koi... Mil Gaya, her biggest commercial success to date"—"science" was hanging at the end of the line for me: hyphenate it here, since it's a double adjective, yes? "To date"—what date? This is worthless in the future, so remove it and just make the statement; someone would have to update it either way.
  • Done - hyphenated and removed "to date". Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• "Cross-border"—Some people may be in on the secret, but to know that it means "India–Pakistan border" is too much. We shouldn't have to hit the link (piped, it turns out) to discover this.
  • Changed to "star-crossed" as per John's below suggestion. Done? Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

TONY (talk) 13:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello Tony, and thanks for the comments. Let me please take a glance. Also, I must say, writing the lead is IMO probably the most difficult task in writing a BLP article. :) Regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

What do you think about removing the link completely? Cross-border romance doesn't necessarily have to take place in India. It's quite universal. Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Not knowing the details of the subject, would calling them "a star-crossed romance of a Indian and a Pakistani" work? John Carter (talk) 15:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess that yes! But is "of a Indian and a Pakistani" necessarily needed in the lead? Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I've begun copyediting this article, and have finished the lead. I'll get to the rest of it soon (probably tomorrow); perhaps folks can have a look at the lead and let me know how they feel so far so I know if I'm on the right track, or if there are other things I need to look for? Thanks. – Scartol • Tok 15:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Strong Support: Well written, notable and valid. Furthermore, two relatively back to back featured articles on the Main Page, Satyajit Ray and this, would trigger off a large influx of effort towards Indian films. Universal Hero (talk) 18:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support It's a very good article. I see no reason to oppose. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• I just noticed someone changing the first sentence of Early life [1] and was surprised to find the reference [2] didn't support the sentence. It's also geared to kids and was used four times. I've replaced one with a recent Times of India article that supports the line (possibly a self-referential copy from here, though.) The reference for the 1975 year of birth [3] is only a couple paragraphs, and another ref from the same site, also used in this article [4], says 1974. The article should at least cite something like The Tribune [5]. It might be good to check some of the other refs and replace the weak ones with better sources. Gimmetrow 06:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes it was a very common mistake before 2004-5 but then started to change. Since 2005, it has changed and even in interviews she indicates she was born in 1975. Now every article clearly states she is 33-year-old. Regarding the source, I confused it with another source in this sction. You can see the old discussions in the talk page archive regarding her age. The Rediff source was added because it is the most recent one. Regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

So, can we do anything to reduce use of sources geared to kids ("My Fundays")? What indicates that [6] is "not a reliable section in this site"? Just wondering, because many of the Rediff pages don't look very strong. The Tribune link I give above is more recent than the Rediff one used for the year of birth, by the way. Gimmetrow 00:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

What is "geared to kids"?

No problem. I'll add the Tribune, the problem is that I didn't find it in the source. BTW, Rediff is very reliable.

As for the site, the sections ipl., cricket., are almost always conducted by who knows who, not the site's principals, and take their info from the net. Note, only these sections. Others no. Shahid • ^Talk2me 04:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, the Tribune site does not give us her full date of birth. Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually it does, it just has the two parts separated by a couple paragraphs. "Geared to kids" means the "My Fundays" page is written for children; it has "telekids" in the url. It's only being used twice now so it's not so bad. However, the article has lost the definition for ref #28. Gimmetrow 20:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• OT: Scartol has copyedited the article. Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Three non-free images that don't appear to improve the reader's understanding of the article and thus fail our non-free image policy WP:NFCC, notably WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. Black Kite 17:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

These images provide a critical commentary. Please see WP:FU. Also, please see other FAs like Diane Keaton and Cillian Murphy among others -- all use FU images. Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

No, WP:FU is a guideline on using non-free images; WP:NFCC is the relevant policy. None of the images are discussed in the text, and thus fail WP:NFCC#8 (and probably WP:NFCC#3a as well). Black Kite 20:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Well there appears to be a significant misunderstanding in perception of what is acceptable. Many people believe the use of the images is within guidelines as yes the text does discuss these films. Have you not read the article? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 20:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I acknowledge that the editor resisting the inclusion of the photos may have a point. However, I would ask him to review the two FU pictures in Cillian Murphy. The amount of discussion of the roles and images in both articles seems at least to me to be roughly similar. I acknowledge that Murphy has only two such images, while this has three, and that might be a significant difference. But the amount of direct discussion of the images, and the works from which the images are derived, seem to be roughly similar, and Murphy was only recently promoted to FA. If we were perhaps given clearer indications as to how he perceives the usage to be different, I think that would be very welcome. John Carter (talk) 20:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

If I had seen that FAC review I would have argued that the first image fails WP:NFCC as well, to be honest (OK, it shows Murphy as the evil villain, but does it really say anything the text doesn't?). The second one, as I mention below, appears to hit NFCC#8 sufficiently. Black Kite 21:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed regarding the first image. Not entirely sure what the second image actually illustrates though, maybe the "androgynous" part or the fact that he makes a passable female? I'm not trying to be smart or anything, by the way. I hope you realize that. I'm just not sure. John Carter (talk) 21:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

as a trial I'm removed all the copywrighted images and I have to say I think it affects the quality of the article. Two of the images I consider encyclopedia. The larger beatuiful picture of Zinta in KANK, the bottom one however I have to admit was more decoratative but the teenager mother and image of her with Khan in a Filmfar award winning role I think are encyclopedic and help understanding and visualize her role as an actress ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 20:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

They don't necessarily all have to be removed if they can be critically discussed in the text. For example, what the lower image in Cillian Murphy shows is clearly discussed in the text next to it, and the image thus improves the reader's understanding of that passage. If the images in this article can be shown to be justified by the increased understanding of the reader, that's fine, but they can't really just be random images of the actress in various films. Black Kite 21:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually the Diane Keaton article has four screenshots. Does this mean it should be demoted? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 20:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, yes, it should. Unfortunately the problem of articles passing FAC despite failing NFCC has been going for a long time - I only became aware of it recently whilst doing some NFCC patrol with my sock. Black Kite 21:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you still firm on your oppose? Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Given that those images have now been removed. Please comment on the actual content of the article thankyou. Many FA's have passed FA with many screenshots across wikipedia. Perhaps its time the site stuck to one policy as double standard is isn't a good look ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 21:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I agree. After all, we do have a policy regarding the use of non-free images and I would have thought that it would be the de facto standard to which all articles should adhere. I do need to make it clear that it is not the use of non-free images per se that is the problem - if they can used in a way that is aligned with WP:NFCC. Obviously I have struck my oppose now the images have been removed, but I will certainly have a look to see if there is a policy-compliant manner that at least some may be used. The problem is that most of images of Zinta uploaded so far are just "here's a picture of one or two people in a film" type images. I tried hi.wiki but their article doesn't help [7] (many other wikis don't allow NF images at all, though).Black Kite 22:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

"They don't necessarily all have to be removed if they can be critically discussed in the text." - but all of the images are critically discussed in the article. Kya Kehna was her first major breakthrough, as well as Kal Ho Naa Ho, which won her the Best Actress at the Filmfare. Apart from that. Her role in KANK was appreciated and the film is Bollywood's biggest hit in the overseas market ever. So what are we doing now? I first want you guys to make some rules clear. If it cannot be used here, it cannot be used in other articles including the so nice FAs about Cillian and Diane. as your quote above provides, I'll add as of now two images from the first two films I mentioned. They are clearly and specifically and critically discussed in the article, and the rationale itself, if you see, is perfect. Comments? Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

No - critical discussion means that the image itself is discussed, not that the film that it portrays is discussed. As a rule of thumb, the question you need to ask yourself is "if I removed this image, would the article be more difficult for the reader to understand?" Black Kite 19:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeh, I agree completely. And that was exactly what I felt while adding the images. It took quite some time to do that. The images illustrate the info of the text perfectly. For example the Kal Ho Naa Ho image illustrates the film as being a tearjerker, and the award she won is mentioned as well. It provides a critical commentary on the film and its contents. so does the KANK image, so does the Kya Kehna one. It was a long and hard work writing and composing the rationale, explaining everything in details. Have you seen the rationales? And without the images, it's definitely difficult for the reader to understand more about her and her work in an Indian film industry, especially considering the lack of knowledge people across the globe have about Bollywood and Indian cinema. Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support

Much improved, support conditional on sourcing issue below. Oppose, copyediting needed before this is ready. Problems easily spotted - several errors found just in the first paragraph of the lead.

• • I don't care for the phrase "in Bollywood" as that is not a physical location to my knowledge.

Yes, but it is an internationally recognised term, which makes it much easier for the Western reader to understand, who does not really know what Hindi cinema is. Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• • "She has appeared in Hindi films produced in Bollywood, as well as Telugu and English-language movies." Grammar.. need parallel structure of phrases.

Changed. Please tell me if it looks better now. Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Stylistic but ungrammatical commas - example: "After graduating with a degree in criminal psychology, Zinta made her acting debut in Dil Se in 1998, followed by a role in Soldier the same year."

mmm I really don't know what you mean. Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I mean that commas are used where you might "pause" in speech but they are not proper grammar. Generally speaking, you do not use a comma to separate a clause that does not stand on its own as a sentence. In the example above, the clause is "... followed by a role in Soldier the same year."

Thank you for the explanation. I've removed the comma, and I'll try to address this point in other sentences with improper grammar. Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you please give some more examples for that? Because I'm not sure. Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It looks like most of them have been fixed. I will remove any others I see. --Laser brain (talk) 15:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• • "She would subsequently take on a variety of character types, and in doing so has been credited with changing the image of Hindi film heroine." Grammar.. missing article.

There is no article about Hindi film heroine. What's the grammar problem? Could you please elaborate? Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I think he means there should be a "the" before "Hindi film heroine". Or made plural. But this is an exact quote from one of the cited sources. Gimmetrow 22:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I meant. If it's an exact quote, why isn't it in quotes? Anyway, maybe we should rephrase instead of quoting poor English. --Laser brain (talk) 04:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

No it is not an exact quote. I thought "the" would be a bit odd as it is not a definite term, so I added "a". What do you say Laser? Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I see

(source) "Credited with bringing a change in the image of Hindi film heroine"[8]

(here) "credited with changing the image of Hindi film heroine."

My mistake. Gimmetrow 19:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Many sentences are too long, containing a mess of commas and semicolons and expressing too many ideas. Readability is affected. Example: "Zinta, who describes herself as a tomboy as a child, has emphasised her father's military background as having a lasting impression on how family life was conducted, asserting the importance of discipline and punctuality to the children."

Done - divided into two. Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - but the whole article needs attention to this matter. --Laser brain (talk) 04:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh OK no problem, I'll try to figure these out. Do you have some additional examples? Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Another editor has fixed the ones I spotted. --Laser brain (talk) 15:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• • I don't understand what you are trying to say here: "Introducing Zinta as Preeti Nair, a middle-class Delhi girl and Khan's fiancee, the film was considered an unusual launch for a newcomer, as her role called for only 20 minutes of screen time." I don't see where your source backs up anything about this being an "unusual launch" for a newcomer.

Oh sorry yeh. The ref comes right after the following sentence. Would you like me to separate the sentences into two? Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I see it now. It is fine. --Laser brain (talk) 04:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

--Laser brain (talk) 19:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments Laser_brain. Best regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• I think overall this is a quite good article. I've been trying to fact-check the sources. For the most part they do back up the article, but they are sometimes used in odd ways. For instance, this article has all of three sentences on Zinta, but it was referenced four times (now three). This article is largely about her films, but it's used to reference a quote about boarding school. This isn't really wrong, but it would seem more natural to have more cites from the longer, more substantial articles. Finally, about being "credited with changing the image of the Hindi film heroine" - this was cited to the three-sentence one I just mentioned. OK, but it doesn't really explain how. This article, however, is precisely about the redefinition of the Indian heroine, and mentions Zinta. That seems to me more on point. Gimmetrow 22:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeh thanks. I think articles should not be necessarily long to qualify the sourcing. The Indian Express is a reputable newspaper, and it mentions her in particular. I think it's btter than a source from the Hindu which does not discuss this specifically. Good to note that I have cited a book reference about this claim which is a bit important. The other Hindu about the borading school has a perfect friend of her talking about her own life, childhood and loneliness at boarding school. So I guess it's OK. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

What I'm trying to get at is this: when I read a sentence, I have certain expectations of the type of statements and sources used to back it up. If a sentence says "she redefined the Hindi film heroine", I generally expect a bit more than a three-sentence blurb in a collection of news shorts with one sentence saying "Credited with bringing a change in the image of Hindi film heroine". A few brief, high-level sources like this are fine, but citing a lot of these can be a let-down to those readers who might read the sources. With some other articles I've used other sources already present in the article to replace cites to such brief blurbs; it helps reduce citation overload. Are you interested in doing something like that here? Gimmetrow 05:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I don't really think the length of the text in the source is a problem. As long as the source is reliable, I think it's fine. And the specific article (from The Indian Express) we are talking about is a very good article, with many separated sections. On the other hand, the new source from The Hindu does not seem to say anything specific about Zinta at all. So I think The Indian Express is far better, and this one, TheHindu, should be removed. I also have a book reference for this claim.

I'll later add the Tribune source you suggested me to add. Thanks, Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Nah, don't. I'll find something better. Gimmetrow 00:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Changes

I've made some significant changes to the article since it was nominated. I must have removed around 15 commas from the article. I hope now that most of the earlier concerns have been addressed. I've also added a different screenshot which I consider more encyclopedic and some other free images of her in the article which I believe enhance its quality.

♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 12:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

One sourcing concern while I was re-reading the article. Under the Success heading, you write of the film The Hero: Love Story of a Spy, "It was the most expensive Bollywood film of the year, but failed to recover its production costs at the box office." The source provided does not back up either claim. All it shows is the gross and net for the film. It does not show production costs, but if one assumes that the net was figured by subtracting production costs from the gross, then the claim is false. If a film failed to recover its production costs, the net would be negative (meaning the film lost money). --Laser brain (talk) 14:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Well spotted Laser. Strangely the The Hero: Love Story of a Spy article says it was the third highest grossing film of the year. Either it was absurdly expensive and despite being the third highest grossing still didn't win back its costs, or something here is false. Perhaps Shahid could find a source? Also this sentence I feel should be added as it fills in a bit more on what the film was about

"The film, about a spy network involving terrorists and a corrupt Indian army officer starred Zinta as Reshma, a villager who becomes part of this network". ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 15:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

BTW, it was not only the most expensive film of the year, but the most expensive Bollywood production up until then. As stated by BOI, the film was the third top-grossing film of the year. And it's right. It just that considering its very high costs, it expectedly did not succeed in recovering its production costs at the BOI. So, as you see, it was the third top-grossing buts verdict is "below average" -- meaning -- flopped.

Here are the sources:

• The Tribune: "The Hero, shot at a mind-boggling budget of Rs. 55 crore, sank without a trace."
• Rediff (pre-release): "People have declared it the most expensive Hindi film ever made."
• IBOS - box offcie overciew standard: "Billed as the most expensive film in 2003. Loser for producers, earner for the distributors."

Which one should I add now? Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I've fleshed out that bit and added some new sentences. To address the concerns by Laser earlier I've actually added two references ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 16:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I've added one more to backup the claim:) Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I think we can finally say... Done! ;) Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Great job, both of you. Highlighted my support above as I consider the matter resolved. --Laser brain (talk) 17:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment - My concerns have not been addressed and my oppose stands. I will be explaining in greater detail soon. Sarvagnya 23:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It would be useful if you specified which concerns you are speaking of. Your concerns about the "unencyclopedic" nature of influences on the subject of a biography are apparently contraindicated elsewhere, as has been indicated above, and thus may well qualify as simple opinion. The objections to the cite web template seem to run contrary to existing practice. Your other concerns about separating notes and refernces might be reasonable, although other entertainment FAs such as James T. Aubrey, Jr., Kroger Babb, Eric Bana, Rudolph Cartier, Jackie Chan, Emma Watson, and others use basically the same format. Having said that, I think we would be very interested in hearing the specifics, preferably as soon as possible. John Carter (talk) 00:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Sarvagnya -

Serious issues still remain with this article -

1. Non-RS sources - boxofficeindia.com is NOT a WP:RS source. Just because some RS sources quote it here and there, doesnt mean boi itself qualifies as one. For that matter, wikipedia is also sourced by RS sources routinely (often without attribution) and yet wikipedia is not a RS source. A RS source is one which has the credentials to be commenting on the issue. And to boot, the Indian film industry to a large extent is unregulated even today and Indian Box Office figures are notoriously unreliable. As such, box office figures are "exceptional claims" and "exceptional claims require exceptional sources". BOI is a questionable source and far from "exceptional". And when did Microsoft (msn) become a RS for Indian cinema articles? 2. Prose is still way below the average FA standards. The early life section reads like something from a comic book or something ("According to Zinta, she enjoyed schoolwork and received good grades; in her free time she played sports, especially basketball.") 3. John Carter's waving away of my comment about the "influence" sentence with his response stating that the "Influence" is also a field in infoboxes is disingenuous. The "influence" there (in infoboxes) refers to those who have been influences professionally.. ie., if Zinta's acting skills have been influenced by others, it would need to be noted. Did Zinta's father influence her "acting skills"?! 4. And like Gimmetrow (?) notes, most of the sources are used in curious ways. This greatly runs the risk of WP:OR. To quote from WP:NOR, --

“ to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented. ”

Specifics, please. John Carter (talk) 01:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

In other words, this article is one hell of a quote-mining job. One glaring example is in the bombastic claim made in the lead. It is claimed in the lead that -- "She would subsequently take on a variety of character types, and in doing so has been credited with changing the image of a Hindi film heroine.[2][3]" (!!).

Now, this entire bombast seems to be sourced from a pathetic -- "...Today we have Miss Universe (Sushmita Sen), Miss World (Aishwarya Rai) and any number of Miss Indias. One of our biggest stars, Preity Zinta, was better known as the "Liril" soap girl not so long ago."

If one reads that piece, it is clear that the context is entirely different. In fact, the article only seems to be stating that the yesteryear 'vamps' have been replaced by the mainstream heroines. Whatever it is, it supports nothing of the sort that is being claimed in the lead. This is blatant WP:POV and WP:OR. I am sure there are several such cases throughout the article. More later. And once again, the prose is way below even reasonably acceptable standards. Sarvagnya 01:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Er, that was actually a cite I added. The one formerly in the lead (#24 now and still used later in the article where the same claim is met), was [9]. It had the line "Credited with bringing a change in the image of Hindi film heroine, the dimpled lady from Himachal is known for her steadfast approach and honesty" and said nothing else. This article, after mentioning those three women, says "The notion of a vamp in Hindi cinema, therefore, became extinct the day this generation arrived in the 1990s", which seemed to me more on point. Gimmetrow 01:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Responses to Sarvagnya (paragraph by paragraph) So you said before. However, that point has not clearly yet been established, and others seem to disagree with you. On that basis, if you were to seek to indicate that it is not reliable enough for the purposes for which it is used, I think that there would need to be some evidence to support that presented. I haven't seen any, barring your own statements to that effect and your attempt at circular reasoning above. We, by the way, aren't an RS because of vandalism. Simple assertion by editors of at best tangential points about how Indian Box office figures (and do you mean the site or just Indian cinema in general - please specify) aren't reliable, without sourcing, are even less reliable than the source they seek to indicate is unreliable. You have to date, that I can see, provided no such sourcing. You haven't demonstrated they are "exceptional claims", so there is no need for "exceptional sourcing". You should note by the way that boxofficeindia is currently seemingly used as a source in roughly 250 articles as per here, and I can't find any official complaints regarding its quality in any of the pages listed. On that basis, I would have to assume that what you are saying here is simply your own unverified opinion. And msn, whether you knew it or not, is now linked to NBC, one of the more generally reliable sources for most of the material it discusses. John Carter (talk) 01:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC) One sentence can be adjusted. If you have other concerns, please list them. John Carter (talk) 01:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

And you seem to have waved away the point I was making by attempting to misrepresent it. My contention is that, in any instance when an individual has themselves expressly stated the influences that shaped their lives, it is reasonable to mention them, particularly when those influences can be seen as being reasonably relevant to whatever the subject of the article is best known for. For a person of the few years this subject has had, it actually is rather likely that the influence of her father impacted her work ethic, memory ability, ways of expressing herself, etc., all of which are, actually, relative to acting skills. Also, for someone who has been, if I remember correctly, called the "only man in Bollywood" or some such thing for the courageous stance she took regarding attempted extortion, and who also took a degree in criminal psychology, which I don't think is generally considered a particularly "feminine" occupation, she has displayed a degree of courage and inteegrity which is not only remarkable, but also seemingly a significant factor in her current notability. That would make the influence of her father even more directly relevant to her biography. John Carter (talk) 01:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Try to control your language, please. If the citations make that claim, are you really in a position to counter them, with no evidence presented by you yet to the contrary yourself? If you have other sources to add, please feel free to add them. Until and unless you can yourself verify that your claims are indicated by other sources at least as reliable and verifiable as those used, WP:AGF would indicate that we accept the only real evidence which has been presented to date, which, to date, has not been by you. John Carter (talk) 01:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with John. Sarvagnya, I must say, you're working too hard.

• You say, "boxofficeindia.com is NOT a WP:RS source" - Interesting, and who are you to determine that? You are just one of million of users here. I think you mean "in your opinion" it is not, even if all the other factors contradict your opinion, no? What you said, should be said in a different way: Sarvagnya is not the one who gives the final verdict about what a RS is, and what a RS is not. I'm not even going to explain again why it's an RS, I've had enough. You are the only user who has problems with this site, while editors like User:Nichalp and User:Spartaz supported me with this source back in time. Interesting, none of all those great users here has had problems with it no? ToI and Hindustan Times, and here have a Rediff use it as a source of information. Isn't it enough for you? So take western sites, like Times Online for example. What else can you do?
  I repeat, your way of presenting your views as obvious facts is wrong, the right way is to ask what the reliability of the source is, in an appropriate manner, as it was done by another editor in this very FAC.
• The 'vamp' source was not added by me. It's happened during the FAC, I've now removed it. BTW, to support this, as you say, "bombastic" claim, I even added a book source (24) back in time. If you haven't seen that, it means you did not even pay attention to details.
• The early life section was thoroughly copyedited by User:Scartol. As one of the greatest copyeditors on here, he did not have any problem with this. Again, Tony and Laser above have not had any issue with that info either. Angelina Jolie, see her early life section to get some knowledge and familiarise yourself with how an "Early life" section in a BLP actor FA should look.
• Shahid • ^Talk2me 06:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that at one time there was a problem with Box Office India as a reference because the website for some time had a dead link for a home page. This HOWEVER was sorted out months ago and it now has a home page. Box Office India is the OFFICIAL SITE FOR INDIAN FILM STATISTICS and I wouldn't expect an encyclopedia like wikipedia to disregard an offical source which is strongly encouraged across all subjects. There are no other film statistics sites that could be considered more reliable than this for Indian film. It is an official source. Strong evidenc eof this is top Indian sources in themselves like ToI and Hindustan Times use it as a source of information themsevles very regularly. Other than this Sarvangya's argument that it is poorly written is complete nonsense. Notice how he quotes the same lines from Zinta's childhood to make the whole article seem like it is written like a comic. Your're case Sarvagnya is a very weak one it has to be said. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 10:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment. While I appreciate the generous title which has been bestowed upon me, I must note that my copyedit of this article was hurried and shouldn't be referred to as thorough. I would also point out that several of the changes I made were later reverted to the original wording.

That said, I fail to see what is wrong with the following sentence (which I revised, and which was not changed later on): "According to Zinta, she enjoyed schoolwork and received good grades; in her free time she played sports, especially basketball." The "According to Zinta" part is a bit awkward, but (since I didn't have – and still don't – time to go to sources) I assume it's a fair attribution, and seems necessary (since we're not hearing this from a third-party biography). Maybe we could compromise by using "Zinta told NAME OF MAGAZINE that she enjoyed schoolwork...". If we're unimpressed with what she recalls about her childhood, that's not really an issue of prose style. Balzac read a lot of books as a child, and used this detail later when writing his novels. Hopefully that doesn't make the article about him sound like something out of a comic book? – Scartol • Tok 15:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Scartol, please accept my apologies if you felt hurt. Also please note that my comments were in no way about your work.. not in the least. In that sentence I quoted, the problem is not so much with the prose as with encyclopedicity. I've already stated above that much of the article reads unencyclopedic and here, I was just alluding to that. I posted that message in some hurry last night, so looks like I might have got something wrong. Please note that my comment is not about your work. There is only so much that a copyeditor can do with quote-mined screed. Having said that, it is still my opinion that the prose (and content) of this article is way below FA standards. That however, has nothing to do with you. Thanks. Sarvagnya 16:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I must say, Honoré de Balzac is a damn good article! :)

Well now I think what you said is a direct evidence to the above editor that there is nothing unencylopedic (or a comic book huh!) in adding information about her background and early life. Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I just went through and did some copy-editing. I have to say, I find the article awfully uninspiring. It's basically a whole series of sentences saying "and then she did this" "and then she did that" "and then she did the other." It's practically a list: List of things done by Preity Zinta. This is a WP disease, of course, but one would hope that featured articles tried to break the mould. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 04:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment Just out of question. How on earth would you expect an encyclopedia article on an actress to read any differently?? If the article covers her life and career of course events of films are going to be following this she went on to ... etc. Are you not familiar with biographies on actors on wikipedia? Given that there isn't any information as in other topics on wikipedia where the article content would be completely different and be able to cover different aspects of something. The Zinta article is supposed to inform the reader what she has done in her career and life and it does this very well. You;re missing the point of it ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 08:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I am missing the point. And I am familiar with biographies of actors on Wikipedia. Indeed, I mentioned precisely that this was a common trait. There are various ways in which featured articles could try to break that mould, however, perhaps by taking a leaf from some of the articles about writers, which are in general less tied to chronology. I admit that this will be more difficult with an actor who is currently active (as is the case with Zinta), and so for whom there are fewer secondary sources, if any, that attempt a broader overview. NB, as I said, I think that this is a challenge for FA writers; in most cases, it would require a radical structural revision between GA and FA, which understandably few editors are willing to take on. WP works by accretion, and seldom by radical revision. NB also that I'm not opposing the nomination on these grounds. But I think it's worth a mention. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

And as for an example, perhaps Jackie Chan might be one. (Or even, perhaps strangely enough, Jenna Jameson.) Again, however, I recognize that it may well be difficult to write such an article about a figure such as Zinta. No harm trying, though. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey Jbmurray! Thanks for copyediting the article! I think you have full right expressing your opinions fairly like you do. Thanks again, Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed Jbmurray, also thanks with any edits you did. Writing an article on a contemporary actor or actress is an extremely difficult to write a decent encyclopedia article on, particularly a non-english world actress. I've said it many times that being able to write a full, informative but thriving article on a current actor with a completely neutral tone and balance is really not an easy task and in all the subjects I've come across on wiki has to be one of the hardest to write. Even with film direcotrs there is more room for further angles to add to articles such as examining their techniques of filming, use of camera angles, cinematic style etc which would make it seem more "inspiring" but with actors aside from old icons such as Jackie Chan and Bruce Lee etc this isn't really possible in this case. It isn't a fault of the actual article itself its just the subject in hand which is different from many traditional style articles. I think the Zinta article has other qualities in that it covers some of her controversies which to me are very interesting, and other aspects of her life an career. Many other articles on actors wouldn't even venture much into this. I think its pretty near the most informative and best article that could be written for her. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 13:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment on sources. With regard to the disagreements on the use of boxofficeindia.com, it maybe worth recalling that the unit of currency of wikipedia is not The Truth^TM; instead our modus operandi is attribution. That is, Wikipedia does not itself assert facts, it reports what the sources state. In the argument that "Indian box office figures are notoriously unreliable", the word "unreliable" is not being used in the technical WP:RS sense, but is a point of view on the accuracy of the figures: as John Carter points out, without attribution, this point of view is original research. The solution, when there is uncertainty as to the accuracy of a source is to attribute the information clearly. The ultimate answer to the question "Who decides whether a source is reliable?" is simple: the reader. With this in mind, I suggest that the first couple of times that boxofficeindia.com is used to support a precise figure, a phrase such as "according to Box Office India" is added to the sentence. The reader is then alerted to the possibility that the figures might not be accurate. On the other hand, many of the citations to boxofficeindia.com are supporting relative statements such as "the third highest grossing film of the year". These less precise claims probably don't need such a caveat.

Perhaps the only person who knows the true earnings of a film is the producer's or film company's accountant: this person, despite knowing the truth more accurately than any other source, is actually not a reliable source per WP:RS :-) Similar issues apply to biographical information sourced to interviews with Zinta. As long as readers know that these "facts" come from Zinta, they are free to use their own judgement on the size of the pinch of salt with which they take the claim. Geometry guy 17:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

WOW, that's an amazing analysis -- I agree with you Geometry guy!! Thank you very much for the comments. Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes Geometry guy I am also highly impressed by your understanding of this. You said it exactly. According to Box Office India.... - this would report the statistics given but does not immediately assume that this is the "actual". Wikipedia is all about such fact reporting from other sources and given that Box Office India is considered the leading site for film statistics and the second largest in the world it leaves most normal editors as to conclude whether this is a pretty accurate fact or a completely wrong one. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 10:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. I look forward to the addition of suitable "according to" phrases to the article. Geometry guy 18:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't want to vote or make a final comment on this yet (I've read most it once now, excepting a couple of parts I skipped - I need to read it again after an interval of day or 2 or so to be more clear in my mind about any concerns I have). Any concerns I did have on my first read did not correspond to those mentioned by the only oppose on this FAC. But I'll look at it again later to be sure. Anyway, I am commenting so that my first impression is known to those who worked on it - I found the article insightful, very informative, and I was impressed by some parts of it too. Of course, my emphasis is on whether it is comprehensive and prose aspects. To produce this sort of reaction from me, particularly on a first read in WP, is not just rare, but also means that the contributors have put in a lot of work, and should be proud of their effort, particularly in these areas. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist, thank you very much for the comment. Looking forward to your comments. Regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support (moderate contributor). Satisfies the criteria.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Well-written, incredibly well-sourced - but most of all well-organized and good structure, which leads to overall good flow through the article. Great work. Cirt (talk) 10:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - the second screenshot (Image:KHNHLS.jpg) still clearly fails WP:NFCC#1 (replaceable by text) and WP:NFCC#8 (doesn't add to understanding). I don't see why it's necessary, to be honest - it's just a random screenshot; at least the first screenshot shows some of the look and feel of the film. Black Kite 10:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

remember I did replace it initially with the image that showed her face which I believed was more encyclopedic. I can understabd Shahid's view though that the image depicts the drama and content of the film and the New York location. Would anybody object to restoring the Image:KHNH23.jpg which in my view reveals more about her acting? Would you also think this image is inadequate Black Kite? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 11:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Unless a non-free image increases the reader's understanding of the text of the article then it shouldn't be used. If the image is doing that, it shouldn't be there. For example, there's no need to have an image to show that the film is set in New York, because you can merely have text saying that. If an image "shows the drama and content of the film" then it needs to reflect the text. Incidentally, I Support as the article currently stands.Black Kite 15:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Isn't an image is there to also illustrate what the text says? The matter is, Black Kite, that this image IMO does add. For example, the fact that the film is a tearjerker is illusrated very well. The location - New York (not said, and cannot be added), Indian-American - well you would still be able to imagine her wearing a Sari, and look very traditional, but the screenshot shows the opposite and in addition to that it shows more than everything else her acting skills. She cries with her lover who is going to die.:) What do you think? Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, you've just described it without an image, which sort of proves my point. Why couldn't the fact that the location is New York be added, btw? Black Kite 16:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

haha:) Yeh, but I also said "well you would still be able to imagine her wearing a Sari, and look very traditional, but the screenshot shows the opposite" which cannot be written... New York is a production note, which someone back in time considered irrelevant here. Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

remember also that we are waiting for two or three free images to clear in the commons which help improve the article visually also. These will be readded asap ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 15:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeh but I want the career section to be clear visually more than anything else. She is first of all an actor. I really agree with Black Kite that an image should provide an understanding of the matter. I'll later look for such images. But I believe the KHNH image is very relevant here. Apart from the fact that the film is a milestone in her career, it adds a lot to the understanding, something the text cannot replace. Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

NB on the use of film stills, the SCMS has tried to argue forcefully that they are fair use. Here's more or less their position: "that the use of stills to illustrate serious works of film scholarship constitutes 'fair use' within the meaning of section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976." But this is ЭLСОВВОLД's territory much more than mine, and no doubt this argument has been discussed elsewhere on Wikipedia. I suppose that one issue might be whether Wikipedia is a "serious work of film scholarship." --16:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)