Talk:Fashion (2008 film)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fashion (2008 film) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Fashion Low‑importance

	Fashion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fashion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FashionWikipedia:WikiProject FashionTemplate:WikiProject Fashionfashion articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Film: Indian

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Indian cinema task force.

India: Cinema Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Indian cinema workgroup (assessed as Low-importance).

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by Miniapolis, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 7 June 2013.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

Fashion (2008 film) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 29, 2013	Good article nominee	Listed

POV

The sources cited do not mention that a "women-centric film" or "whole female cast" should be a hindrance to the film doing well financially, so those sentences should be removed. BollyJeff | talk 18:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look at this source which say [The list of women-driven films that wrote a success story at the box office is not very long. One of the few such films is Madhur Bhandarkar’s 2008 release Fashion]. I think User:Bollyjeff, you got your answer and this source is added in the article. Thanks.Prashant! talk 15:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not only Chopra was praised

This review says that Kitu's performance was the best:

http://www.rajeevmasand.com/uncategorized/masands-verdict-fashion-is-all-masala-no-reality/

These two reviews say that Kangana's performance was the best:

This should be noted in the article. BollyJeff | talk 18:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have added one quotes for each of the performances. Yet, I want to tell you that I used only one quote to praise the performances of the cast. Means one for Chopra, Ranaut and Godse. But, I think you are just keen to criticize. I hope your issues were resolved.Prashant 21:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes

In the #Themes and allusions section particularly, there's a lot of unintentional plagiarism. It's not enough to insert a footnote; if you're using whole phrases and sentences from reviews (not rewriting them in your own words), they need to be in quotes (and should be sparingly used). If readers want to see a review, they can follow the link from the footnote. Miniapolis 19:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to go over this section to reduce close paraphrasing.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Fashion (2008 film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SL93 (talk · contribs) 03:56, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

Quote - "Bhandarkar was amazed by the attention paid to the fashion industry by the media and the public, and thought delving into the fashion world intriguing." would need to be written as a quote due to it being close to "I was amazed at the overwhelming attention given to the fashion Industry by the media and the public. I thought the idea of delving deep into the fashion world was very interesting and intriguing."

Done: Added as a quote.—Prashant 04:35, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Bhandarkar (known for researching his subject matter to make his films as realistic as possible) did nearly eight months of research into the fashion industry, attending fashion weeks and shows to gain insight into how the industry was run." should have what is in the parentheses incorporated into the article without them.

The article meets Good Article criteria otherwise. SL93 (talk) 03:56, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done: Fixed all the issues.—Prashant 04:35, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am passing this article. SL93 (talk) 11:17, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as SL93 tried to go to GAR, but was reverted by Dr. Blofeld, I will add some of my own comments here. Count it as a GAR slash PR.
Lede needs information on the film's production, themes, and soundtrack. Feels like you're missing a whole paragraph.

Done: Added other information about production, themes, and soundtrack in the lead.—Prashant 06:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indian drama film - We shouldn't combine blue links like this (WP:SEAOFBLUE).

Done: Removed.—Prashant 06:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

co-written and co-produced by Madhur Bhandarkar starring Priyanka Chopra, with Kangna Ranaut, Mugdha Godse, Arjan Bajwa and Arbaaz Khan in supporting roles. - You are missing a conjunction here, at the very least. I'd actually split that sentence.

Done: Broke into two sentences.—Prashant 06:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Despite being a women-centric film, it went on to gross ₹600 million (US$7 million) at the box office and was a commercial success. - How it is surprising that a "women's film" was a commercial success is unclear.

Done: Removed.—Prashant 06:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The film is noted for being a commercial success despite a female cast and the absence of a male lead. - Partially repeats part of the above sentence.

Done: Tweaked.—Prashant 06:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kangna Ranaut - refer to her as Kangna Ranaut or just Ranaut?
The film also won twice - No, it won two awards.
make it big - Not encyclopedic

Done—Prashant 06:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

gay aspiring designer who assists designer - Repetition of "designer". Also, unclear if he remains gay throughout the film or if he's actually bisexual
Meghna's lingerie photos appear on the cover of a magazine, and are seen by her family. - Relation to the rest of the plot unclear at this time
The face of - Companies don't have faces; use less idiomatic language.
Shonali has a wardrobe malfunction, ending her career; her drug abuse worsens until she ends up in rehab. - Wardrobe malfunction is a euphemism; if this is important to the plot, say what happened.
(reviving her career and restoring her self-confidence). She realises that Shonali restored her self-confidence. - Repetitive
Feels like the plot could be trimmed a bit.

Done: Tweaked the plot section.—Prashant 06:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:CASTLIST, you should not have nearly as many entries in your cast list. Honestly I think such sections are not needed, particularly if you have a fairly well developed plot summary.

I think it's fine to have a cast section. It depends on the number of cast members in a film. Plot doesn't have all the names. So, it's fine.—Prashant 06:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Check for dablinks

Done: Checked and removed disambiguation link.—Prashant 06:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In a 2006 interview with CNN-IBN, Madhur Bhandarkar mentioned that he was preparing to make a film based on the fashion industry; he thought the lack of Indian films on this industry prompted him to do so. - Find a way to avoid repeating "industry"
He admitted - So having an interest in fashion is dishonorable now?
the common man - Use gender neutral language, particularly since the main characters are women.
Known for researching his subject matter to make his films as realistic as possible, Bhandarkar did nearly eight months of research into the fashion industry, attending fashion weeks and shows to gain insight into how the industry was run. - Repetition again (research/research, industry/industry)
the story is fictional and does not reflect anyone's life. - Does not reflect anyone's life sounds unencyclopedic
The media also reported that the film revolved around two gay fashion designers; Bhandarkar denied this, saying the film did not revolve around male characters but had female protagonists. However, he admitted that the one of the film's sub-plots might explore the rivalry between two (male) fashion designers. - We just read the plot, we know the "two gay fashion designers" is a load of s***. You should rephrase this to make it clear that these were rumors or otherwise put it in a more historical perspective.

Done: Tweaked the development section.—Prashant 08:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the lead role in the fim - ...
Chopra initially refused the film offer, - Logic of the paragraph is off. You have her signing (as if she did it of her own volition), then balking.
the media reported that Chopra was unhappy with the first draft of the film, and wanted changes in the script. Bhandarkar agreed to rewrite, since he was also dissatisfied with the initial draft. - Not part of casting, but production
Samir Soni and Harsh Chhaya were cast as the gay designers in the film. - this and the preceding sentences are both quite short and can be combined effortlessly
giving a documentary feel to the film. - According to whom?

Done: Tweaked the casting section.—Prashant 08:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is the point of the Characters section? It essentially reiterates the plot. If you want to keep the actresses' quotes, you could probably merge this and casting into the "cast" section above (which would give you a reason to keep that section).

Done: Tweaked the character section and merged it with casting section.—Prashant 09:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

she the job challenging - ...
she kept the looks contemporary, intending to keep them classical rather than trend-based. - How can something be contemporary (at the same time as something else) and classical?

Done: Tweaked the sting section.—Prashant 09:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for now... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

wardrobe malfunction - Again...
Bandra - Link?
according to Bhandarkar, it was a sensitive scene and a sensitive issue. - Why?
six kilograms - needs a convert template
The film's climactic scene was supposed to be filmed in Paris, with the Eiffel Tower as a backdrop when Chopra walks the ramp at Paris Fashion Week - Why link Paris? 99% of our readers know it
was not able to shoot there. - was not able or was not allowed?
key scenes with Chopra, Raj Babbar and Kiran Juneja (Chopra's parents in the film) were filmed in Chandigarh for authenticity; Bhandarkar wanted to bring the essence of the city alive in the scenes - Repetition of scenes
Did you address the close paraphrasing issues yet?

Done: Tweaked the filming section.—Prashant 09:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to Nikhat Kazmi - Why is this person worth quoting?
glam-n-glitz moments - should be in quotes if this is the wording actually used. Not encyclopedic.
The fashion shows, the stunning models, the superb styling, the vibrant colours and the behind the scenes drama is worth every penny spent on the ticket. - Okay, so you haven't addressed close paraphrasing issues.
It is a film titled `Fashion’ but doesn’t significantly talk about the clothes! [Or] the talent, creativity, and passion for work, which forms a central part of the industry. - This is copied directly from the source without attribution
Quotes need to be cut back; try paraphrasing better
most of whom have been portrayed "as gay designers and exploitative agency owners. 'Bhandarkar could have done without gross generalisations. It makes the movie shallow and over-dramatic'". - what's with the quotes within quotes
who had similar experiences several years ago. - When?

Done: Tweaked the themes and allusions section.—Prashant 09:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Album section also needs to be better paraphrased. Also, past or present tense?

Done: Tweaked the soundtrack section.—Prashant 09:54, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kimaya is? Cellucom?
U/A certification - Meaning?
the DCW did not want anyone profiting from her life. - Why?
to Nagpal's character. - to Nagpal's character or to Nagpal?

Done: Tweaked the marketing and release section.—Prashant 10:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure all of the apostrophes are of the straight variety and not slanted.
Watch for overlinking!

Done: Corrected overlinking.—Prashant 10:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That list of awards is a little big. Any way to avoid such a long list and so much white space? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still lots of non-straight apostrophes and quotation marks
Still heavy on the quotes; I refuse to touch most of the "reception" section until you start paraphrasing.

Done: Paraphrased some of the quotes.—Prashant 04:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Despite being a women-centered film - once again, how women-centered inherently means it won't be a financial success is not clear

The citied sources clears everything as it says the same.—Prashant 04:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That the cited source supports the claim does not mean readers of this article will understand why such a claim was made. You need to elaborate here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

star-studded cast - Not encyclopedic
The film is noted for being a commercial success despite a female cast and the absence of a male lead. - repeats "Despite ...". I'd just remove "Despite ... film" — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done: Tweaked.—Prashant 04:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The nominator is refactoring other's talk page comments like this and this. I have left a level 3 warning on his talk page and not 1 or 2, considering past behavior. - Vivvt (Talk) 02:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not a "commercial success"

Box Office India, the most reliable box office source for Indian films clearly mentions Fashion as an average grosser, as can be seen from this source: http://www.boxofficeindia.com/showProd.php?itemCat=215 The POV glorification must be removed from the article. --smarojit ^HD 09:13, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any plans to correct same claims from Kahaani? Dwaipayanc told me that the business of indian cinema is not crystal clear, so we can use other sources. Much like what he has used for Kahaani and what you have used in Vidya Balan's page. Fashion was a commercial success. you yourself have mentioned Ghulam a hit and when Bolyjeff noticed you changed it to commercial success. It was not even questioned if Anjaana Anjaani's actress was Vidya or Rani. When you used the same technique Where was POV? Dont waste our time.—Prashant 16:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate comments from User: Bollyjeff and User: Crisco 1492 on this matter. Thank you. --smarojit ^HD 18:40, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Technically speaking, if the film earned even a rupee more than it spent, it is success in the commercial form. But you guys carry on as there is more to this discussion than substance. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Dharmadhyaksha. I am pointing out a simple fact, which is proved by the source provided. If it is false, then please correct me. But my motive is to have a discussion of "substance" and nothing more. --smarojit ^HD 18:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Though I agree with Dharmadhyaksha that, technically, any film which earned a profit is a critical success, I think the best way would be to find some solid numbers. "success" may be relative, but numbers are not. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some solid sources:

Any more questions??—Prashant 02:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first two sources are not reliable ones, and the third one mentions the business done in the first week only. Box Office India gives the overall "verdict" on the performance of the film, which is average. So yes, it may have been successful but not on such a large scale. This needs to be reflected on the article. --smarojit ^HD 03:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adding "average", if supported by sources, would be fine. ("average commercial success") — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Box Office India's source proves it so: http://www.boxofficeindia.com/showProd.php?itemCat=215 --smarojit ^HD 03:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who told you the first one is not a reliable source? iDiva is apart of The Times of India group and the last one says that the film was a successfull. The first one also says it was a commercial hit.

[articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2008-11-26/box-office/27942050_1_john-abraham-love-triangle-box-office Top 5 Films at the Box Office]. I can provide 10000 of sources which sys it was a commercial success.—Prashant 03:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you guys have any hard numbers? Like "Made x krore on a budge of y krore" or something. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Scratch that, you do. I've removed two redundant instances of "commercial success", though the others need consensus first.

Also, The film was made on the budget of 18 cr.—Prashant 03:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Fashion (2008 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:33, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fashion (2008 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:05, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]