Talk:Shah Rukh Khan/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: AB01 (talk · contribs) 01:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at this article. AB01 ^{I'M A POTATO} 01:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Early life and background (DONE)

The Youtube source (ref #10) is not reliable since it comes from a random Youtube user. I found a better link for the same interview here
Same for ref #1, and that video is probably also copyright infringement.
His tweet doesn't say he was born in Mangalore. The TOI interview does. Maybe use that source instead
Add his grandfather's name
Ref #13 doesn't mention his father's name or occupation
Again, ref #14 is unreliable. This source would be better

I don't see how his own words are unreliable, but I will use your source. BollyJeff | talk 13:25, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube as a source is looked down upon, in particular, when the video is from a random user. So, if in a situation when you can replace a Youtube video with something else, that's better AB01 ^{I'M A POTATO} 22:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ref #17 isn't needed (I don't think it relates to the text). #18 is enough

17 says "Shah Rukh’s grandfather (on his mother’s side) Shahnawaz Khan was a general in Subhash Bose’s Indian National Army." which is disproved by 18. But yes, I suppose 18 tells the whole story. BollyJeff | talk 13:25, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"but spent much of his time at ~~the at~~ Delhi's"
Ref #26 says his father died when SRK was 16 not 15

The sources differ; I may have to say 15 or 16. BollyJeff | talk 02:39, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, "mid-teens" should suffice AB01 ^{I'M A POTATO} 03:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Khan was very attached to his parents as a child and describes their early deaths as a turning point in his life and as his biggest motivation for hard work"- This is copied word for word from the source. Change the wording please
Use ref #24 for "They have a son Aryan..."
Shouldn't the image caption be Gauri Khan?
"they married ~~even~~ before he began his film career"

1988–92: Television and film debut (DONE)

Dilip Kumar should be wikilinked in this section, instead of in "2004–10: Dominance at Filmfare"
Ref #28 does not say he received his first film offer with Hema Malini's Dil Aashna Hai
Juhi Chawla should be linked here, not in "International recognition"

1993–94: The Anti-Hero (DONE)

Ref #47 does not say the film failed. This would be a better source

I don't see it in that source. It can be said to be a failure by omission from this list. BollyJeff | talk 01:28, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough AB01 ^{I'M A POTATO} 01:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1995–97: The Romantic Hero (DONE)

Wikilink to Raja Sen
I wouldn't call Army a commercial failure if BOI calls it "Average". You could rewrite is as "...none of the film were box office hits"
"Fimfare Awards" should be linked here, not in "Television"

1998–2002: International recognition (DONE)

"Khan delivers a compelling performance [...] He plays the part with taut restraint, and expresses exasperation superbly." (because the quote has been cut)
So far, there's been mostly reviews by Rediff.com. If possible, I'd like you to change some to other websites

Maybe later. :-) BollyJeff | talk 01:28, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Last sentence of Para #1 would better read as "The film failed financially in India, but emerged as a commercial success overseas..."
As per ref #64, Baadshah wasn't an average grosser. It underperformed
"The film emerged as a box office success ~~in both India and abroad~~." Ref #66 does not say anything about overseas income
"He next collaborated with Karan Johar again"--> Try "He next reunited with..."
First mention of Devdas should be wikilinked, as well as in the image caption
Refs #78 and #79 alone do not say Devdas earned 84 crores worldwide. Add in ref #52
BAFTA nomination for Devdas not sourced
Ref #80 says Devdas earned 9, not 10 awards
Amitabh Bachchan should be linked here, not in "Stage Performacnes"

2003: Spine surgery (DONE)

Para 1 would be better off in the previous section, as it talks of events happening prior to 2003. You could start this section off with "He shot Chalte Chalte (2003) in acute pain and continued with the shoot for Kal Ho Naa Ho (2003). By the beginning of 2003..."

Yeah, but this is here to keep all of the related information together. I will consider it. BollyJeff | talk 15:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, remember to wikilink film titles on first instance of their mention. Chalte Chalte, Kal Ho Naa Ho and Main Hoon Naa have been wikilinked on second instance, instead of first

Is it that critical? I would like to link it where they are described in full, rather than the first minor mention here. BollyJeff | talk 02:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It says here to link "at the first occurrence after the lead." AB01 ^{I'M A POTATO} 03:29, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ref #87 does not mention Kal Ho Naa Ho as being the top grossing film of the year (overseas)

2004–10: Dominance at Filmfare( DONE)

I wouldn't call Main Hoon Na a major commercial success. Major commercial successes would be "super hit" films or above
Veer-Zaara as an overseas hit is unsourced
"...fetched Khan appreciation; ~~with~~ Rama Sharma from The Tribune ~~who~~ wrote"
Paheli being screened at the Sundance Film Festival is unsourced
Kabhi Alvida Naa Kehna as biggest overseas grosser is unsourced. Use ref #61 or #79. Same for Don
I think you need to add in ref #61 wherever you mention a film's commercial outcome in the overseas market.
Wikilink Chak De! India on first instance. Second instance of the title needs a space
Ref #108 should be used for the statement: "Chak De! India became the third-highest grossing film of 2007"
Om Shanti Om's worldwide gross is unsourced. Add in ref #52
You've stated twice that SRK won Best Actor for Chak De! India
Dulha Mil Gaya and Billu have not been identified as cameos in his Filmography article. I'd refer to them as small parts

I am pretty sure that "extended special appearance" is the official title on his role in Billu. BollyJeff | talk 02:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fair enough AB01 ^{I'M A POTATO} 03:29, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced that Slumdog Millionaire is an Oscar-winning film. Both sources say that it won at the Golden Globes
"Whenever you're dealing with a disorder or a near atypical situation, the first thought is that the sort of parameters you have to set that in no which way you are derogatory or deriding the disorder [...] The second part is you have to come as close to reality in depicting that characterization and so one had to study a lot and one does get worried"
My Name is Khan as highest grossing film overseas. Needs a source.
Link Arjun Rampal in this section, not "Stage Performances"

2011–present: Blockbusters ( DONE)

Heading is an overstatement. "Commercial success" is more appropriate

But he has always had commercial success. Here, several films were record breakers. BollyJeff | talk 02:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see where ur coming from, but Blockbusters as a heading is an overstatement, considering only CE is one (per BOI). Like, for Salman, it would be ok. How about something like "Rs. 2 billion-grossing films" or "Major commercial successes"? AB01 ^{I'M A POTATO} 09:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JTHJ should be wikilinked in image caption, and add the date
Ra.One is seen as a flop in the eyes of the media. I think you could add something like "Despite negative media perception, the film emerged as a box office success..."

The existing sources imply mixed reception. Do you have sources for negative? BollyJeff | talk 13:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, I don't mean critics-wise, but media-wise. Like, in the media it's been reported through several sources that the film failed (one of the sources u've provided in fact states that it bombed) and stuff, when in actuality it did make money. This has happened with films before, like Tees Maar Khan, Jai Ho, etc. I don't know if I'm making much sense :/ You can check Katrina's article. It says "Despite overwhelmingly poor reviews from critics, and negative media perception, the film (TMK) was moderately successful at the box office" So what we can put in SRK's article is "Despite negative media perception over the film's box office performance, Ra.One emerged as a box office success, with a gross of INR 2.4 billion and received mixed reviews from critics." Also, I just realised, there shouldn't be a full stop b4 ref #125 AB01 ^{I'M A POTATO} 13:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but I will still need a viable source for "negative media perception". BollyJeff | talk 14:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ref #124 should be enough for that, as it is questioning the film's financial performance AB01 ^{I'M A POTATO} 01:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I do not see that. If you mean "Indian cinema must evolve; Ra.One not urban centric: Shahrukh Khan", that was before release. Which one? BollyJeff | talk 02:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it's ref #125 now: "Some movies have done well for you but if I look at movies like Ra.One, they completely have bombed" AB01 ^{I'M A POTATO} 03:29, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One more concern: KANK (2006) has been listed as "India's biggest grosser in the overseas market" and Don (also 2006) has been listed as "the highest grossing film of the year in the overseas market". I think you mean the second highest grossing film for Don AB01 ^{I'M A POTATO} 03:29, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Khan is in his element and endearing as superhero G.One, but annoyingly [over the top] as video game creator Shekhar"
"Khan's only release in 2012 was Yash Chopra's ~~last~~ romantic drama" (this is repeated later anyway)
"Chennai Express...became the fastest film to enter the coveted Bollywood 100 Crore Club."--> Not anymore. Add "at the time of release"
No source for gross of CE. Use this
HNY is in post-production, as per this
I would split this section into two, as we can't be sure that his commercial success will continue to the "present". So, I suggest changing the title to "2011–12: Commercial success", and transfer the last para of this section under the heading "2013-present: Recent work" When HNY releases, you can transfer CE to the previous section, and change the heading to "Recent work" or "2014 onwards", etc.

Television (DONE)

Change Buenos Aires to Argentina, as per source

Stage performances (DONE)

As per source, Khan performed alongside Rani Mukherji, Arjun Rampal and Eesha Koppikar at the Army Stadium concert. Neeraj Shridhar isn't mentioned
Temptations Reloaded 2008: the source says the tour started (not ended) at the Ahoy in Rotterdam
Karishma Kapoor already linked before

Endorsements (DONE)

Media should be in lower case
There are too many examples of brands which he endorses,unnecessarily increasing the article's length. Most GA/FA articles list only 5-7 (most prominent) brands

I don't know which are the most prominent. Should I remove them all and summarize by product category? BollyJeff | talk 02:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would list: "Some of the prominent brands Khan has endorsed include Pepsi, Nokia, Hyundai, Dish TV, D'decor, LUX and TAG Heuer". I think those are the most prominent and a decent mix of products. AB01 ^{I'M A POTATO} 09:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Caption should be Khan not SRK, and add the date

I don't know the date BollyJeff | talk 02:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Google says 2012 AB01 ^{I'M A POTATO} 09:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is nitpicking, but full stop not needed after the caption
"In addition to promoting products, Khan has been called upon to represent sport leagues, resorts and ~~even~~ states..."
In the 2nd para where you're listing examples of sport leagues, resorts and states, include the years in parantheses

Not sure how to do this and keep the descriptions. What's wrong as is? BollyJeff | talk 02:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds really wordy like this. What I suggest is do it like this: "Force India, the Formula One racing team representing India in international motor race championships (in 2007); the live entertainment theatre and leisure destination Kingdom of Dreams (in 2010), the Champions League Twenty20, an annual international Twenty20 cricket competition between the top domestic teams from major cricketing nations (in 2011)...." AB01 ^{I'M A POTATO} 09:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ref #181 doesn't say he doubled his fee. Also need a source for the claim that it is the largest deal for a Bollywood celebrity (ref #181 doesn't say that either)

The source you added in says the deal is one of the biggest deals, not the biggest. And I don't think it is the biggest deal. I know this source isn't entirely reliable, but it says that Aamir has a Rs. 88 crore deal. So you should change the statement, accordingly AB01 ^{I'M A POTATO} 11:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, okay I will change it. BollyJeff | talk 12:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ownership of IPL cricket team (DONE)

Again, nitpicking...full stop not needed after the caption. Also, it should read "Khan interactsing with the media after KKR's maiden IPL title"
Kolkata Knight Riders (KKR)
Adjusted, or unadjusted, for inflation? (I'm not sure)
I think 3 billion rupees can be removed. US dollars is enough
No source for KKR victory in 2014
Add Katrina Kaif for 2013 IPL performance

Humanitarian causes (DONE)

Lower case for humanitarian work
Help, not HELP! (per source)
Ref #197 says Subhash Ghai donated Rs. 2.5 million, not SRK. Source does say that Shah Rukh Khan, Rani Mukerji and Karan Johar collectively donated Rs 1.15 crore to the PM's Relief Fund
"Pyramide con Marni award for his charity engagements and social commitment towards providing education for kids"- This is copied word for word. Change wording please
"During his 2009 appearance..."- Ref #204 says "last year's item number hit, Sheila Ki Jawani," therefore 2011, not 2009. And also, ref #204 says in 2011, he adopted 11 villages and ref #205 says in 2009, he adopted five

Artistry (DONE)

Ref #207 doesn't say he's an "icon of romance in India"

Wealth and popularity (DONE)

US dollars is enough for the valuations
Didn't get top slot on BOI's Top Actors in 1996, and remove unnecessary details: "Khan occupied the top slot of Box Office India's top actors list for the first time in 1994, and repeated the feat in 1995, ~~1996,~~ 1998 and ~~for majority of the 2000s—~~from 2002 to 2008."
In 2005, Filmfare ranked him 2nd, not 1st on their power list. Also, no source saying that he ranked 1st in 2004
"and a Rs. 4 billion villa on the Palm Jumeirah in Dubai"- The one property is not Rs. 4 billion. His properties in Dubai holistically are worth that amount
Unsourced that he ranked 3rd in Eastern Eye's 2008 Sexiest Man list

In the media (DONE)

"in the 2007 time frame"--> change to "in 2007"
No source for "Shah Rukh Can" book
Full stop b4 ref #257

Selected filmography (DONE)

Deewana character is spelt "Raja Sahay" in his Filmography article
Dil To Pagal Hai character doesn't have last name

Lead (DONE)

Badshah--> Baadshah (as in text)
Legion of Honour--> Légion d'honneur (as in text)
"Khan subsequently earned wide critical appreciation..."- the films hear should be listed in chronological order

References (DONE)

DNA India should be changed to Daily News and Analysis. There are 6 incidences of the word in the whole article
Sify.com-->Sify (there are 5 incidences throughout the article)
ref #5 -->link to Time mag (don't link in #81)
ref #7 -->incorrect author (both a and b)...b has no author
ref #20 -->no need for quote in ref
ref #29 --> ditto
ref #50--> wrong title
ref #65--> first name is Paresh C. (C. doesn't go in last name section)
ref #71, #80, #90--> Filmfare as publisher, not TOI
ref #83--> incorrect title
ref #84--> missing date
ref #85--> 2 authors; one is missing
ref #94--> url is http://www.tribuneindia.com/2004/20041114/cth2.htm#4
ref #98--> incorrect date
ref #129--> author is subhash k. jha
ref #130--> date missing
ref #131-->incorrect title
ref #132--> ditto
ref #137--> ditto
ref #144--> missing author
ref #19, 143, 144, 145, 162, 174, 182, 192, 197, 232, 255, 263, 264--> access dates missing
ref #148--> missing author and date
ref #164--> ditto
ref #179, 181, 182--> missing author
ref #192--> incorrect date
ref #195--> missing author
ref #200--> incorrect date and impossible access date
ref #207--> missing date
ref #208--> ditto
ref #209--> missing author
ref #210, 214, 215, 217, 218, 222, 224, 231, 235, 244 --> missing author and date
ref #219--> incorrect date
ref #234, 253-->missing author
ref #246--> cite web not cite news
ref #251--> capital R for Review

Done with this last section. I will get to the rest in the coming days, thank you. BollyJeff | talk 22:34, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that all of these points have been addressed now. Let me know if you see anything else. BollyJeff | talk 02:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, my last suggestion would be to order the refs in chronological order. Like, for eg. [26][23] should be [23][26]. I think there's a tool to do this. Also, ref #81 needs to be archived. For some reason, some of the sources from The Hindu are not working anymore (refs 6b, 24). Is this is a temporary issue? AB01 ^{I'M A POTATO} 03:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I just replaced one that had no archive versions. BollyJeff | talk

Awesome! I shall pass the article now. Well done, Bollyjeff :-) AB01 ^{I'M A POTATO} 01:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]