Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dimple Kapadia/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 13 June 2020 [1].

---

Dimple Kapadia

Nominator(s): Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:16, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

This article is about a well-known Indian film actress who was particularly popular during the 1980s and early 1990s and was later acknowledged for her experimental work with arthouse cinema. She was launched by Raj Kapoor, but the film buffs among you will probably see her in Christopher Nolan's next. I visited this page several years ago when it was a stub. I started working on it, hoping to just slightly improve it, but got increasingly engaged in the process. Today there are several FAs on Indian actors but hardly any on those whose work goes back to the 1980-90s, since so little coverage of those years is available online for India, particularly for cinema. Nonetheless, all the digging paid off and it was promoted to GA soon after. A few days ago I came back to update and polish it and today, having gone over everything, I believe it meets the FA criteria. I will appreciate and be more than happy to address your comments. Cheers, Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:16, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Oppose from Fowler&fowler

• I'm not really commenting, only curious. I don't know much about Bollywood movies, but years ago had met an Indian gentleman whose last name was Kapadia, and who was Zoroastrian. That curiosity brought me here, thinking naively maybe she is a relative, but I discovered something entirely different, I think. The article says, her mother's name was Betty. Why is no maiden name (née) mentioned? Well, I was curious, so I clicked on the citation. That took me eventually to a youtube channel which showed (around the 6-minute mark) the Salat al-Janazah, or some other Muslim prayer, being read when her coffin returned to the house before the funeral. It obviously means that the mother was Muslim. Why is all this not mentioned? No sources? Or is it that under Mr Modi, Bollywood has to hide everything, even the religion he does not fancy? I'm curious. Was her dad Muslim too? I would recommend that you dig up the maiden name of the mother. That is generally done in most biography articles. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:40, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Okay, it's an interesting question. I obviously did look for Betty Kapadia's maiden name but couldn't find it. But now I've found this text from a book on Raj Kapoor:

"Chunnibhai Kapadia was — and is — a maverick. A rebel in the stronghold of Gujarati conservatism, Chunibhai had from his early days been a non-conformist in everything. He was an attractive catch in the wealthy Gujarati community's marriage-market because he belonged to the wealthy Kapadia industrial family. Chunibhai, however, took his non-conformism seriously enough to by-pass all the huge dowrys and wealth that went hand-in-hand with making an arranged match with a girl from another wealthy Gujarati family. Instead, he opted for a love-marriage. Falling for a pretty young Muslim girl whom he nicknamed Betty, Chunibhai married her. The marriage created a furore, shaking as it did the very foundations of this community's traditionalism. And it was Chunibhai's eldest daughter Dimple, now about fourteen years old, who Mrs. Raj Kapoor's close friend Munni Dhawan had mentioned as a good choice for the title role of Bobby."

Indeed, her mother was Muslim, but there isn't evidence her father was, and this quote actually implicates he wasn't. Shahid • ^Talk2me 01:34, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

OK, well, keep digging. Maybe you'll find a maiden name for her mother and restore her some biographical heft. Even if you can't, you should certainly restore her mother's religion to her. You could even recount the story of the parents' marriage. All the best. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:53, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I'll work on it, currently looking for sources from the horse's mouth. Shahid • ^Talk2me 01:57, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I noticed that you (still) don't have a maiden name for the mother. (The absence of sources is a little perplexing, unless the marriage was considered so "scandalous" at the time that everything was done to suppress the identity of the mother.) Anyway, I just did another search. It turned up an interview with Ms Dimple Kapadia ca. October 2013 in a Magazine, Masala! which is apparently published in the United Arab Emirates. It seems like a legitimate interview. Speaking of coming from the horse's mouth, or in this instance the next of kin's, Ms Kapadia is heard saying there about her mother:

"My father had gone to see my mum's older sister for an arranged marriage but he fell in love with the younger one instead. My mum was only 16 then. And the next year, she gave birth to me. I was very attached to my mother but I was scared of dad."

So that seems to insinuate that the father was Muslim as well! For, we do know that the mother was Muslim, and arranged marriages in India never involve two religions, they mostly do not even involve two different castes within the same religion. Anyway, in the absence of any other source directly stating the father's religion, that would likely be WP:SYNTHESIS. But why are you not adding the mother's religion? There is a good source for it. The mother, moreover, is deceased; so no BLP issues are at stake. Why the reluctance? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

No reluctance as such. I just think that mentioning her mother's religion while not mentioning the father's would make it look quite weird. Secondly, now that you're saying her father was probably Muslim as well, mentioning Betty's religion could implicate he wasn't of the same religion. Then, I think we should avoid synthesis and while I did see this interview you quoted, it seems as though the two quotes, the one from the book and the other from the interview, bring contradicting conclusions. I would recommend moving this discussion to the talk page of the article, because it seems unrelated in this nomination. Shahid • ^Talk2me 01:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

You mean mentioning the father's last name, but not the mother's before marriage does not look weird? You have two reliable sources which seem to contradict each other. Per WP FA Criteria, it is your duty to report both and point out the contraction. That is being Comprehensive. This discussion very much belongs to this page. If you want, I can formally oppose the nomination for suppressing information that is available in two reliable sources. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:07, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Please chill and do not use threats to force me into editing - I do not appreciate that kind of attitude. You proclaim the article is not valid because it's missing one word? I wish I knew why her parents' religion is so important to you, to me it means nothing. I have so far not seen a single source (and you can imagine I did look for many) where Dimple Kapadia (mind you, she is the subject here) identifies by a particular religion and so it probably is not very important to her. And no, we actually do mention both the father's last name and the mother's last name, which is Kapadia. Her mother was referred to as "Betty Kapadia" in every single reliable source I've seen, so her maiden name is not available and there's nothing I can do about it, and there's nothing weird about it. Now, her parents' love story is not part of Dimple Kapadia's biography, in my opinion. Even her own story with her husband would be just trivia in my book. Now to the sources, both give us absolutely no information about her father's religion, and yes, writing "Chunnibhai Kapadia and his Muslim wife Betty" sounds really weird to me because it would mean he wasn't Muslim, and while I do think he was, we can't be sure. Do you really think this version would be good? Comprehensive means "major facts or details and places the subject in context" are not neglected. This is not a major fact, definitely not about the subject, which is Dimple Kapadia. If it was major, we would find better sources from the horse's mouth. As a matter of fact, out of all the FAs on actors (Indian and non-Indian) which I checked now, most of them do not mention any religion while I'm pretty sure one could find sources. So if you have some good version which could be worked out, then propose it here instead of wikilawyering. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:29, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Most "sources," by which I mean those on the backs of which poorly-written articles on Indian movie stars have traditionally appeared at FAC, don't say anything other than repeating in a regimented fashion the banalities about two sisters whose names are advertised as "Dimple," and "Simple." I note in this instance, but also in plentiful others, citations to The Times of India or its sister publications; see an assessment of TOI at RSN. Some sources, however, do blurt out the name of the third sister, "Reem," a Muslim female name from Arabic, riʼm, rīm, A milk-white doe, and the brother's, the Muslim male name, Suhail (i.e. سہيل, i.e. Canopus, the second-brightest star in the sky whose variable visibility was employed by Arab astronomers in the early second millennium CE, to posit that the earth was round). Speaking of first names, since when did "Betty" become a name for an Indian woman of that vintage who was not Anglo-Indian (or Indian Christian), the nickname for "Elizabeth," the same as in Crocker, Ford, Boop, or Grable? Why have you not given credence to very reliable sources, which have reported the mother's first name to be "Bitti," a more likely Indian name, a diminutive for a daughter? See for example, The Calcutta Telegraph, here. The same spelling appears in a biography of Dimple Kapadia's first husband published by Penguin/Random House. See here and note the picture as well of the parents. Do you see the tell-tale bindi, worn traditionally by married Hindu women? For if you do, please tell me where and I'll bring out the microscope.

In other words, there is very reasonable doubt that the mother's nickname is Betty; it is more likely that it is "Bitti." There is every likelihood, that the mother was Muslim and some likelihood that the father was as well. As for why religion needs to be mentioned in a biography, it (religion) had been a defining feature of an upbringing until very recently, especially in traditional societies such as India's, even among people who are being reported to have flouted tradition. There is no reason that the first sentence in the background and personal life section—which has a scant mention of "background," and which is already laced with an asymmetrical mention of the mother's birth and death years, but not the father's—cannot have her religion instead. What is wrong with saying, "Dimple Kapadia was born on 8 June 1957 in Mumbai to a Muslim mother Bitti— and her husband a Gujarati businessman Chunnibhai Kapadia?" It was after all Bitti to whom the primary credit of the birth and early upbringing of her daughter belongs. Please see ancillary discussion at WT:FAC alluding to the various forms of gender imbalance. There are other issues here: the lack of probing into her inordinately early marriage, probably running afoul of the Indian Age of Consent, at least in the spirit of the law, and of the general manipulation of vulnerable girls in Bollywood. I'm sure there are sources, such as Virdi, Jyotika (2003) Cinematic ImagiNation: Indian Popular Films and Social History, Rutgers University Press, but it is not my job to find them. This is as far as I go with comments here. I will not be returning nor registering support or oppose. This is mainly for the benefit of others who might be doing so but do not know much about Indian culture. Make what you will. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:56, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay, for some reason, I do have a feeling that if Dimple Kapadia wanted to be identified by a religion, she would have mentioned her religion at least once in her long career. Interestingly, she does wear a bindi from time to time, and that's why the confusion. Even in a long monologue by Kapadia about her childhood and early life, which you cited to Masala (but the text actually comes from another source, which is already on the article - DNA India), she makes no mention of religion, which makes me believe that religion is, at least in her case, not necessarily "a defining feature of an upbringing" as you have nicely put. Mind you she married a Hindu and so did her daughters, so you can imagine what role religion really played in their family. Her husband, by the way, was secular.

As for The Telegraph, yes I'm aware of that source, but thought it's just a single source among many. The book that you mentioned actually called her Bitti because of this very Telegraph source (it's cited in there), so it's really just one source (anyway, I'll use it for now). Newspapers and books from as early as the 1970s and the 1980s call her Betty, including a journalist who visited their house and wrote a piece for The Illustrated Weekly of India. Wikipedia is all about verifiability, not truth, and I don't think people are allowed to practice their WP:OR on here, as tempting as it is for knowledge-seeking people, including me.

Somehow I find it difficult to mention her mother's religion basing it off one single book which is a biography of Raj Kapoor. I'll try to look into some of the documentaries, maybe I'll find something more concrete. In any case, if nothing is found, I should consider adding "and his Muslim wife Betty". Shahid • ^Talk2me 08:13, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

No, not Dimple Kapadia, it was the mother Bitti or Betty, and secondarily her father, I was talking about (to which your first two paragraphs constitute replies). The "defining feature," etc. applied to them. It is clear that Dimple Kapadia herself is neither particularly religious nor shy about reminiscing about her failed early marriage to a Hindu actor. You could use both names Betty or Bitti. Even if the second source which uses "Bitti" cites the first, it is written by a reliable author who found the spelling convincing. Anyway, good luck. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:51, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, already applied Bitti. Thank you, Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:03, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay finally found something. Her father was from a Khoja family which accepted Hinduism. Look at this article by Open magazine about her daughter Twinkle:

...nurtured in an eccentric lapsed Ismaili Khoja family and shared with a beloved guitar-playing, ink sketch-loving uncle. Her maternal grandfather, Chunibhai, was infamously disowned by his father, Laljibhai—who had embraced Hinduism, but continued to regard the Agha Khan as his religious mentor—when he allowed his daughter, Dimple, to act in Bobby

I've added the following sentence: "Chunibhai belonged to a wealthy family of lapsed Ismaili Khojas who accepted Hinduism but continued following Aga Khan as their mentor, and Bitti was Muslim." Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Good work! The Khojas are Nizari Ismailis, therefore Shia Muslims. What we have are "histories," attempted by three generations, whose accounts are equally reliable, and equally unreliable per WP standards: a) The friend of a friend of Chunnibhai who states that CB came from a conservative Gujarati family but fell in love with a Muslim girl. b) Dimple Kapadia states her dad, CB, went to "see" her aunt for a prospective arranged marriage, but fell in love with her mother. And she was born the following year. c) Dimple's daughter Twinkle, tells us what Bollywood ignoramuses such as I had guessed in a few minutes, that the family is indeed Muslim. The business about "lapsed Muslims" who had "embraced Hinduism" but continued to follow the Aga Khan, is adaptive lying, not based in any reality that I am aware of nor I'm sure is the Aga Khan. (Lapsed Muslims who have embraced Hinduism don't name their children Reem and Suhail.) In Wikipedia we cannot state whatever a source states, only what is reasonable in it. What is reasonable is: "Chunnibhai was of Khoja Muslim heritage; Bitti was Muslim." Short and sweet. So, I would get rid of everything else in what you have added. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:15, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

PS There is plenty evidence that she was married in March 1973 (see here for example), which means she was 15 when married, well short of India's Age of Consent (which is 18 now, but was 16 in 1973). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm still looking for sources though. Well, I'd suggest keeping the Hinduism part because it seems like there was some sort of balance which could say a lot about their lifestyle, and it wouldn't necessarily contradict the names given. Naming your kids is not a sign of religious practice, but often just a way of preserving your history and heritage. I found exactly the same information, by the way, in an article by Sumit Mitra dated as early as 1985, so it doesn't appear far stretched. I really want to stick exactly to what the source says, because Kapadia has really never mentioned her religion and I wouldn't want this page to include anything other than was has already been published so far out of respect for her family.

Personally, I would assume they didn't really convert, but accepted Hinduism without completely abandoning their ethnic/cultural/religious identity. That's not very common, I guess, but then they were indeed quite an eccentric family, and that explains to me why at the end of the day they were actually quite a secular family, not having any reservations about their daughter marrying so early and to a Hindu man in a Hindu ceremony. Removing it or making conclusions based on common knowledge would be too much of OR (my own conclusion now is that a and b are now not that contradictory: their mother was a Gujarati Muslim just like her dad, though not necessarily Khoja, and indeed, he was to marry her aunt and ended up marrying Bitti, which was scandalous - the versions kind of complete each other). Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

First, it is not clear from the syntax of that sentence who it was that embraced Hinduism; it seems like Lalji but it could have been his son Chunni, but either way, Hinduism traditionally in the period 1930s to 1950s—when they would have likely effected this reorientation of religious outlook—didn't really allow conversions, so entrenched was caste a feature of it. For the same reason, there is little chance they could have given their children names that harkened back to the religon they had just disavowed. What you are suggesting are the easy vanities of a much later era. There were also the questions of the disparate succession rules in Hinduism and Islam. On the other hand, if he was just a fan of Hinduism, we could say that if there was clear mention of that fact, not ambiguous mention as in "embrace." The most I think we can say with the current evidence is that "Chunnibhai was of Ismaili Khoja heritage, but living unconventionally; Bitti was Muslim." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:13, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

According to this entry in the Cambridge Dictionary, embrace means "to accept something enthusiastically", and one of the examples given is "This was in the days before she embraced religion". Similarly, this entry in The Free Dictionary, gives a definition of embrace which is "to take up (a new idea, faith, etc); adopt: to embrace Judaism".

Exactly because of what you just wrote, I wrote that it was the family and not a particular person. It might have been the father, but as you can assume, if it was the father, then it was everyone in the family. While everything you're saying is interesting and I'm definitely taking your words at face value personally, I can't think how we can interpret written text from two reliable sources so freely. This is exactly what WP:VNT is all about. Actually, I don't really think there's much of a problem here - no one is saying they converted, the only conclusion that could be drawn here is that they sort of kept exploring, since everything is presented fairly - both the so-called embracement and the fact that they kept following Aga Khan and even gave their kids Muslim names. Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:32, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

What you had written was unsustainable in the light of the sources; I reverted it. Per BRD please gain consensus here before you revert back to your version. Alternatively, we can say, "Chunnibhai was of Ismaili Khoja heritage, but by his adulthood was professing a more pluralistic religious outlook; Bitti was Muslim." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

No please do not revert until consensus is reached. Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

"Chunnibhai was of Ismaili Khoja heritage, but by his adulthood was professing a more pluralistic religious outlook; Bitti was from a Muslim family." That is what the sources are saying, in toto. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, but this is not at all what the sources are saying. The source is saying "...nurtured in an eccentric lapsed Ismaili Khoja family and shared with a beloved guitar-playing, ink sketch-loving uncle. Her maternal grandfather, Chunibhai, was infamously disowned by his father, Laljibhai—who had embraced Hinduism, but continued to regard the Agha Khan as his religious mentor—when he allowed his daughter, Dimple, to act in Bobby."

How exactly is it unsustainable, if that's what the source explicitly says, and why are you so against the mention of Hinduism? I really don't get it. Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:55, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

It was added off-handedly by a granddaughter in a magazine, Open, which has not been commended latterly for its journalistic uprightness. All sources are not equal on Wikipedia. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:46, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

By this idea, the source should not be used at all. Why use it partially for the claims that one agrees with. Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

My oppose is not based on a few sentences in section 1. But those sentences exemplify the issues found in other implausible and unrepresentative ones. The better sources are not used. Section 2.1, for example, has a rich scholarly literature, including the following (with initial page numbers):

• Nandy, Ashis (1998), The Secret Politics of Our Desires: Innocence, Culpability and Indian Popular Cinema, Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 117–, ISBN 978-1-85649-516-5
• Dwyer, Rachel; Patel, Divia (2002), Cinema India: The Visual Culture of Hindi Film, Rutgers University Press, pp. 64–, ISBN 978-0-8135-3175-5
• Joshi, Priya (3 March 2015), Bollywood's India: A Public Fantasy, Columbia University Press, pp. 99–, ISBN 978-0-231-53907-4
• Varia, Kush (31 January 2013), Bollywood: Gods, Glamour, and Gossip, Columbia University Press, pp. 22–, ISBN 978-0-231-50260-3
• Dickey, Sara; Dudrah, Rajinder (24 October 2018), South Asian Cinemas: Widening the Lens, Taylor & Francis, pp. 8–, ISBN 978-1-317-97729-2
• Banerjee, Srivastava (13 September 2013), One Hundred Indian Feature Films: An Annotated Filmography, Routledge, pp. 54–, ISBN 978-1-135-84105-8
• Abbas, K A (1 December 2013), Bobby, HarperCollins Publishers India, pp. 1971–, ISBN 978-93-5029-554-0
• "Karma of 'Bobby' Lovers Stirs India's Filmgoers" By Bernard Weinraub, Special To the New York Times, Dec. 12, 1973
• Jain, Pankaj (2009). "From Kil-Arni to Anthony: The Portrayal of Christians in Indian Films". Visual Anthropology. 23 (1): 13–19. doi:10.1080/08949460903368887. ISSN 0894-9468.
• Lutgendorf, Philip. 2005. "Sex in the Snow: The Himalayas as as Erotic Topos in Popular Hindi Cinema." HIMALAYA 25(1).

Instead this source is used repeatedly. It has sentences like:

• "Dimple does a Nicole Kidman in Hum Kaun Hai, inspired by Hollywood's The Others."
• "Of course, Dimple's fans may not mind that too much, thanks to the ravishing actress."
• "The eternal headturner: She is the best looking grandmom in films today."
• "Auburn-haired Dimple Kapadia looked as resplendent as a Botticelli angel in her youth but hers is the kind of beauty that gets only better with age."
• "One can question Dimple's choice of films but there are no two opinions about her being a headturner and one of the more sensitive actresses that the industry can lay claim to in the 1970s and the 1980s."
• "Dimple was pronounced the 'it' girl in her debut film, Bobby, itself. Master showman Raj Kapoor signed her on when she was barely 14 and did the mahurat of his first directorial film without himself in the cast on Dasshera day in 1971."
• "Her expressive eyes effectively conveyed teen angst. And when she emerged nymph-like from the pool in a red bikini, Dimple, despite her puppy fat, had teenagers enthralled. Her knotted polka-dotted blouse and earphone hairstyle were wildly emulated."

The last of these is quoted in the section. A reviewer cannot say anything more actionable than: Comprehensivess fails in section 2.1. The best sources are not included. Very poor ones are. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh, so now that you've already opposed the nomination based on one word, you're presenting a list from Google Books without even going into what they include? Do you realise this article is on an Indian actress and not the film Bobby? Is there anything you think could be added to the section? Something actionable? Because trust me, I spent weeks on Google Books, and took anything that could be added. All these books talk about (or merely mention) the film, not the actress.

• First, the Rediff.com column that you are making fun of is written by Dinesh Raheja, a journalist, author, and film historian, and his language is the lingo used in film magazines. What did you expect? Academic terminology? Needless to say, your last line is a lie; this quote does not appear on the article and never has.
• The section includes quotes from Padma Shri winner Bhawana Somaaya about her role.

As for the books, having gone through them just proves that I have not missed anything on my Google Book search, and that you probably (or most certainly) just listed random results elicited by your Google search, without even checking out if Kapadia is mentioned in them in the first place, and much less what they can contribute to the article. Here it goes:

• First book - "The Secret Politics of Our Desires: Innocence, Culpability and Indian Popular Cinema" - does not even mention Dimple Kapadia's name!
• Second book - "Bollywood: Gods, Glamour, and Gossip", does not say anything about her but the film itself.
• "South Asian Cinemas: Widening the Lens, Taylor & Francis" - speaks about neither Kapadia nor Bobby the film! It just has a quote from the film in a list of quotes from Hindi films.
• Please tell me, please, why the scholarly article "From Kil-Arni to Anthony: The Portrayal of Christians in Indian Films" makes your list when it really is about the portrayal of Christianity in Indian films with no discussion of Kapadia at all!
• And this one - "Sex in the Snow: The Himalayas as as Erotic Topos in Popular Hindi Cinema" - what is it in there that you think could be added into this article and make it better in terms of comprehensiveness? This article has a mere line about the Bobby film and a brief mention of Kapadia!
• Did you even read the NYT article "Karma of 'Bobby' Lovers Stirs India's Filmgoers" which you just cited? Because I did! And nothing here could add any worthy information to this article.
• The book "Bollywood's India: A Public Fantasy", is cited now on the article.
• Moreover, the book "One Hundred Indian Feature Films" says only the following about her:

Dimple Kapadia, a Kapoor find whose buxom unworldliness had charmed a whole generation of Indian youth, disappeared from the screen soon after, eloping with the reigning superstar, Rajesh Khanna, while she was still a minor. Subsequently, after two daughters and a divorce, and years spent away from the studio floors, she has fairly recently begun trying to revive her career.

• What is it that you see here that does not appear already in the article other than the factual error that she was divorced (she was never divorced)? What do you mean by the best sources? What does WP:RS say about it?
• The article uses sources from Encyclopedia Britannica, and other books, where necessary, but if anything, your problem is not comprehensiveness. It's just a clear attempt to try to justify your automatic opposition to this article.

Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Section 2.1 is about Kapadia's debut role in Bobby. The book might not mention Kapadia by name, but it says plenty about her character. The plot is described there in more interesting detail:

"... the Abbas-Sathe team pieced together a simple love story, a story of true love thwarted by family prejudices and the class divide. The boy is rich and Hindu. The girl, Bobby, is from a working-class Christian family. Bobby’s father is loud, boisterous and crude and devoted to his only child. The hero's father is a stiff upper-lip aristocrat and wants to extend his financial empire by arranging an appropriate marriage for his son. But the class rivalry was only spice for a recipe that stressed breathless, obsessive juvenile love. Armed with memories of the Hollywood hit Love Story and countless Archie comics that sold the idea ‘sixteen is not so young anymore’, Raj flung himself desperately into the shooting of Bobby."

It points out for example that Bobby's background is working-class, not middle-class as the article puts it. The author is Ashis Nandy. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Dear Fowler&fowler, please propose something actionable. What is this huge block of text good for if the only good thing out of it is the variation between middle and working class? Articles about actors should provide two short, one-sentence summaries of the role and then the film at most, and sometimes just the former would suffice. Unfortunately, all my attempts in the past to add more about characters have been objected. Bobby is a love story between a working-class Goan girl and a wealthy young man, to which their parents opposed. I wish we could write more than just that but sadly it's not possible, because actor BLPs are more about actors, their roles, the reception to their films. Look, just for example at Julianne Moore, an FA, where the section about her Oscar winning role just writes, "In the drama Still Alice, Moore played the leading role of a linguistics professor diagnosed with early onset Alzheimer's disease." You see what I mean.

I did change it to working-class (although I don't agree with it because other sources do mention that he was prosperous, just of a lower social class), and this mistake is exactly what an FAC is for, offering constructive feedback on points like these, among others. Thanks, Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Here is a short prose review of the first four sentences of section 2.1:

1)Kapadia always had aspirations to become an actress when she was a child, calling herself "film-crazy".

• A problem with using the participial clause "calling ...crazy" as an adverbial is that we don't know when she called herself "film crazy." It is probably better in in an encyclopedia to say:

• Kapadia, who calls herself "film crazy," aspired to be an actress even as a child," or
• "Kapadia, who has called herself "film crazy," ...., or
• "Kapadia, who had once (or with date) called herself "film crazy," aspired to be an actress as a child

• Also, you don't really need "always," for to "aspire" is to long, to yearn, which are forms of desire exending over time.

2) "She was introduced by Raj Kapoor in his 1973 teen romance Bobby. "

• Given the previous sentence about yearning, some reference to it would be better:

• "She landed her first film role in 1973, when Raj Kapoor chose her for the teen romance Bobby."

3) "While the film was to be Kapoor's son Rishi Kapoor's first leading role, Kapadia was given the title role of Bobby Braganza, a middle-class Goan Christian girl."

• When "while" is used as a subordinator in the sense of "whereas," you are contrasting two things that belong to the same category. It was her first leading role too. Would it be better to contrast: "Raj Kapoor's son Rishi was cast in his first leading role as the son of a wealthy Hindu businessman" " Kapadia was picked for the title role of Bobby Braganza, the granddaughter of his former Ayah, or governess, a Christian woman from ...."

4) The story follows how Bobby falls in love with Raj (Rishi), the son of a wealthy businessman, and how the two face the disapproval of their parents

• The storyline follows Bobby and Raj, their falling in love, their parents disapproving, their ... (you need to add something more).

And so forth. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

So, Would the first four sentences be better as:

"Kapadia, who calls herself "film crazy," aspired to be an actress even as a child. She landed her first film role in 1973, when Raj Kapoor chose her for the teen romance Bobby. Kapoor's son Rishi was cast in his first leading role as the son of a wealthy Hindu businessman; Kapadia was picked for the title role of Bobby Braganza, the granddaughter of Rishi's former Ayah, or governess, who is a Christian woman from the former Portuguese colony of Goa. The storyline follows Bobby and Raj, their falling in love, their parents disapproving, their ...

I think the article is not at FA level yet. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Finally one actionable comment (which is very easy to fix but you dismiss the article in advance, which is funny since it's just two lines and you haven't read past it), but I agree with part of your comments actually, especially the first two points, which I've applied. You just need to remember that actors' articles can only provide short summaries of the plot, and not that long plot you have provided ("short and sweet", remember?). Words like "landed a role" are unencyclopedic. Moreover, the use of "While" is to stress the fact that in spite of being his son's debut vehicle, it was she who got the title role, but I fixed it and removed it.

As for the fourth point, I disagree with your version, which I honestly find to be quite poorly written and the story must be somehow presented specifically through her character. As for this: "Rishi's former Ayah, or governess, who is a Christian woman from the former Portuguese colony of Goa" - it is just too much information according to me, and a previous reviewer on this FAC, who's asked to shorten the section. Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

"While" is to stress the fact that in spite of being his son's debut vehicle, it was she who got the title role."

• The title role, that of a teenage girl, is the doing of the writers or the director. That has nothing to do with "while:" It needs to be contrasted differently: "Kapoor's son Rishi was cast in his first leading role as the son of a wealthy Hindu businessman; the director/screenwriters chose the title of the movie to be Bobby, from Kapadia's character Bobby Braganza, the granddaughter of Rishi's former Ayah, or governess, who is a Christian woman from the former Portuguese colony of Goa." You are contrasting the wrong semantic categories there. You may need to rewrite the previous sentence for coherence. As for length, this is Kapadia's major claim to biographical fame. On Google Books, for example, all things being equal, "Dimple Kapadia" "Bobby" at 1,310 constitutes fully one-third of all the returns of "Dimple Kapadia." It is the rest of the article that needs to be shortened. The main point here is: there are prose issues in pretty every sentence that I have read thus far. I cannot rewrite the whole article. At some point I have to say: "It is not at FA level, and it is not looking good." As for you other objections "landed her first role" is not the point; it is reference in the sentence to the aspiration, longing, yearning of the previous sentence. You can easily change it to: "She made her film debut in 1973, when Raj Kapoor chose her for the teen romance Bobby." That is not what you are saying. Your version has no link syntactically to her aspiration, but someone else's choice.Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

But I did change it! I think I did tell you above that most of your comments were applied, with some modifications (including the use of "while") - there it is:

Kapadia, who called herself "film crazy", aspired to be an actress even as a child. She played her first film role in 1973, when Raj Kapoor cast her as the lead in his teen romance, Bobby. The film starred Kapoor's son Rishi Kapoor in his first leading role as Raj Nath, the son of a wealthy Hindu businessman, and Kapadia was given the title role of Bobby Braganza, the teenaged daughter of a working-class Christian fisherman from Goa. The film follows the love story between Raj and Bobby in the face of his parents' disapproval of their relationship.

You see, when an actionable comment comes along, and in this case, as I said, I respected your perspective, I do my best. I'm always willing to learn.

As for the length of the section, I'm bound not only by your comments, but also by comments of other reviewers here, most of whom are more experienced, as you know, with articles on film actors. One of them claimed that the section is too long, and I applied his actionable comment. The fact that the search for 'Bobby' and 'Dimple Kapadia' brings so many returns has one really obvious reason though (or maybe more than one) - it's her first film, which happened during the time of her marriage, and was followed by a long hiatus, and would therefore obviously be mentioned every time some piece about her. You better tell me how many articles actually discuss Kapadia and Bobby in the context of her work in the film. Even the books you cited above trying to cast doubt on the sources (quite unsuccessfully) don't mention her.

I'm going to your "At some point I have to say" part - that's not how reviewing FAC goes. Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

By the way, even if a mention was made of the governess, the use of the word Ayah would be irrelevant because that wasn't its use in the film, Bobby. According to Urdu Memoirs of Cinema Legends, the film's screenwriter (the great Khwaja Ahmad Abbas) expressed his disappointment writing, "by the time Bobby came out, I had to say that it was Raj Kapoor's film, not mine. My story was about a rich boy falling in love with a poor girl. It had an ayah and Raj Kapoor transformed her into a governess; he put a refrigerator stacked with liquour in her house." - in other words, turned her into a Christian, which she was in the film. From what I understand, the writer wanted it to be the love story of a Muslim girl and a Hindu man, but Raj Kapoor changed it. Very interesting, I should add it on the film's article, because I want to expand it. Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Parents' religion

(Invited other reviewers to weigh in but removed it for now) Let's try to work it out here before inviting other reviewers. So here's what we have:

Open magazine (2019) in a piece about Dimple Kapadia's daughter says:

...nurtured in an eccentric lapsed Ismaili Khoja family ... Her maternal grandfather, Chunibhai, was infamously disowned by his father, Laljibhai—who had embraced Hinduism, but continued to regard the Agha Khan as his religious mentor—when he allowed his daughter, Dimple, to act in Bobby

India Today (1985)

The wealthy Khoja family, which embraced Hinduism only with Chunibhai's father, Laljibhai, and which accepts the Agha Khan as its religious mentor even now, disowned Dimple's father the day he agreed to Raj Kapoor's proposal to let her sign for Bobby.

My version is "Chunibhai belonged to a wealthy family of lapsed Ismaili Khojas who accepted Hinduism but continued following Aga Khan as their mentor"

Yours is "Chunnibhai was of Ismaili Khoja heritage, but by his adulthood was professing a more pluralistic religious outlook"

What do you guys think is best? Maybe you have another suggestion? Looking forward to your opinion. Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Do you realize the irony of your suggestion? I came here out of curiosity, knowing nothing about this actress, knowing only that Kapadia was the name of a Zoroastrian person of my former acquaintance. Based on my curiosity, my knowledge of India, and some rummaging, I conjectured that the mother, and perhaps both parents were of Muslim heritage, something that neither you, nor a single one of the dozens and dozens of sources you had hitherto marshaled in this article had uttered a peep about, nor for that matter had any of the other reviewers whose opinion you are now quick to elicit. My conjecture has turned out to be more or less true. You are now attempting to dispute how stable or serious was the father's, the parents', or the family's, belief in Islam, chalking it mostly to an innocuous ecumenicalism. Well do what you want. I have lost interest in pursuing this beyond what I understand to be the likely truth. I am tired besides. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

First, I'm grateful to you for bringing it on, while I do think that mentioning religion is not necessarily important for actors' biographies. The irony is that I did exactly what you said. You wanted religion to be included, and I spent hours digging in the archives. Now that finally sources have been found, I'm not sure who's attempting what here. I'm following the sources, and you are suggesting your own interpretation of the text, which is far stretched and not supported by the sources. Why not just write what the source says? You have been proposing different explanations as to why it's not very likely that what the sources are saying is true. That's not how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth, and I'm following the sources, I do not "do what I want". If I find something else in some book or documentary, I'll be the first to write exactly what they say. Thank you for the help, Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:59, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

There is only one source. 1985. (The musings of the granddaughter recorded in 2019, repeating the words of 1985, including "embracing," don't constitute anything reliable) 1985 starts out peremptorily, "The wealthy Khoja family, which embraced Hinduism only with Chunibhai's father, Laljibhai, ..." Where in the story was there previous mention of Hinduism to warrant the use of the definite article (The)? What evidence is cited for this statement? Nothing. However, a little later, we do have Dimple Kapadia's own words:

"When I was a child, my parents took me to Agha Khan, and he named me Ameena. Beautiful name, it means the dignified one".

So you do have a birth name, by her own acknowledgment, which you can add to the article, and which is far more beautiful that "Dimple." If you are worried about respect, please give her her name back. It is "Ameena."

However, the Hinduism mumbo-jumbo is just that. No citation, no previous mention, no story, no anecdote, is offered. There is such a thing as plausible truth in Wikipedia. For something to be plausible it has to have a context, a causal and chronological sequence. None is given for the family's continuing to regard the reigning Aga Khan, the Hazar Imam, as their spiritual head, but also "embracing" Hinduism. She was born in June 1957, so it was likely Aga Khan III, and not the current Hazar Imam, who named her. The Aga Khans were themselves quite cosmopolitan, regularly appearing at the races at Derby and Ascot, but they were clear about Ismailis being Muslims. Aga Khan III founded the All-India Muslim League. It would be a bizarre distortion of Indian and Pakistani history were Wikipedia to state he was going around christening Hindu babies, giving them Muslim names. By the way, I'm not even remotely one of those Hindu nationalists who on Twitter like to out Muslims, casting them to be traitors. But a biography needs its reliable truth, not a fantastic or accusatory one. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:20, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay I'm removing the invitation for other opinions for now.

Well Ameena is indeed a beautiful name. Her birth name from what sources say is Dimple though - she was a child when they visited the Aga Khan who gave her a second name, which sadly didn't stick. You're right should be mentioned. She herself said on DNA India:

When my sister Simple and I’d travel together, officials at the airports would ask, “Are your names for real?” I suppose Dad had a crazy sense of humour. Actually, I was given another name by the present Aga Khan’s father. It was Ameena but no one ever called me that."

In another source, she is quoted as saying, "I was born with a cleft in the chin but Dad didn't know the difference between a cleft and a dimple. So I was named Dimple." So Dimple is basically her birth name given by her dad (which as implied appears on her passport).

Again, I do not say they converted to Hinduism, nor does the article. It says they embraced/accepted it while still maintaining their heritage. That's exactly what the source says. No one christened Hindu babies because they're not officially Hindu. They kept their tradition and followed Aga Khan, and it's written there. How can there be any problem with that? But do you realise how much all of what you're writing is your free analysis based on your belief and knowledge and not facts as presented by sources? Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

The causal sequence is: a) The present Aga Khan's father, Aga Khan III died on the 11 July 1957. b) Dimple Kapadia was born on 8 June 1957 c) Sometime before Aga Khan III died, he named her Ameena (which along with Amina, Aamina, is a variant of the popular Muslim female name, Arabic آمنة which means honest, or trustworthy, and is the name of the Prophet Muhammad's mother.) d) She was, therefore, less than 1 month and 3 days old when she was so named, i.e. she was an infant.

Ameena was, therefore, her name, her original name, for the Aga Khans are not known to give second names, pious Muslim names, of the Prophet's mother's no less, to infants of their Jamat whose parents have chosen frivolous names such as "Dimple" as the primary ones. Passports however are made much later in life. She might have had her name officially changed to Dimple later, but it is unlikely to have been her birth name; two siblings after all did have straightforward Muslim names: Reem and Suhail Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:29, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Look, much as I have enjoyed this back and forth—and it has been enjoyable for me as I had never imagined so much new material surfacing—I do have to go. I will leave you with my final proposal for the first few sentences of the background section.

Dimple Kapadia was born on 8 June 1957 in Mumbai to a Gujarati businessman Chunibhai Kapadia and his wife Bitti, or "Betty." Chunnibhai was of Ismaili Khoja heritage, but was thought to hold somewhat unconventional religious beliefs; Bitti belonged to a Muslim family. When barely a month old, Dimple was given the name "Ameena" (Arabic آمنة, literally, "honest," or "trustworthy," also the name of the mother of Prophet Muhammad) by Sir Sultan Mahomed Shah Aga Khan III, the spiritual head of Nizari Isma'ilism. Dimple is the eldest of four children, her siblings—all of whom are deceased—being the actress Simple Kapadia, a sister, Reem, and a brother, Suhail."

I can give you sources for the Arabic etc. later. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

PS (Added later): a) 1) آمنة (p. 101) A آمنة āmina, The name of Muhammad's mother. F.J. Steingass, A Comprehensive Persian-English Dictionary, page 101. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

PPS See also the Wiktionary entry. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

She did not say she was named after Muhammad's mother, but gave the translation of the name. Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

:) Again, we cannot accept everything she says, including her translation; she is only the source of the name being given to her by the Aga Khan. The meaning of the name exists independently. It is our encyclopedic duty to provide it, correctly. Hers is incorrect. See the Wiktionary entry. I'm sure I can find other sources. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:54, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay, Ameena does mean 'the dignified one' as well, that I know for a fact! I have no problem adding the translations which appear on Wiktionary, which are all true (all these translations are close in meaning anyway), it's there now anyway. But I don't think other uses of the name are noteworthy unless she said she was named specifically after someone. Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:13, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Aminah is the Prophet's mother. It is a very important aspect of Dimple Kapadia's name. It doesn't really matter what spin she puts on the name. It was given by the Aga Khan, who traces lineal descent from the Prophet. It is an important requisite for explaining the naming. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, I disagree with you. As for your claim that "It doesn't really matter what spin she puts on the name." - well, according to me it's the only thing that matters. No WP:OR. The very basic link of Amina on Wikipedia goes to the Zazzau warrior queen, so you can never know. Why not just link the name and that's it? I think giving the translation is enough, and the readers are intelligent enough to make the link between Aga and Muhammad's mother and draw conclusions if they need to, just like you did. Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:13, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your help Fowler, it has indeed been very useful. I'll be looking for other sources, but at this point Hinduism stays because that's what is said in the sources, unless other sources are found. What matters is what the sources say, not what we think they meant or was less likely (WP:VNT). The readers can make their own conclusions based on the information presented, which must be presented fairly in accordance with sources. Secondly, she said several times that she was named Dimple by her father. She was given "another name", in her own words, Ameena, so her birth name is Dimple, and speculations about when she got her passport are, again, inappropriate. But anyway, your version is very good IMO, except that scripts are deprecated on Indian articles anyway, and I shortened it a bit. If you disagree with the versions we'll open it up to other editors so that they weigh in on the issue, but this rather small issue has been going on for too long. Shahid • ^Talk2me 08:16, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:INDICSCRIPTS is about Indic scripts in the lead or the infobox; this is Arabic in Section 1. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:46, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

If they are not used for her full name in the lead, why would nay script be used at all? Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:49, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

For the same reason they are used in the FA India, in Section 1 (Etymology). The etymology of someone's name is of encyclopedic interest. I'm not saying that the Arabic script has to be in the lead or the infobox; but the name Ameena does need to be in the infobox as an alternate name. I don't know if the template has that argument; it probably does. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

They are not mentioned on film-related articles though. This is an actor's article. Moreover, she never said it's her second name - it's a name given by Aga Khan which hasn't stuck. Not a single reference mentions it as her second name or her full name as Dimple Ameena. Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

My proposed version says simply she was given a name Ameena as an infant (for the Aga Khan III died when she was 1 month and 3 days old) by Aga Khan III. Short and sweet. It makes no claim to being the only name, "another" name, or "second" name. But she does say he gave her a name. Adding "infant" is not original research. Elementary math is allowed. You cannot use the word "child," which can mean a period between infancy and adulthood, even if she used it. We know she had to be an infant. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:20, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Of course! :) I'm using exactly what you wrote (when she was barely a month old). Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:23, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

You are? Can you please communicate those edits to me (here)? OK, I've taken a look. It is better, but Hinduism is problematic. You can footnote it, if you'd like. But it is too incongruous, too implausible, in the light of everything we know about Khoja Shia Islam. We can't add whatever a source says; however, there are many sources that attest to his unconventional, rebellious, ways. You could change it to "Chunnibhai was of Ismaili Khoja heritage, and a rebellious spirit;(footnote about the family "embracing" Hinduism) Bitti belonged to a Muslim family." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

A footnote could be a solution. But look, I have no bias here. I couldn't care less about her religion. But it appears that neither can Kapadia herself; almost 50 years in the movie business and never a mention of her or her parents' religion. Maybe this complicated self-exploration of her father's family is the reason for it? She married a Hindu, as a matter of fact. I can't understand this anti-Hindu sentiment. Please try to explain to me how you are willing to exclude text that is mentioned by a reliable source. How can we ignore the fact that a reliable source says they "embraced Hinduism" and that they are lapsed Muslims based on your own belief or interpretation? It is the most unfair incident I can imagine and is totally contradictory to the spirit of Wikipedia. What you're doing here is exactly what Wikipedia is against. Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Another possibility is:

"Chunnibhai was rebellious by temperament; he was from an Ismaili Khoja family, which according to one source had come to "embrace Hinduism," in the previous generation, without entirely relinquishing Ismaili loyalties. Bitti belonged to a Muslim family."

That is about all we can say reliably. (Khoja, btw, is a caste designation used for a former Hindu caste which converted to Shia Islam during the 13th or 14th centuries. Some of these converted Shia did adopt other faiths such as Sunni Islam, and even Hinduism, to escape persecution, but that happened much earlier. But unless we have sources that specifically attest to a late 19th-century or early 20th-century reconversion, we cannot state it in a manner that implies it, in our voice, that is. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:25, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Better, but rebellious by temperament sounds a little unencyclopedic to me and too much information about her father when really this article is about Kapadia the daughter. How about - "Chunibhai was from a wealthy Ismaili Khoja family, which was reported to have 'embraced Hinduism', without entirely relinquishing Ismaili loyalties (and here footnote: quote about them continuing to regard the Agha Khan as a religious mentor)". Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:41, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

The source starts out with, "But there was something oddly rebellious about Chunibhai himself, ..." Rebellion is an important aspect of his personality. It was mentioned in the very first source about Bitti being Muslim. It underpins his behavior. All I can accept is: "Chunnibhai was considered rebellious; he was from an Ismaili Khoja family, which according to one source had come to "embrace Hinduism," in the previous generation, without entirely relinquishing Ismaili loyalties. Bitti belonged to a Muslim family." "according to one source" is necessary, for we have only one. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Our versions are practically the same. I just removed him being a rebel since this article is not about him; his rebellious nature is attributed here to him allowing Dimple to act in movies and in the book to marrying Bitti. See the India Today article. The rest - "Chunibhai was from a wealthy Ismaili Khoja family, which was reported (can add by India Today) to have 'embraced Hinduism', without entirely relinquishing Ismaili loyalties (and here footnote: quote about them continuing to regard the Agha Khan as a religious mentor)" - is similar to yours, just instead of writing previous generation, I'm writing, "the family he came from" - which is, indeed the previous generation. Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay - I personally strongly believe Bitti was Gujarati and Ismaili as well just like her husband. Sadly, nothing exists on it. My suggestion is,

"Chunibhai was from a wealthy Ismaili Khoja family, which was reported (by India Today) to have 'embraced Hinduism', without relinquishing Ismaili loyalties; he and Bitti followed Aga Khan as their religious mentor."

I think that would be true considering Dimple's self-reported story. Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:04, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

This is not a small issue. It is the matter of someone's heritage in a section which is titled "Background." There is no possibility for any a Narazi Ismaili to "accept" or "embrace" Hinduism within the fold of that Shia Islam faith. See here, the official website of the faith:

The Shia Imami Ismaili Muslims, generally known as the Ismailis, belong to the Shia branch of Islam. ... Throughout their 1,400 year history, the Ismailis have been led by a living, hereditary Imam. They trace the line of Imamat in hereditary succession from Ali, the cousin and son-in-law of Prophet Muhammad (may peace be upon him). ... They firmly believed that the legacy of Prophet Muhammad could only be entrusted to a member of his own family, in whom the Prophet had invested his authority through designation before his death. That person was Ali, Prophet Muhammad’s cousin, the husband of his daughter and only surviving child, Fatima. The institution of Imamat was to continue thereafter on a hereditary basis, succession being based on designation by the Imam of the Time. ... In time, the Shia were sub-divided. The Ismailis gave their allegiance to Imam Jafar as-Sadiq’s eldest son Ismail, from whom they derive their name. The Ismailis continue to believe in the line of Imamat in hereditary succession continuing from Ismail to His Highness the Aga Khan, who is their present, 49th Imam in direct lineal descent from Prophet Muhammad.

I have changed my comments to an oppose. I see the issue of the parents' religion to be symptomatic of the overall weakness of this submission, of the inability to source, to cite, to paraphrase, to separate what is plausible from what is not. This submission, and the nominator's recalcitrance in the face of numerous sources, is the reason that knowledgeable editors do not like to waste their time on FAC. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:53, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

This is almost funny - an oppose put to impose the removal of one word, which is perfectly sourced, without even reading this article. Anyway, you have already posted threats of opposing this article based on this one sentence appearing or not. And now that it's on, you demand that it be written your way and according to your belief, and not according to sources. I'm not intimidated by this oppose. I do not let religious agenda become part of my work.

The quote you've added, how is that even related to Dimple Kapadia?

Hi there, user:Aoba47, user:Encyclopædius, user:indopug - please weigh in on this issue and let's work out a version.

User:Fowler&fowler does not want the word Hinduism to be mentioned despite the fact that it is mentioned in the sources. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• Halim, Moeena (19 December 2016), Twinkle 'Funnybones' Khanna: The author who puts a bit of herself in her characters, India Today Quote: "Inspired by her maternal grandmother, who would drag her to the Ismaili jamatkhana (community centre), Noni and her sister Binni were originally supporting characters in the novel she began writing as a teenager." That is Bitti Kapadia who is doing the dragging. The Ismaili Jamatkhanas are uniquely Ismaili houses of worship; see Why Ismaili Jamatkhanas are only open to Ismaili for prayers which says, "One of the ways in which Ismailis have expressed their identity wherever they have lived is through their places of prayer, known today as the Jamatkhana." See also Wikipedia's own page, Ismaili Jamatkhana. I hope this belies any notion of the family's lapsed Ismailism. I mean the evidence is that Dimple's mother was taking Dimple's granddaughter to the house of worship of a religion that professes belief in Muhammad, whom they view as: "the final Prophet and Messenger of God to all humanity" Please take out the gratuitous mention of Hinduism. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:27, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, this is exactly what I just found - I tried Twinkle Khanna Ismaili, among others.

But why should Hinduism be removed from the mention of Chunibhai's family? These sources do not contradict at all the previous ones; the previous sources maintain the same claim, that they are Aga Khanis.

I would suggest, "Chunibhai was from a wealthy Khoja family, which was reported (by India Today) to have 'embraced Hinduism', without relinquishing Ismaili loyalties; he and Bitti, also an Ismaili, followed Aga Khan as their religious mentor."

This version takes all sources into consideration, which we, as neutral editors, should be doing. Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:35, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I have gone back to my final proposal (please scroll above). It is what the sources say reliably. You are welcome to nickel and dim off-handed remarks in whatever fashion you would like. Ismailism, which is an integral part of Shia Islam, of necessity and non-negotiably monotheistic, does not allow its adherents, even the wayward ones, to "embrace" Hinduism, a polytheistic religion. I am done. My oppose stands. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:54, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you even realise how much your "final proposal" (which is rather - "either my version or oppose") is inappropriate on FAC. Please don't think that I would comply with violating Wikipedia policies just to have this oppose removed. FAC voting is supposed to be based on constructive criticism and not disagreement with a single word based on personal opinions.

Well, for your information, Twinkle Khanna is half Hindu, so how can you speak of Ismailism being the "necessity and non-negotiably monotheistic, does not allow its adherents, even the wayward ones, to 'embrace' Hinduism"? You see, your theories are practically just yours, and your knowledge is clearly defied by reality as it is reported in reliable sources. See what she says on Rediff.com (November 2016):

My grandmother is an Aga Khani so she would take Rinke and me to the jamatkhana. I had a multicultural exposure, that's why I don't believe in a particular religion. I have respect for most because I grew up surrounded by so many.

I think that's a serious case of Wikipedia:I just don't like it on your part. You have several sources which do not contradict each other in any way, but the word Hinduism is the one that you just can't deal with. I wish I knew why. Here's my modified version (based on the sources and not what is "likely" or "possible" and adhering to Wikipedia policy:

Chunibhai was from a wealthy Ismaili Khoja family, whose members had—according to India Today—"embraced Hinduism" without relinquishing Ismaili loyalties; Bitti was an Ismaili, too, and the couple followed Aga Khan as a religious mentor. When barely a month old, Dimple was given the name Ameena (literally, "honest" or "trustworthy" in Arabic) by Aga Khan III, although she was never referred to by it.

What do you say? Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Verifiability or truth?

Dear @FAC coordinators: and anyone involved: Hi there, everyone. This article has been nominated for a month. User:fowler&fowler stepped in and suggested that her religion is added although no sources seemed available. He even posted a threat that based on the absence of religion in her background, he shall oppose. I finally did find sources for her father's religion. And here they are:

Open magazine (2019) in a piece about Dimple Kapadia's daughter says (link):

...nurtured in an eccentric lapsed Ismaili Khoja family ... Her maternal grandfather, Chunibhai, was infamously disowned by his father, Laljibhai—who had embraced Hinduism, but continued to regard the Agha Khan as his religious mentor—when he allowed his daughter, Dimple, to act in Bobby

India Today (1985) (link):

The wealthy Khoja family, which embraced Hinduism only with Chunibhai's father, Laljibhai, and which accepts the Agha Khan as its religious mentor even now, disowned Dimple's father the day he agreed to Raj Kapoor's proposal to let her sign for Bobby.

Based on these sources, I've added the following sentence on the article:

Chunibhai belonged to a wealthy family of lapsed Ismaili Khojas who accepted Hinduism but continued following Aga Khan as their mentor; Bitti was Muslim

User:Fowler&fowler demanded that Hinduism be removed and suggested a rather weird version, IMO, which clearly violates WP:VNT, WP:POV, and WP:OR. He said that it's not likely that this would be true. I did not agree and I identified right away that something is really strange in his insistence to remove that word and to include her Muslim background without any additions that appear in the two sources. I don't mind removing the mention of religions altogether. But this oppose is solely based on this one sentence. User:fowler&fowler admittedly did not even read the article and now opposes it because I follow sources and not his personal will. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:34, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Her parents religion is just not important. It should obvious to the delegates in reading the above comments and being aware of Fowler' s history at FAC.† Encyclopædius 12:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Shahid - Don’t sweat it. When the FA coordinators come to consider this candidate, they will give the above Oppose the weight it deserves. KJP1 (talk) 13:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much, User:Encyclopædius and User:KJP1. I find fowler's remarks really offensive - to not read the article and still oppose it based on one word and some weird anti-Hindu sentiment (not referring to the user's intentions, I don't want to speculate, but specifically to the bottom line of his comments). I can't understand how I'm expected to accept his insistence to accept only part of what the source says because he finds it "unlikely" or less "possible" in view of his common knowledge. This is against everything that Wikipedia is about. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Apologies for the late response. I am honestly uncertain about how to feel on this situation. Maybe it's because I know next to nothing about India and its culture to really understand this discussion on religion or it's because the above discussion is rather long and dense with information. For those reasons, I do not feel comfortable offering an opinion on it, but I still wanted to post at least this response since I was pinged. I agree with the above commentators that the FA coordinators will take everything into account to reach some sort of conclusion. They are far more qualified than I am to weigh in on this discussion. Apologies again for not being much help here. Aoba47 (talk) 16:05, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Trust me, this long discussion is forced upon me because I'm not willing to give up Wikipedia policy in the face of ferocious attempts which I think everyone knows what stands behind them. I wrote an article about an actress, what I'm interested in here is her art and work. Instead, I'm stuck discussing one sentence in the background section, which is treated with such fervent worry by the other user that he is willing to oppose a nomination on nothing but his interpretation not being accepted. This is amusing even to me. Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:15, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Have you considered ignoring what Fowler&fowler has to say and putting it down to simply someone who knows nothing about featured articles trying to convince everyone that they know everything about featured articles? Cassianto^Talk 07:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Cassianto, I have, but I also have to make sure the co-ords are aware of how preposterous this oppose is. Shahid • ^Talk2me 08:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

The disruptive behaviour displayed by this third-rate reviewer is nothing new and has been going on for a while. I'm sure at least two of the coords can see this. I will take a look at this article tonight. Cassianto^Talk 11:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Cassianto Please don't ping me with ungrammatical sentences. "Putting it down" needs a possesive: "to someone's trying to convince ...." Also, Shshshsh Please be aware that I too can wildly ping people. FAC regulars know nothing about India. I can ping people who do: such as Abecedare, RegentsPark, Vanamonde93, Sitush, Kautilya3, Dwaipayan, Joshua Jonathan, Spaceman Spiff, Doug Weller, ... , which I am not, only pointing out a whole other level of relevant expertise. Contrast this submission with Pather Panchali or Satyajit Ray. Please also read my comments on the sources used in Section 2.1 (above). That's just one section. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:34, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

First, I pinged only the coordinators, and before that, only those who are already reviewers on this very page, so get your facts right. Dwaipayan is a editor whom I consider a wikifriend if you like, and he would never have adopted the kind of behavior you have been adopting on this page. As for Pather Panchali, I happen to have been its GA reviewer, so I don't need to contrast. I still am amused by your inexplicable insistence to do everything you can to remove one single word simply based on your POV and nothing else. But I realise now that this behavior is not news to anyone, so you might want to consider altering your ways, including accepting Wikipedia's spirit and its policies, including WP:POV, WP:OR, WP:VNT, and WP:AGF. Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

How does it matter who you pinged? I did not ping anyone. I obviously read the FAC review of Pather Panchali. It doesn't matter who reviewed it where. Your article is nowhere near that level. That is my considered view. Anyone reading this can compare the two. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:50, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

It was my reply to your statement, "Please be aware that I too can wildly ping people", which I didn't do. The comparison between a film article and an actor article, is puzzling, and it shows how little you probably know about this area. Other than that, I can't bother myself to take your words seriously knowing that you simply opposed this article based on some minor religious issue, and now doing everything you can to seemingly justify this oppose in what I see as an attempt to destroy this FAC. I can't appreciate that. Neither can I appreciate your unconstructive comments; throwing empty lines that this article is "nowhere near that level" is not what FAC requires of its reviewers; constructive, actionable comments are. Also, this is not my article, as you wrongly put it, I'm merely a contributor and I'm trying my best. I'm always excited contributing to articles about Indian film articles; that's my only motivation. Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:18, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Shahid I suggest that you disengage with Fowler and let the coordinators decide whether or not to take into account their comments. If you continue to struggle to reach agreement, you will be bombarded by walls of text that boil down to little or nothing that is actionable. This unacceptable, confrontational approach to "reviewing" by this editor has been seen before. While we cannot easily prevent such "reviews", we can ignore them.Graham Beards (talk) 17:38, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

In other words, when F&f ridicules the reliability of

Her expressive eyes effectively conveyed teen angst. And when she emerged nymph-like from the pool in a red bikini, Dimple, despite her puppy fat, had teenagers enthralled. Her knotted polka-dotted blouse and earphone hairstyle were wildly emulated.

from which you had quoted, please don't write at 17:53 on 25 May: "Needless to say, your last line is a lie; this quote does not appear on the article and never has." and then at 10:01 on 26 May, quietly change the quote with an opaque edit summary. No worries that we are talking about India of 1973 the monthly income of whose citizens was $70 and the literacy rate of whose females, 80% of whom lived in villages, was 20%. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:45, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

A) This quote in its entirety did not appear on the article, as you wrongly suggested. B) Even if it was, there would be no problem with that - that's the style of writing employed in articles about films and is legitimate critique of her performance and appearance, written by film critic, author and historian Dinesh Raheja. Ask me whose reliability is stronger, yours or Raheja's, and I'll have a clear answer. C) It was replaced by a different quote, because I thought it was better and more detailed in the description of her clothing, so what's the problem? D) The literacy part which concluded your message is irrelevant. E) It appears that your "comments" are found to be grossly unconstructive by numerous prolific editors who are responsible for many FAs, so you might want to reconsider your style and repeated pattern of behavior, which does not contribute but rather aims to do the opposite when your agenda is not satisfied. Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Historian? No.

Historians are those whom I cited in the lead of the India page when it appeared for its second TFA on 2 October 2019, Gandhi's 150th anniversary. See India. The great historian of India, Peter Robb (at SOAS) or the great historical demographer of India Tim Dyson at LSE, both cited there, do not have Wikipedia pages. The even greater historians of India Judith Brown at Oxford, the late Eric Stokes and D. A. Low at Cambridge or Thomas R. Metcalf at Berkeley did not have WP pages until I made them. But please, let us be clear. We are talking about people who edit their own Wikipedia pages and write: Dimple: A Most Unusual Woman Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:39, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes - film historians, they exist. Assuming it's him editing, he did not create his own article, just made minor changes. Anyway, whom you cited on the India article is of really no relevance here, not that what you wrote here before is. Shahid • ^Talk2me 23:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Sources and Inference

I have examined the sources and inference in the Lead, sections 1, 2.1, 2.3, and 2.6 of Dimple Kapadia. Better ones are often available and their views are at variance with that of the article. The conclusions drawn are not always supported by the sources. Important details of DK's background, childhood (the makings of a child star), and marriage (the toxic relationship with her husband) are not made explicit. Unimportant details of adult life, such as DK's candle-making hobby, are dwelled on. Unfavorable views of DK are largely avoided, making the article complimentary in tone. Much is made of Indian film awards such as Filmfare which seem to be vanity awards. There is a dutiful enumeration of her films, which on account of her having made over 90, constitutes the bulk of the article. In the instances in which third-party (i.e. NY Times, for example) views are available, they seldom match those of the Indian sources. In the period 1985–2020, the Indian sources used seem to be given to adulation. I have presented the evidence at Talk:Dimple_Kapadia#Sources_and_Inference. I would request the nominator, or others, to comment (if they need to) either below or at the talk page. I have also preserved a copy at User:Fowler&fowler/Sources in Dimple Kapadia. I will however now not be commenting further in this article, unless I am requested to do so by the FAC coordinators. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:20, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I was advised to ignore your comments because of their lack of validity. What you presented here is indeed not very worthy of comment, but to make it easier for the co-ords, I will still reply as briefly as I can. As for you "not be commenting further in this article", you have said it several times but never kept this word. Anyway:

Generally, most of what you present here is, for the nth time, mostly reliant on WP:OR. Just empty blocks of unrelated quotes which do not refute anything in the article (User:HJ Mitchell read it as well and commented on its "relevance" below). My general overview is (including response to your general remarks here in this section):

• The only partly relevant points: her residence in Santa Cruz was addressed (just required moving one citation but you dedicated whole unnecessary quotes to it), so was the part about her marriage experience, which was elaborated on (required adding two words) and information about film offers as a child.
• "Unfavorable views of DK are largely avoided" - is a blatant lie, and it shows you haven't read the article (please note this, dear co-ords). Throughout the article - you can see quotes about her that she is "over-the-top and jerky", "laughably wrong", "loud and forced", "forgettable", "embarrassment" (twice), "inconsequential", "excessively overacted", "pales into insignificance", "preachy", "she wears a permanent scowl" and her films labelled "embarrassing", "sleazy sensationalism", "vulgarity spattering through the screen", "B grade movie". Even in her public image, it is mentioned that she is considered to be aggressive, and that her "unpredictable nature and moods have distanced many well wishers". If you'd read the article and not just a few lines, you would never have written what you wrote.
• Details of her business are important. It's not a hobby but an official business which is still going, and it is perfectly sourced.
• The relationship with her husband - according to me very important - if you did read the article you would see that often times critics cite her relationship with her husband as the possible reason for her convincing performances in Kaash, Drishti and so on. Mahesh Bhatt actually cast her in the former because he believed her marital experience might benefit the part; author Virdi mentions that she picked roles where she "drew from the well of her own experience" - the reader would never get it unless he/she saw some of her statements about her own marriage. I elaborated more on the specific reasons she cited for the seaparation.

As for your points, which I kept reading without understanding in 95% of the time what you want. But here it is:

• p. 1: Your assertion that the first source supports only the fact that she was a leading star in "commercial" Hindi cinema is first in violation of WP:SYNTHESIS. But even if it wasn't, the book, which is cited on the article, makes a distinction between Hindi cinema and Bengali art cinema (mentioning Satyajit Ray). Actually no clarification is needed because the article already does it by linking Bollywood, mainstream Hindi cinema, as the Hindi film industry. That is, the claim is totally rational here, not to mention the fact that the lead mentions in the second paragraph that she later moved from mainstream to art cinema, which only clarifies it more.
• p. 2-4: And again, most of your text is about the same thing which is the only reason for your oppose: her parents' Islamic religion and your mantra of 'remove the Hinduism part because I don't like it and it makes no sense to me' and so on - sorry but no, only reliable sources will be followed, and not your opinions on what is likely. Can't you let it go and just accept what the sources say? Your points from 2-4 are exactly what we have already discussed about religion and most editors here disagree with you. You even went as far as to look for her paternal grandfather's brother's death notice, which does not have any relevance to this article and makes no mention of religion in the first place? Sorry, I'll ignore this part and this consistent OR. Move on.
• p. 5: As said above, this comment just required moving a source, but you chose to just fill it with so much unnecessary text.
• p. 6: (partly actionable although not very necessary: added information about her early missed opportunities to act in films) Saying that the article "neglects the child star in the making" because her mother sang songs to her and she was considered for some role but eventually didn't do it, is really just trivia according to me. You filled your section with many quotes of pure trivia, evidently added to make it look as though you're saying something of note, but actually is says so little. Why is it really relevant that she was the neighbor of some sound recordist? I think it's really ridiculous. Anyway, I did add information about her early opportunities to act in films due to her father's contacts - you see you just need to ask, it's that simple, and if your comment is constructive or actionable (which, sadly, it mostly isn't) I'm more than willing to address it as I did here.
• p. 7: Saying that author Elisabeth Bumiller's words are more important that what Dimple Kapadia herself says, namely information right from the horse's mouth, is really funny. I'd rather use her later quote from an interview. But anyway, this comment is quite unnecessary - there's absolutely no contradiction here because the article exactly mentions "Reportedly, it was Khanna who had forbidden her acting career following the marriage" (in accordance with Harry's comment below, changed it from disapproval to forbidding).
• p. 8-9;12: Empty point - Not sure what you want here. The Bobby part includes many books now as sources ("Bobby book", "Bollywood: A Guidebook to Popular Hindi Cinema", "100 Essential Indian Films", "Bollywood's India: A Public Fantasy"), but you're adding a NYT article suggesting it has more weight? Sorry, I do not accept it. Moreover, I can't see how it contradicts what the other sources are saying - I could just add it to support the existing text (did). I removed the "critical" success part, it was a mainstream success and it's enough. I don't think a NYT critic has more weight than an Indian one - Qurratulain Hyder - that sort of Western sentiment is not one I'm convinced to follow. Other than that, you really loaded one section with many quotes including critics' biographical entries from Britannica (?) and I can't understand why. Then you gave the entire quote by Hyder wondering why I didn't include it all - well, the answer is simple, I believed just using part of it ("acted with natural ease and freshness") was enough and I can't understand the complaint - two editors who reviewed the article suggested to cut down some of the quotes and I followed this actionable/constructive comment. As for the 12th point, your addition that such culture (Kapadia's clothing) did or did not exist in India, talking about some authors presenting conflicting observations about the fashion of those times in India is, again, just WP:OR, totally irrelevant, and quite tiresome. We follow sources - I've used direct quotes from books and included journalists' words about the influence of her outfits, from Dinesh Raheja, Bhawana Somaaya, The Tribune, and Hyder, and two books. Another book was added now called "Raj Kapoor Speaks". Why is this penchant trying to put on that one actress's shoulders the entire history of India's religion and fashion instead of strictly focusing on what the sources say?
• p. 10: Saying that Filmfare awards are "vanity awards" is really not relevant here and is again pure POV. You could say it about any award, and your claim that "much is made" of them on this article is false - nothing is made of them - it's just mentioned that she won them! And it is supported by reliable sources! I really do not understand this comment. You know how many people write excessively on the Oscars and their perceived lack of credibility? I really do not understand its relevance here.
• p. 11: Empty point - Please explain your part about Leela. I presented two reviews, one from Maitland McDonagh and one from an Indian critic from The Hindu (out of which only two words are quoted), and you're presenting another one which neither adds not contradicts anything, and does not even discuss Kapadia's performance. What exactly are you trying to say.
• p. 13: More on the same - Wikipedia is not our own personal project - it follows policies and guidelines which we must abide by. This article uses 22 books - book sources were used where books were available. Your claim that most of the sources are from 1985 and on is, again, a clear proof you haven't read it, because in actual fact 95% of her career is from 1985 onward. As for the type of source, I can't see what's wrong with newspapers and magazines for this subject, these are the primary sources used by every BLP actor FA, and I can't see why that wouldn't be so. On this article, I made sure the best sources were used - WP:RS and WP:V are largely followed, and I consistently tried to find the better authors (authorlinks provided as well where necessary). The article uses views from the feminist magazine Manushi by acdemics such as Madhu Kishwar, Ruth Vanita and Mukul Kesavan. Famous and noted critics and film historians (including Chidananda Dasgupta, Khalid Mohamed, Subhash K. Jha, Dinesh Raheja, Saibal Chatterjee, Anupama Chopra and Vinayak Chakravorty, most of whom appear to have written books on cinema, and shouldn't be downgraded for writing in newspapers). What I can't help is your gratuitous comparison between this article and Pather Panchali (1955) for the second time already (nothing wrong with it, I was its GA reviewer). Is this some kind of a joke? You're comparing an actress to a 1955 art film and questioning the significant difference in the sourcing? Do you even realise the huge difference between actors and films, and that naturally their articles can never look the same or will actually rather be necessarily different? Do you realise this film was released before Kapadia was even born? What type of a comparison is this? Why wouldn't you compare it to FAs on Julianne Moore, Rani Mukerji, Vidya Balan, Kate Winslet, Angelina Jolie (almost none of which use books at all)?

Anyway, I really can't take this seriously. You opposed it based on one word(!) and now trying to dismiss it with empty, really empty comments, which seem to be just trying to do one thing, waste time. Shahid • ^Talk2me 08:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

F&f's continuing source review

Section 1, paragraph 2

• (sentence 1) Where does it say, "Kapadia separated from Khanna in April 1982?" The source says only that she walked out; it mentions sepration somewhere else. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:11, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
• (sentence 2) Where does the source say, "She returned to acting two years later" (i.e. in some form that can be paraphrased so)? I see only, "And when she decided to walk out on hubby Rajesh Khanna after 10 years of marriage and two daughters, Ramesh Sholay Sippy paired her opposite Rishi once again. A triangular love story set against the backdrop of a fisherman's colony, Saagar (1985) ..." Am I missing something? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:23, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

First, please take your comments to your original section instead of messing up the FAC. As for your comments:

• The source explicitly says "...thus virtually came to an end when, one day in April 1982, Dimple, accompanied by her two daughters, Twinkle and Pinkie, then aged eight years and five years respectively, arrived in her parents' home, determined not to go back this time"

• I just said above "She walked out ...," but separation is a different thing. Where does it say, "She separated from Khanna in 1982?" Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:47, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• It says the marriage "came to an end" with Dimple walking out and moving to her parents' place. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:55, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• How does "The ... marriage ... thus virtually came to an end when, one day in April 1982, Dimple, ... arrived in her parents' home, determined not to go back" mean separation? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:05, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• Well it does, according to me. And we might disagree as we disagree on practically everything. Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• The source explicitly mentions 1984 as the year of her first film of return, but I changed it to a better source which mentions the return. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:33, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Where does it explicitly mention 1984 as the year of her first film of return? All I see is: "After false starts including Zakhmi Sher (1984), Dimple made a thumping comeback with a double role in Mukul Anand's Insaaf (1987)." And what is this new source, you need to engage me here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:57, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Look, I added the Virdi source, you can look at it - "Eleven years after her debut, she returned to make a comeback film". Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:00, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I understand that you did, but again you need to engage me here, and also not to make up stuff, "explicitly mentions 1984 as the year of her first film of return." OK. I'll look at Virdi. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:09, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I did not make up stuff, the Raheja article mentions 1984 as the year of Zakhmi Sher, her first film. Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Again: "After false starts including Zakhmi Sher (1984), Dimple made a thumping comeback with a double role in Mukul Anand's Insaaf (1987)" It says nowhere that it was her first film. This is symptomatic of the errors of paraphrasing that populate the article.

The Virdi source proves it already. Stop using words like "symptomatic" unless you prove it. Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:26, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

True, my error. Apologies Anyway, let's move on. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:23, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• (Sentence 3) "sharing her unhappy marital experience, including inequality and infidelity on his part." What is "inequality" on his part? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:27, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• You're right for once, changed to "inequality and his infidelity" Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:42, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• (Sentence 4) "The hostility between Khanna and Kapadia had faded over the years, and in spite of not having ever reunited, they were seen together at parties, she worked in his self-produced film Jai Shiv Shankar (1990) and even campaigned for his election.

• Need a semi-colon after parties.
• The first source says, "He turned a leaf, and donned the hat of producer and started a film called Jai Shiv Shankar, with Dimple cast opposite him in the lead. For reasons unknown, the film was never released, although the shooting was completed." (It is page 153, by the way.)

• Would "acted opposite him in his unreleased film Jai Shiv Shankar (1990)" be better than "worked in?" "his" means produced by him.

• Also, the reader as this point in the narrative is not aware that Rajesh Khanna is dead. Would it be better to write: The hostility between Khanna and Kapadia subsided over the years; they were seen together at parties despite never having reunited; she acted opposite him in his unreleased ...?" Semi-colons can separate a list .Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:02, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• All done along the lines of your comment. Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:11, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• (Sentence 5): "In a later interview after Khanna's death, she reflected back positively on her marriage, referring to it as her "biggest high".ref

• She is not reflecting about the marriage only reliving her first year of stardom (Q: You became a teenage sensation after ... Could you relive that moment for readers of this generation? "DK "I wish I could relive ... [pauses]." Interviewer: "Go on..." DK: "The biggest high for me was to marry Rajesh Khanna. That was a high and I don’t think my success was as much of a high as getting married to this superstar. I used to be a big fan of his, it was dream come true.") i.e. "reflecting back positively" implies a reassessment of marriage. This is not that. Also "after his death" is POV for it implies in the face of his death. The article, however, was written in 2014; he died in 2012. This entire sentence has to go. It is POV. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:43, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• I disagree with you that it's POV because the article states exactly what the source says. But it might be good to remove it anyway. Maybe we should not say "the marriage" but other than that I see no problem including it. Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:48, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• If you want to mention her reliving this time, then it belongs to the second paragraph just before "She retired from ..." You could add there: The wedding, performed ... her first film, Bobby. Reliving this time many years later, she called marrying Khanna "the biggest high" of her year of stardom, "a dream come true." She retired from acting Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:16, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• I'll see how to do it. If you have other comments, please keep them on the talk page. This FAC has been archived. Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:21, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• (Sentence 6): Asked in Filmfare whether she would want to remarry, Kapadia replied, "I'm very happy and content ... Once was more than enough."(deadlink)

You should state which year it was she was asked this; it was 2000. It is important in the biography of an evolving actress. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Done. Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:53, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Comment by an interested bystander

• I am not a FAC reviewer, nor do I write articles. However I read them and am always interested in whether and/or how the subject of an Indian BLP identifies. Is there a reason why info regarding her religious background is hard to find for your subject? Is it a career move, for example? I don't think it is a small issue. See (Violence against Muslims in India, Religious violence in India. Thank you, Kalbbes (talk) 19:37, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
  • That would be terrible, and I don't think so (or at least would refuse to believe such things ever existed around her time in the movies) - for the past 30 years, the biggest stars in India have been Muslim. Back in the day (40s-60s) some stars such as Dilip Kumar, Nargis and Meena Kumari did change their names, but I'm pretty sure today they wouldn't even dare to think in that direction. As for Kapadia, I'd be very surprised if that was the reason - women like Shabana Azmi and Zeenat Aman came around the same time and hid nothing. Actually I assume she has never explicitly mentioned her religion because she does not really identify by one. To me she gives the impression of being quite a secular person. Today, you could sometimes see her wear a bindi and look totally traditional and at others look as Western as you could imagine. Also, her family indeed was quite unusual from what I understand - wealthy, socially conservative but at the same time somewhat experimental (for lack of a better word) as regards religion on the father's side; she went on to marry at a very young age a man from a different religion; her grandfather disowned her father not because of this marriage but for allowing her entry into films. Bottom line - I think it just doesn't matter to her, but I really don't know enough. Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Kalbbes: That is my suspicion. I don't know at what age two of the four children, potential child actors, legally changed their names to nicknames "Dimple" and "Simple," and two kept their Muslim names (Reem and Suhail). The decision was obviously made by the parents, i.e. by the earlier generation. ( The older Bollywood actors, Dilip Kumar, Meena Kumari, Madhubala, Suraiyya, ... (not Nargis, whose name is a Muslim name, Persian نرگس for narcissus) were it seems openly known to be Muslim. I've just been ramping up on Dilip Kumar's much-publicized wedding to Saira Bano in 1966.) My suspicions became aroused, at the lack of evidence, the complete silence about the mother's funeral, and so forth, and the unlikely post-dated stories about the followers of the Aga Khan embracing Hinduism, stories being doled out in trickles, many years apart. India was much more secular then than it is now. As for the bias, the NPOV lead in 2020 Delhi riots survives, but barely. See the talk page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:42, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

PS It is not uncommon, it seems, for Bollywood actors to make up stuff and for the media, even the Economist, to carry it. Ms Kapadia's son-in-law, a Bollywood actor, Mr Akshay Kumar, had made up stuff about his dual citizenship: "I have a strong affiliation with Canada and also have dual citizenship." I had to correct Mr Kumar's page. For it seems the Constitution of India does not allow it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• I don't believe User:Fowler&fowler is a "third rate reviewer". That is not what I've observed on enwiki. Quite the opposite. Whoever they are, they are obviously very smart and knowledgeable. Kalbbes (talk) 13:42, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't know whom you're quoting, I didn't use that language. I do have to say, however, that personal knowledge notwithstanding, this is not what reviewing is all about. The FAC is very clear about what it requires of its reviewers. What he's been doing here is not reviewing, but rather imposing his own POV, and then, just nitpicking. An article on a film actress, who has never identified by a religion, has become the subject of one ongoing, pointless and fruitless "debate" on her parents' religion. This is really unfair. Wikipedia, as I'm sure you know, welcomes people to share knowledge, but not conduct original research. Everything should be properly sourced in accordance with policies and not personal opinions, a concept which this user is probably not familiar with. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• I agree with Kalbbes. In my experience, paying attention to what Fowler says always leads to better articles. Shahid, I've said this before and will say it again, you should either address comments you don't agree with or just ignore them. Attacking the messenger is never a good idea.--regentspark (comment) 16:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I didn't attack him, RegentsPark. Others did in the section above and on the FAC talk page, and apparently for reason. Actually they didn't attack him, but dismissed his review as a non-review just along the lines of his own dismissive, unconstructive attitude. All I see is one user's persistent attempt to destroy an FAC with empty walls of text just because no one agreed with him. So please note that it's not a matter of agreement, there's nothing to agree or disagree with. The only thing which has come out of his comments is one line which on religion which has become the subject of an ongoing, fruitless discussion. Anyway, we're not here to discuss this user, so let's move this to another place, because frankly there's a lot to discuss. Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments by indopug

Initial comments

• Kapadia is barely visible in the infobox. Please add a closer, well-lit portrait crop of her face so that the reader can see what she looks like.
  • Done. Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:14, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
• Since Commons has many free pictures of her, you should sprinkle a few throughout the article. See if you can justify a few non-free stills of her iconic roles.
  • Most of the images on commons are of poor quality. The only one that can be used has been added now in 2010s section. As for non-free stills, I wish I could use some. I did add some in the past for her famous roles, using fair-use rationale, but all of them were sadly eventually removed and deleted, so I'm avoiding the use of non-free images. Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
• "Bombay, Bombay State, India (present-day Mumbai, Maharashtra)" in the infobox is needlessly complicated. Just "Bombay, India" will suffice IMO, at most "Bombay (Mumbai), India".
  • Done. Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
• No Indian has a clue how much ₹2.13 billion is LOL.—indopug (talk) 16:22, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Done, it's "₹2.13 billion (US$26 million)" now.

• I meant you should express Rupee figures in lakhs and crores (the $ figure you added will suffice for non-Indians). "Billions of rupees" is incoherent for Indians.—indopug (talk) 15:45, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Indopug, just wondering if you have some additional comments for improvement, now that those raised above have been addressed. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:42, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. I'm happy with the changes you've made. I think this article is very good already; I will try to do a section-by-section copyedit and detailed review over the coming week.—indopug (talk) 15:45, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text
  • Done. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:15, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
• File:Pranab_Mukherjee_presenting_the_Padma_Bhushan_Award_to_Smt._Dimple_Kapadia_on_behalf_of_her_husband_late_Shri_Rajesh_Khanna,_at_an_Investiture_Ceremony-II,_at_Rashtrapati_Bhavan,_in_New_Delhi_on_April_20,_2013_(cropped).jpg: what leads you to believe this was published under the given license? On a quick look I don't see it at the source site, and the licensing terms seem to be tailored to data rather than media. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:47, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Well, I'm not the who uploaded it or added it on the article, but on its commons page, it's specifically indicated that it "was reviewed on 2018-08-22 by the administrator or reviewer GazothBot, who confirmed that it was available on that source on that date." Anyway, I did remove it for now, Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:15, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Support by Encyclopædius

I very rarely review articles these days, too much to do, but I've watched this one progress over a long time and am happy to review it. Kidding aside, it looks in good shape overall and to be fair it's balanced out as you say. I'll give it a full read later in the week. She is still on my watchlist LOL!† Encyclopædius 16:39, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Looking forward to your comments :) Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:42, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi there Blofeld, don't mean to bother you, but since you've shown interest in reviewing the article, this is a reminder in case it still stands and you have some free time. Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Lead

• "Kapadia continued working infrequently in the subsequent decades" - Kapadia has worked less frequently since the mid 1990s?
  • Done. Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Background

• b. = born, no need for shorthand.
  • Done. Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• though Kapadia has once - remove "has"
  • Done. Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Career

• Second paragraph in my opinion is excessive, even if I understand it's her debut film. Try to shorten it. There shouldn't really be two different paragraphs covering the same topic. Where it says "Several of her lines in the film became popular, particularly, "Mujhse dosti karoge?" ("Will you be my friend?") I would say something like "Several of her lines in the film became popular, particularly, "Mujhse dosti karoge?" ("Will you be my friend?", and her "knotted polka-dotted blouse and earphone hairstyle" worn in the film made her into a fashion icon". You take several sentences discussing something which really shouldn't be more than a sentence or two.
  • Done, shortened. I actually don't know enough about the subject and the fashion; I just saw excessive amount of coverage given to her being a sort of fashion icon and felt it would be of note including it. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• " leading and most popular" - WP:Peacock advises against the word "leading".
  • Done. Actually both popular and leading seem to be deprecated when not used in the right context, but I've removed the popular, although if you insist could keep it and leave out the leading. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• " A review by Asiaweek labelled her "a delight"" - I don't see any encyclopedic value in including this.
  • It's a film review with critique about her performance. It was important to me to find a review which was specifically published upon the film's release, and I would suggest keeping it. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• " She later said making the film was "one big picnic", though she expressed her lack of comfort performing the "routine song-and-dance" nature of the part." -as the reader I really don't care about what she feels. "In 1984 she had a role opposite Sunny Deol in Manzil Manzil, a drama directed by Nasir Hussain, before starring in Mukul Anand's Aitbaar (1985), a Hitchcockian thriller in which her role as Neha, a wealthy young woman whose greedy husband (played by Raj Babbar) plots to murder her, received positive reviews. Again I don't care about her feeling nervous.
  • Rewrote some. As for the experience on sets, totally true. As for not being comfortable performing dance songs and being nervous while performing a role (particular the latter), I'd argue it's quite relevant to give the readers a glimpse here and there into an actor's mind and how the process of creating a character was achieved. I specifically added it because she was exceptionally unconfident about her talent after her return. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• "Feroz Khan's Janbaaz (1986) told " - "told" or "tells", we don't use past tense when referring to films.
  • Done. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• " steamy love scene" - if it was just a kiss, hardly "steamy", and the shower scene in the Specialist, just "love scene" will do
  • Done. Haha you know it's Bollywood! Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• "She has confessed to accepting these roles for financial gain rather than artistic merit during this period, noting, " - the lead implies she was a big success after returning in 1984 but if she was in a bunch of crappy movies for money not fully honest. Perhaps add "After several flops", she went on to establish herself as one of the leading actresses of Hindi cinema in the 1980s in the lead.
  • Hmmm.. they're not necessarily flops, just bad films. See, in India of the 1970-80s actors were just working non-stop and I'm sure all of them including Bachchan don't remember some of their works. The films she mentioned were often so inconsequential that their profit was hardly reported, and some of those where coverage does exists actually did very well. I actually mentioned some of them in the last paragraph. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• "In 1988, she played the main protagonist Kiran Dutt in Zakhmi Aurat, that of a female police officer who gets gang-raped and, after the judicial system fails to convict the criminals, abandons the legal course and joins forces with other rape victims to get revenge by castrating the rapists." - needs rewording, try "In 1988, Kapadia portrayed a female police officer who is subject to gang rape in Zakhmi Aurat, and unites with other rape victims to castrate the rapists in revenge when the judicial system fails to convict them."
  • Done, rewrote it in light of your version. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• The reviews are excessive for this film, really needs chopping for flow and clarity, you keep going back and forth between positive and negative, lacks structure.
  • Right, because critics were really divided, and the film was very controversial, I mentioned them all. Anyway, I removed some quotes and shortened some. But there's no negative and positive as such - the film was negatively received and Kapadia was received well, and the only bad quote about her I saved for the end. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• "playing a joyous young woman who takes martial arts training " - "who trains in the martial arts" would read better
  • Done. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• 8 or eight?
  • Done. Eight it is. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• "Kapadia's part was that of career-woman Sandhya, and for her portrayal she was named the Best Actress (Hindi) of the year by the Bengal Film Journalists' Association." = Kapadia's portrayal of career-woman Sandhya earned her the Best Actress (Hindi) of the year award by the Bengal Film Journalists' Association.
• Done, partially. "earned award.. by critics association" doesn't work, so I just shortened it. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• "Referring to it once as "the most fantastic" part of her career, she recalled the working relationship with Gulzar as "a wonderful experience".[58] To make her character more truthful, Gulzar did not let Kapadia blink even once during filming, trying to capture an "endless, fixed gaze" which would give her "a feeling of being surreal".[59] " -given that you tell us nothing about the role really, it makes no sense to elaborate on it with all that.
  • Okay will do then. Actually this thing was suggested by another editor; and I find it an interesting fact. I wish articles would mention more the technical parts of actors' performances. It is mentioned though that she plays a restless sprite, and if it's her favorite role, I'd say it's noteworthy. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• "Based on Rabindranath Tagore's short story Hungry Stones, Lekin.." - That should be mentioned when you first start discussing Lekin
  • Done. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• "The critical response to Ajooba was mostly lukewarm" - you don't always need to mention what the critics thought, if it's luke warm I wouldn't bother, reads better without that short sentence.
  • Done. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• " She played the protagonist in Haque (1991), a political drama directed by Harish Bhosle and scripted by Mahesh Bhatt. Her role was that of Varsha B. Singh, a pregnant Orthodox woman married to an influential politician. Ram Awatar Agnihotri said of her performance: "Dimple Kapadia, playing Varsha, very bravely, tries to make her role look convincing, and she succeeds to a great extent. It is a tribute to her as an actress."[64]" = "In 1991 she played Varsha B. Singh, a pregnant Orthodox woman married to an influential politician in Harish Bhosle's political drama Haque, a role which critic??? Ram Awatar Agnihotri considered to be very convincing."
  • Done. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• "Bhatt called her performance "stunning" and reported that when shooting ended, she was "on the point of a breakdown" as she was "exhausted battling with the nitty-gritty" of her character - a missing quotation mark and unnecessary to write in quotes. I would simply say that "The intensity of the filming and enacting the character left her close to a breakdown after shooting ended".
  • Done. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• "no role worth her"" - I don't understand what you mean here.
  • The critic said she had not role worth her talent. I completed the sentence, tried to avoid it. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• "She appeared in Laawaris (1999) because she liked the subject and considered her role "substantial"," - I don't see the point in saying she liked the subject and it was substantial if you tell us nothing about the part
  • Done. Removed. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• "and Bella Jaisinghani of The Indian Express, calling the film "inconsequential", concluded her review wondering "what made Dimple Kapadia do this to herself"" = and Bella Jaisinghani of The Indian Express calling the film "inconsequential", leaving her to contemplate why she subjected herself to such film"
  • Hmm I think your version takes away from the context given by the quote, because it's a rather cynical remark by the critic. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• "Ziya Us Salam from The Hindu called her "a charmer all the way. Exhilarating is the air she breathes, bewitching is the glance she casts and enticingly vulnerable is her condition."[89]" - I would simply say "Ziy Us Salam of The Hindu found the film charming, describing her vulnerability in the film as "enticing".
  • He referred to Kapadia not the film. I can't possibly think of a way to write in my own words a review that has a rather poetic tone. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• I've noticed a number of instances in the article where you started a paragraph with "she" and then say Kapadia. Example: "In 2006, she co-starred with Saif Ali Khan and Naseeruddin Shah in the psychological drama Being Cyrus, an English-language arthouse feature directed by Homi Adajania. Kapadia enacted ". It should really be in In 2006, Kapadia. And then "she". Scan the article and where possible follow that.
  • Done, scanned across the board too. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• 7 or seven?
  • Done. Seven it is. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• " emerging as the popular film " - most popular?
  • Done. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• If it was a huge film and commercial success I would expect to see more than a two word quote even if she wasn't praised.
  • Done. I agree, another one added. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• "wrote of Kapadia that she" - there's a few of these which don't read well, I'd remove and reword
  • Done all cases. Changed to "wrote that Kapadia..." Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• "and Rajeev Masand found Kapadia to be "droll"." - I'd chop out this for readability, the "but" and then the "and" is jarring
• "Karamvir Kamal of The Asian Chronicle, however," - avoid "however"
  • Done. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Image and artistry

• Too many quotes, please convert more of them into your own prose. I find it very difficult to read.
  • Okay I've copyedited the entire section. Many quotations are removed, but there are some which are not really doable. Shahid • ^Talk2me 23:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• "Kapadia's screen image has been characterized in light of her perceived beauty and sex appeal. " - awkward, do you mean "Kapadia's screen image has been synonymous with her perceived beauty and sex appeal?"
  • Not really. Maybe "discussed"? Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Overall there's way too many quotes which affects the readability of the article. A lot of the quotes have no encyclopedic benefit and often leave me shrugging "who cares?". Give it a vigorous going through, remove anything which seems superfluous and try to be more comprehensive in how you get the information across. Give me a bell when you've finished and I'll take another look, thanks.† Encyclopædius 21:10, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Encyclopædius, so much, for your valid comments. Okay, I went over the article and rewrote some quotes into sentences. Considering it is an actor biography, quotes are unavoidable, because as you know the standard is to include critical commentary and reviews, and for the most part the original wording is better than one's rewording of it which might be sometimes a subjective interpretation. Thanks again, looking forward to your views. Shahid • ^Talk2me 00:15, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes of course, but it's finding a balance so the article flows. A lot of the quotes aren't really helpful in my opinion.† Encyclopædius 05:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes I get the point, Encyclopædius - I've taken care of it, you may want to have a look. Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

More quotes removed and some converted to regular prose. I think it's pretty balanced now, Encyclopædius. What do you think? Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

"The film was described as an "extraordinarily adroit entertainer" by Subhash K. Jha, who preferred it over the "sleazy sensationalism" of Zakhmi Aurat and noted the "unusual restraint" with which the "metamorphosis of the frisky Bijli into the ferocious fighter is achieved", further crediting Kapadia's physical and cerebral travails.[36] In the same year, she made a short appearance in Mahesh Bhatt's action thriller Kabzaa, a critical failure.[46] " I would delete all that and if it's a short appearance in a critical failure wouldn't mention it.† Encyclopædius 17:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Done, Encyclopædius. Shahid • ^Talk2me 23:12, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• Check the Antareen paragraph, Best Bengali and Filmfare awards are unsourced.
• Check return to cinema 1996 and Anichakra, are they supported in the next citation?
• Check 2006 "with similar thoughts expressed by several critics" - is several critics supported in the citation?
• Image and artistry is greatly improved now, well done!† Encyclopædius 07:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
  • All done, added citations where asked, one problem was fixed by you :) and thank you for approving of the changes in the section. Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:24, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Looking into this more, there's sourcing issues keeping this from being promoted at present. Aside from the ones I identified as needing citations for unsourced claims there's others with OR issues, claims like "Reviews in India were similarly approving, with The Hindu finding her condition to be "enticingly vulnerable".[128]". That's one review, the "reviews" just isn't backed up. There's verification and formatting issues, ref 96 [2] and ref 10 [3] for instance (the latter source is meant to verify "that all of her siblings have died" yet the claim isn't verifiable in either source provided), the book/magazine references also don't need an accessdate. There's inconsistencies in the linking of newspapers in the sources. "Kapadia initially said it was Khanna who had forbidden her acting career following the marriage, though in later years she noted that "career has always been secondary" to her.[1][5][15]" -why does that need three citations? Makes it more difficult to verify what comes from where. This is just from examining a few sources....

• The quotes have been further cut by you and myself. I restored only one quote partially. Are there any other examples you think need to be removed?
• Your first point about Leela OR part - done - quote removed and another reference added.
• Ref 96 and 10 - done - accessdate removed and changed source.
• What inconsistencies you mean? I used an automatic tool across the board. You mean the linking? I could link them all if that's what you mean.
• Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:56, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
• I mean you've linked some publications multiple times like The Hindu yet others you've only linked once. Check MOS on that.
• Ref 121 is a source with Preity Zinta in it and something about candyfloss. It is supposed to verify "In Kapadia's first film of the millennium, she co-starred in Farhan Akhtar's directorial debut Dil Chahta Hai (2001). Depicting the contemporary routine life of Indian affluent youth, it is set in modern-day urban Mumbai and focuses on a major period of transition in the lives of three young friends (Aamir Khan, Saif Ali Khan and Akshaye Khanna)"

• • I see, what would you suggest? Linking them all or just link once every publication? MOS allows either option. Okay never mind Ifixed the duplicates - now every link appears only once.
  • Ref 121 - done - you're right about the source - I added the right source a few days ago and forgot to remove this one.
  • Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
• Ref 25 you claim "number of exhibitions across India". The source doesn't really verify "across India", the statement is misleading in that it implies there were lots in different states yet the source indicates that it was only her second exhibition.
  • Removed "across India" and add another source for verification. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
• Ref 12, Where did you access that source? You've used a fair few offline newspaper sources, are you sure that none of it can be directly verifiable online?
  • They might have online links on Google (Google books, News archives, and also on some archive links) but this is not required per WP:CITE. For exceptional claims I inserted quotes inside the citation for quick verification. If you want me to do it for other claims supported by offline sources, I will. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
• Ref 28 No page number, can't verify the statement
  • It's in the introduction, no page number is provided. Just write "June 1971" and you'll get the page. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
• Relying on This highly sugary source isn't good. "Like Elizabeth Taylor, she came to films with an ethereal beauty when just in her mid-teens. She was precocious, she was poised, she had superstar potential." " paean to her incredible beauty. She looked ravishing: auburn hair, classical face, deep eyes, an aura of sensuality." using a highly gushing source like that to make typical claims of critics I don't think is right or even remotely encyclopedic.
  • India Today is perfectly reliable and that's the lingo used for articles on films and actors. It doesn't support exceptional claims. I see similar quotes in other FAs by the way. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:36, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
• Ref 65 Manushi PDF link is dead on my computer
  • Weird, removed link. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
• " Drishti, a marital drama directed by Govind Nihalani, starred Kapadia and Shekhar Kapur as a married urban couple from an intellectual milieu in Mumbai and followed their trials and tribulations, extramarital affairs, divorce, and ultimate reconciliation after years of separation. " can't verifity this in either ref 75 or the inaccesible ref 76
  • 75 supports exactly that. 77-79 too. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

An example of the problem with the prose and sourcing. This paragraph is a whopping 310 words all on one film. I could have written what needs to be said in less than half of that. Huge claims like "For the next decade, she would go on to become one of the leading actresses in Hindi cinema." are sourced to p.185 see any mention of Kapadia let alone a claim like that?, and [4] Not viewable online at least not where I am.

"After Kapadia's separation from Khanna in 1982, she was keen on returning to acting, which she did in 1984. For the next decade, she would go on to become one of the leading actresses in Hindi cinema.[1][40] Kapadia accredited the reason for her return was because of a personal need to prove to herself her own capabilities.[12] The first film she worked on was Saagar, directed by Ramesh Sippy, after a mutual friend had notified Sippy about her willingness to return to acting.[12] She first performed a screen test, which according to her was very unsuccessful as she was extremely nervous and "literally shivering" while making it. To her surprise, Sippy ultimately signed her on to play the lead part opposite her Bobby co-star Rishi Kapoor.[12] Scripted with her in mind, the film was intended to be her comeback vehicle, but its one-year delay meant that several of her proceeding projects would be released before, the first of which was Zakhmi Sher (1984).[15] Saagar eventually premiered in August 1985 and was controversial for several scenes featuring Kapadia, including one in which she was seen topless for a split second.[41][42] The film was a critical success and was eventually chosen as India's official entry to the Oscars that year.[43][44] Kapadia's performance as Mona D'Silva, a young Catholic woman from Goa who is torn between her friend (Kamal Haasan) and the man she loves (Kapoor), won her a second Best Actress award at the Filmfare Awards.[45] A review by Asiaweek appreciated the film for its "polished narration and masterly technique" and labelled Kapadia "a delight".[46] Rediff.com noted, "Dimple, caught between a friend and lover, performed solidly and memorably, grounding the two male leads and making the film work."[47] A 1993 issue of India Today wrote: "Saagar was in many ways a paean to her incredible beauty ... It was clear she was back."[48]"

I also want to know where you accessed a lot of the offline sources like Illustrated Newsweek and The Indian Express. A lot of them seem to be dated to 1987 I think. It's a pity you couldn't take snippets of the articles within them when accessing the sources to improve verification. Google I've noticed has some Express papers form 1993, can they really not be accessed online?† Encyclopædius 19:36, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• Ref 174 is an example of what I mean by what looks like cherry picking, you imply that the critic directly refers to her as playing the part "perfectly" yet what he says is ""Pankaj Tripathi is remembered in small roles. Dimple Kapadia, Tilottama Shom, Ranvir Shorey, Kiku Sharda, etc. in supporting roles have played their part perfectly in a fun way." He's basically referring to all of the supporting cast, not just her. It's misleading and an example of the kind of worthless quote I see a lot of.† Encyclopædius 19:46, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• Ref 162 You claim "an irate Delhi-based divorcee who begrudgingly entrusts her niece's fiancé with the responsibility of taking care of her house while she is away visiting her son." The source makes no mention of the character being Delhi-based, how does that fully verifiy what you claim?
• Ref 112 dead on my computer.
• Ref 156 "she was cast as Rishi Kapoor's wife and her son in-law, Akshay Kumar's mother" - where in the source does it verify it?
  • Ref 162 is not even used for this claim, it's the other sources - (163-164). We generally do not cite the plot, but if you like I'll duplicate the source for it.
  • Ref 112 works on mine. Make sure you look into the archived version.
  • Okay 174 quote was removed. You're right about it.
  • Yes, Elisabeth Bumiller says, "The three leading commercial Indian actresses throughout the mid- and late 1980s were indisputably Rekha, Dimple Kapadia and Sridevi. ... no other commercial actress came close to touching their star quality" on page 185. And the other book by Agnihotri says "Armed with dazzling beauty , an incisive intellect , undaunted determination , ample talent and an impressive array of films , Dimple Kapadia is already in the top slot" on page 159. Two books supporting one claim.
    • The source points to p.189, I was looking at that, can't access p 185.† Encyclopædius 20:12, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
      • You can, just write Dimple in the search and it will get you there. Anyway, I fixed it. Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:18, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
  • What is not viewable does not require links. I told you, you could find some on Google news archives, as I said I added pages or direct quotes inside the citation where necessary. You better tell me which sources you need links for and I'll see if they are online.
  • As for the Saagar paragraph - it's her comeback film, the paragraph covers her decision to return, her audition for the film, her first releases, and then the film. Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

"Chowdhury, Alpana (9 August 1987). "Reflections in a Golden Eye". The Illustrated Weekly of India. The Times Group. pp. 6–9." for a start

Not written anywhere near as concisely as it could be. I'll look more into this tomorrow.† Encyclopædius 20:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

"Reflections in a Golden Eye" by The Illustrated Weekly of India is not available online, and I can do nothing about it. However, you could probably get snippets on Google books. Which claim supported by it you want me to provide for? Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

All if possible. If you accessed these newspapers online I want to see the pages to verify it.† Encyclopædius 20:24, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

If I had I'd have cited links. I no longer have access to The Ilustrated Weekly. They offer some ebook style sources on archive.org but sadly not for 1987, and the libraries are closed. As for Indian Express, there might be some on Google News Archives (I found one for the Drishti part and added it). But I can't find online sources for what I did not access online to begin with, and Wikipedia does not require it. If I were to base myself only on online source, I couldn't have made it comprehensive enough anyway. Anyway, for contentious claims, as I said, I've included page numbers and quotes inside the citations. Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:28, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Ref 13 [5] I can't see the claim of leaving to raise her children.† Encyclopædius 20:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

You're mistaken, it's Ref 5 which supports the claim, and it says, "... one day in April 1982, Dimple, accompanied by her two daughters, Twinkle and Pinkie, then aged eight years and five years respectively, arrived in her parents' home, determined not to go back this time". If you mean the claim in section Bobby, it's removed anyway now. Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

"Kapadia worked with Rajkumar Kohli in two more movies in 1988: the action drama Saazish and the horror film Bees Saal Baad, a remake of the 1962 film of the same name." Ref 66 not seeing the two movie appearances verified or mention of Kohli.† Encyclopædius 20:47, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

They were directed by Kohli. It's on IMDb, the articles are linked, and it would be silly to add sources even for the names of the films' directors. Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Never mind, I can add this source for Saazish. It's the most non-contentious claim I can imagine. Do you think it's really necessary? Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

You really don't get the importance of avoiding WP:OR do you? Everything should be sourecable, claiming somebody starred in a directors two films yet the source making no mention of the director or the films from the right perspective is careless.

Cited. And please chill. And WP:OR is totally unrelated here. Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• You say "She was reported to be in a relationship with Sunny Deol after they starred together in several films in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Even the source says "rumoured ex-lovers ". Are we building an encyclopedia based on rumours or facts. Important as a BLP to avoid that. † Encyclopædius 21:05, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Removed for now. Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

says After false starts including Zakhmi Sher (1984), but I can't see where it says returning to cinema two years later, it just says (1984) in brackets. Can you find a source directly saying she returned?

Done. I think it is clear. But okay, added. Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• Same source you claim 1974 and 1977 for her daughter's birthdates, can't see them in the source.

• Done. The chapter about marriage to Kapadia in Khanna's book says that Twinkle was born in December 74 and Rinke "was born on 27 July 1977". Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:19, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• Ref 16 you claim "According to journalist Dinesh Raheja, the hostility between Khanna and Kapadia had faded over the years, and in spite of not having ever reunited, they were seen together at parties, she worked in his self-produced film Jai Shiv Shankar (1990) and even campaigned for his election." I can't see any mention of a film named Jai Shiv Shankar (1990) and the information seems to largely be an account of what somebody witnessed, not the best of sources.

• Done. Removed attribution (although Dinesh Raheja is a reliable journalist) and added Khanna's book which specifies Jai Shiva as opposed to the other source which mentions everything but its title. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:19, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I've spent more than enough time on this now... † Encyclopædius 21:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Me too. The article has gone through many changes today, many removals, many copyedits and additions. I've addressed all your comments now and am exhausted. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• Ref 120 you say "Her next release was the murder mystery 2001: Do Hazaar Ek (1998), which was ultimately rejected by the audience despite a stronger opening." Ref 120 says "This so-called suspense-thriller directed by Raj N. Sippy got a decent opening, thanks to good publicity. The film stars Jackie Shroff, Dimple Kapadia, Tabu and newcomer Rajat Bedi, and is expected to do average business." No mention about bring ultimately rejected...

• Done, another source provided. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• Ref 107, no page number, I can't find the info cited. What is PR in the citation?

• Done, page number provided. PR is the author, they often didn't provide full names. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• You say "Mrinal Sen's 1993 Bengali drama Antareen, adapted from Saadat Hasan Manto's short story Badshahat ka Khatama (1950), was the first non-Hindi project Kapadia took part in since Vikram (1986). She played a woman caught in a loveless marriage. Insisting on playing her part spontaneously, Kapadia refused to enrol in a crash-course in Bengali as she felt that she would be able to speak it convincingly." Our sugary source makes no mention of the short story or that it was the first non Hindi project since Vikram..

• Done. First, please let's keep it serious. Added another source. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• "Though financially unsuccessful, Angaar " -would it be possible to directly source that bit online?

• It is cited - it is explicitly said in Meena Iyer's article which is cited. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• Ref 108 Not seeing the Moody source in the newspaper.

• Done - archivelinks provided. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• You say "She returned to commercial cinema in 1996, playing Amitabh Bachchan's wife in that same year's Mrityudaata, once again under Mehul Kumar's direction. The film was a critical and commercial failure, with India Today panning its "comic book-level storytelling" the source even says " commercially safe film-making." which "may yet work at the box office" - hardly verifies "commercial failure" does it?.

• Done - it's in the next source! Added a duplicate ref there. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• In 1987, she played the role of Pooja in Mahesh Bhatt's drama Kaash. Kapadia and Jackie Shroff starred as an estranged couple who, during a relentless legal battle over the custody of their only son, learn that the boy is suffering from leukaemia, which makes them reunite to spend the last months of his life as a family. Before shooting began, she called it "the most serious artistic challenge I have ever faced in my career." See ref 5, check all info is verified.

• Done - yeah don't worry I had this source waiting. Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:19, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• Ref 56 Can't see any mention of drugs

• Done, source was removed by you, now it's there. Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:17, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• Ref 79 - watch paraphrasing with "urban couple from an intellectual milieu in Mumbai "

• Done. Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:15, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• Check refs 50 and 51 verify all of "She was paired up with Sunny Deol for a second time in Arjun, an action film directed by Rahul Rawail and scripted by Javed Akhtar. It was her first commercial success since her return to films.[50][51]"

• It does. The Indian Express source just verifies the commercial success part. Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:17, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• "In Kapadia's first film of the millennium, she co-starred in Farhan Akhtar's directorial debut Dil Chahta Hai (2001). Depicting the contemporary routine life of Indian affluent youth, it is set in modern-day urban Mumbai and focuses on a major period of transition in the lives of three young friends (Aamir Khan, Saif Ali Khan and Akshaye Khanna). Kapadia played the role of Tara Jaiswal, a middle-aged alcoholic woman, an interior designer by profession, and a divorcee who is not allowed to meet with her daughter. The film presents her story through the character of Siddharth (Khanna), a much younger man whom she befriends and who ultimately falls deeply in love with her. She said making the picture was an enriching experience and called her part "a role to die for"." -Ref 24 is an interview, it doesn't verify all of this.

• Done, moved one source up and another book added. Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:17, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• "Critics lauded Dil Chahta Hai as a groundbreaking film for its realistic portrayal of Indian youth.[126]" - seems to be just one critic..

• No no, the book mentions the critical reaction to the film and even quotes different critics. Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:17, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• Ref 158 - not seeing any mention of praising the chemistry with her co-star

• Changed wording, not the chemistry, but the acting. Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:17, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• Ref 159 -the archive link is unresponsive on my computer

• It works in mine now. Try again and let me know. Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:17, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• Ref 160 the archive link loads the page but no article

• Done, corrected links. Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:17, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• Ref 85 - "Kapadia acted in her first Malayalam-language film, Bombay Mittayi in 2011, for which she started learning the language. She played the wife of a celebrated Ghazal singer, played by Amar Singh, on whose behest she was offered the part" - can't see any mention of it being her first Malayalam film in the source and that Singh offered her the part

• Done, source added. Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:17, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• "When Kapadia made her comeback to movies, she faced constant comparison to her Bobby days. " - is that in the Virdi source?

• Yes yes, very explicitly so on page 142. Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:17, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• "According to some critics, this approach has sometimes been at the cost of professional opportunities as "her unpredictable nature and moods have distanced many well wishers". In reply to this, she said: "I am moody by nature. But I have never consciously hurt anyone."[112]" - does ref 112 verify "some critics or just the one"?

• No no, it's some. The article specifies "critics". Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• Definite article. As this isn't written in American English, go through the article and change any example which says Author xx. or Director xx etc to The author or the director. Also watch inconsistencies in quoting, "All those who have been following Dimple Kapadia's career from Bobby, Lekin and Rudaali will assert that she is more talented than glamorous." for instance the mark is after the full stop where in most articles it's before. Personally I prefer before.

• I use MOS:LQ across the board for the quotes. Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:17, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
• Corrected all the definite article concerns. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• "who said she had always been eager to act in quality films. She said her interest in independent films was a conscious decision to experiment in different cinema and prove her abilities.[49] She normally never seeks advice before committing to a project, which she admits has sometimes cultivated in wrong choices.[188][189] She often willingly chooses to work with first-time directors, finding their enthusiasm and creativity beneficial to both the film and her performance.[190]" - rep of "she"

• Done - slightly rewrote that part. Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:43, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• The lead mentions parallel cinema but I can't remember seeing it covered and sourced in the body??

• Done. Sources use alternatively art/parallel/independent cinema. Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:17, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• "The journalist Bhawana Somaaya, who conducted a series of interviews with her during the 1980s," -not verified in source

• Added first part of the series with an introduction. Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• "a satirical take on the Hindi film industry. She played the part of Neena Walia, an erstwhile superstar" - not seeing satirical or the character name in ref 149.

• Done - add NYT source and name mentioned in TOI review. Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:15, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• Mother died in early December 2019 age 80, but how can we be certain she was born 1939? Later Dec 1938 is possible though less likely

• No no, it's easily verified - the same source shows the a month before in November they celebrated her 80th birthday. Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• Chunibhai was from a wealthy Ismaili Khoja family, whose members had reportedly "embraced Hinduism" without relinquishing Ismaili loyalties; - not seeing this verified in refs 5 and 6.

• Yeh, that was Fowler's requirement before that. He objected the use of Hinduism which is mentioned in the sources, while I insisted on writing what the sources say explicitly. Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
• Changed to "whose members had reportedly "embraced Hinduism" while still regarding Agha Khan as their religious mentor" to agree with source. Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• Ref 91 - the first directorial venture can't see this mentioned

• Done - it's in the next source, duplicated for clarity. Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• Is it possible to replace ref 112?

• Done - not replaced because it's an important author, but added another existing source. Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• ref 83 is a book, doesn't need access date.† Encyclopædius 14:36, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• Done. Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Shahid is in the process of checking his sourcing and improving some of the quoting, It might still be possible to fully sort this during the FAC if it is kept open!† Encyclopædius 11:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• ref 96 [6] see no mention of "Arabian mythology and set in the Afghan kingdom of Baharistan"
• ref 188 -A spiritual sequel to the 2017 film Hindi Medium,-no mention of spiritual sequel

• Done - I saw the source, it explained why it's a spiritual sequel but I anyway added another one which explicitly calls it that. Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• She enacted the part of Katy, Shah's neurotic and unfaithful wife who runs an affair with Cyrus (played by Khan), a young drifter who enters their house as an assistant. The film was received well at a number of film festivals before its theatrical release in India,[144][145] – not seeing how ref 145 verifies this.† Encyclopædius 15:14, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• It does, saying - "Though Adajania is quite kicked about the response that his film got at international film festivals, he is obviously looking forward to a favourable reaction on home ground as well." Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:54, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• "For the rest of the decade, Kapadia returned to film only twice for two minor roles in the action comedies Welcome Back (2015) and Dabangg 3 (2019). - the rest of the decade and only twice bit isn't directly sourced, can you find a way around that? I know the sources each show two films but it's not supported directly.

• Sadly no source directly mentions the hiatus. The closest is this one. Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• Ref 185 "[7] - cant see any mention of her being a conwoman

• Done - it's in the next sources. Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:42, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• Ref 158 "Luck By Chance opened to a warm critical response, though its financial income was modest."

[8] not seeing it verified in the source

• Done, added excellent book source. Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:18, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• Ref 203 Can you locate "Dimple". Asiaweek. Vol. 19 no. 27–51. Asiaweek Ltd. 1993." online? I think for some sources you found online but are currently not linked, if you currently can't find them it would be better to remove them and replace with ones you can directly verify. It's not compulsory of course, but given that there's been some issues with verifying everything, I think it would be a stronger article.

• I can't locate it online, will look for it on GBooks. Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:18, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• Ref 214 (formerly 212) "Rudaali = Rudālī = Rudaali (the mourner). WorldCat. OCLC 056889403." as I said, can't it be replaced? It seems odd, why is there no publisher info available?

• Done - removed, provided to direct sources for the two awards. Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:57, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• "While critics have been appreciative of her acting prowess, some have analysed it in relation to her appearance.[204][205]" your state "critics" but there are no names mentioned in even the sources and I can't verify either of them.

• Well, the Asiaweek article described her a critics' darling, which you removed from the 1990s section. But essentially, this is an introductory sentence to the information presented in the paragraph. Just like with the lead, where we summarise the article, that's what this - every sourced statement that follows in the paragraph supports it. It's like if you say that specific "critic appreciated a performance", you need not show a source saying exactly that quoted phrase, but showing evidence to this claim. This is how I see other sections of this source written on FAs. Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:18, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• "Academic writers Madhu Kishwar and Ruth Vanita of the feminist magazine Manushi noted Kapadia for being unafraid to look less attractive for the benefit of convincingly expressing anguish and emotion.[67]" - Manushi was the dead link source right? Can you still verify this info in the snippet views?

• I didn't use snippets, the article existed online. But it was a quote before. Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:18, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• Ref 98 - Does the Melini book have a page number which can be cited?
• Refs 64 and 117 - ditto

• Done 64, found chapter and page. Added chapter for 117 (makes it more specific and easy to find). 98 page not provided on the book. Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:18, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• Ref 62 - not seeing the article there, just "archive news"

• Done, The Hindu locked some pages, archivelink provided. Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:46, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• Ref 11 - [9] three year hiatus, I see nothing mentioning that she was expected to do independent films.

• It does mention it actually - you need to go back and read the context - "Yet, she can be her own worst enemy. After … Rudali in 1993 and looking set to become the Empress of Indies (she had already done Gulzar's Lekin and Mrinal Sen's Anta-reen), she turned her back on films." - indies are independent films - all these films which are called parallel/art/independent films. Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:29, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Ah "looking set to become the Empress of Indies ", missed that. Fine.† Encyclopædius 11:05, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• Ref 167 You say " Tum Milo Toh Sahi, released the same year, was a romantic comedy in which she starred as Delshad Nanji, a Parsi woman in charge of an Irani café, who falls in love with a man played by Nana Patekar. Kapadia employed a Parsi accent for the role and, while preparing for it, visited several Irani cafés in Mumbai to understand their cultural basics and get into the mood of the character." - the source only says she played a cafe owner and visited Irani cafes, nothing about Delshad, employing a Parsi accent and cultural basics etc.

• Done - moved source up. Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• 2010, Kapadia played the small part of Salman Khan's asthmatic mother not in ref 164. ref 165 book looks like a redundant source, can't access it anyway.

• I saw a preview of the book just a few days ago and it says that it's the biggest hit of the year directly. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:42, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• "Mrinal Sen's 1993 Bengali drama Antareen, adapted from Saadat Hasan Manto's short story Badshahat ka Khatama (1950), was the first non-Hindi project Kapadia took part in since Vikram (1986)." _ looked in the book ref 113 and searched "Vikram" inside the book and it turned up nothing. What does it reference with that? Ref 54 can't see any mention of "adapted from Saadat Hasan Manto's short story Badshahat ka Khatama (1950),"

• Exactly it's the other way around - [54] sources the Vikram part the [113] book the short story part. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:42, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• Ref 118 Does that verify all "n 1994, Kapadia portrayed the journalist Meghna Dixit, a rape victim who tries to persuade an alcoholic and unemployed village man to be a champion of justice for those around him, " That looks like a self-made plot summary.

• Yes yes, there's preview of the book, look at it there's a whole plot. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:42, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

OK, I have just about fully checked all of the sources which are accessible and we seem to have ironed out most of that. Based on the significant improvements of the quote/prose issue and your hard work in addressing the problematic sources I don't see a strong reason currently to oppose. But I can't offer support until I can verify more of those sources which are not accessible. † Encyclopædius 10:48, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• "Trade journal Film Information" = The trade journal Film Information -I fixed it myself during a copyedit don't worry
• Ref 41 "In Haque (1991), a political drama directed by Harish Bhosle and scripted by Mahesh Bhatt, she enacted Varsha B. Singh, a Hindu Orthodox woman who is married to an influential politician and who miscarries a pregnancy following a criminal assault. The story follows how Varsha defies her husband after years of subservience when, for political reasons, he refuses to take legal action against the assailants. The author Ram Awatar Agnihotri noted her for playing the character bravely and convincingly.[41]" - can't verify all of this, is all the plot info really in the book? I'd rather see a web source for this given the detailed account of the story if possible, though I know it's 1991.

• The book used to have a full preview on Gbooks, and it was a full movie review with a plot and everything by the author. I wouldn't know the plot otherwise because I have not seen the film. Other than that, I strongly believe that such plot elements are not very contentious and the film is the source, just as in film articles. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:35, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• "This was followed by her final feature of the decade, Hum Tum Pe Marte Hain, in which she played the part of Devyani, the strict mother of a wealthy family" - can't see this in ref 127, is the quote about it being embarrassing there too?

• Done - another source added, and yes the embarrassing is the first sentence. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:42, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• Ref 52 link it, you can access a snippet on p 75.† Encyclopædius 17:30, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• Done. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:35, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• For books in google books which have the search column in the side so you can view snippets it might be worth adding a url linkfor some books if it can be verified.
• Replace ref 63 with [10]

• It's already there! :) With page numbers, chapter name and all. Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:56, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Where? You use Vasudev, Aruna (1995). Frames of mind: reflections on Indian cinema. UBSPD. p. 249. ISBN 978-81-7476-053-1..

The next one - since the book covers information of both sentences, I figured it's better to cite it after the second sentence and not use duplicate refs for back to back sentences. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:23, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• Drishti, a marital drama directed by Govind Nihalani, starred Kapadia and Shekhar Kapur as a married couple from Mumbai's intellectual milieu and followed their trials and tribulations, extramarital affairs, divorce, and ultimate reconciliation after years of separation. For her critically acclaimed portrayal of career-woman Sandhya, she was named the Best Actress (Hindi) of the year by the Bengal Film Journalists' Association
• Is all that in ref 79 and 80? I don't see a mention of divorce. - I can't see any reliable source online which verifies that award which is odd as it is surely a notable award.

• Well, as you know there isn't much media coverage of those years. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:23, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Nominator's note: User:Encyclopædius's source review, as he said above, is still in process, although it is almost fully addressed. Need just a little more time, almost there. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:17, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Support I've now given this the grilling it needed. I didn't think Shahid could do it within the time initially but he's worked hard to overhaul a lot of the sourcing and sort out the verification issues. The article is greatly improved since the start of the FAC, and given the sources which exist on her I think he's done a commendable job. † Encyclopædius 14:59, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

WHAT?! NO WAY!!! Thank you so much! Never thought you'd support it eventually! Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:01, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

• I believe several of the citations in the lead should be removed. Her birthdate and awards should be included and cited in the body of the article so citations for them in the lead are not necessary. You can keep the citations for her reputation as a leading lady and her film choices after becoming a sex symbol as it is best to have those kinds of statements supported by references.
  • Done. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
    • There is still a citation in the first paragraph for a sentence on an award. If the citation is intended to support the sentence on her comeback in Saagar, then it should be on that sentence. Aoba47 (talk) 18:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
      • Ah, right, fixed it, Aoba47. Shahid • ^Talk2me 01:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
• The phrase "launched by" sounds weird to me in this context: (She was launched by Raj Kapoor at age 16,). I have never heard of someone being "launched". Maybe something like "discovered by" would be better.
  • Done, I think, and rewrote to add some context. "She was discovered at age 16 by Raj Kapoor, who cast her in the title role of his teen romance Bobby (1973), to critical and commercial success." Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
• For this part, (In that same year she married Indian actor), there should be a comma between "year" and "she".
  • Done. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
• I do not know what you mean by "that period" in this sentence: (One of her films of that period was the drama Saagar (1985).). The previous sentence is about her return to acting in 1984, but that is not a clearly defined period. Also, why is Saagar highlighted in the lead and not any of the other films she did that year? What makes this film so notable to her career?
  • Well it was her comeback vehicle and the first film she worked on, but it was delayed by a year so other films were released first. It also won her a second Best Actress award. Anyway, changed it now to - "Her comeback film Saagar was released a year later, and gained her wide public recognition". Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
• For the lead image, I would specify in the caption where the image was taken.
  • Done. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
• Please use Kapadia's full name when you first mention here in the body of the article, i.e. here: (Kapadia is the eldest of the four children of Gujarati entrepreneur).
  • Done, rewrote and added the reference from the lead. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
• I am guessing we do not know Betty's maiden name?
  • Sadly not - I kept digging endlessly in the archives, and no such mention is made. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Thank you for letting me know. It is probably not available. Aoba47 (talk) 20:29, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
• I think it should be "finding" for this part: (Having been a candle enthusiast and found candle-making therapeutic,).
  • Done. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
• Bobby should be linked here, (before the release of her first film, Bobby, in 1973), and unlinked here (in his 1973 teen romance Bobby), as it should be linked when it is first mentioned in the article.
  • Done. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
• I am not sure if polka-dotted needs to be linked.
  • Done. Removed link. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
• Was it common for women in the 1970s to get married when they are only 16? I am more so asking for my own general knowledge as opposed to suggesting anything for the article.
  • Generally not, but it depends on where they come from. In the rural areas of India obviously more likely, but in the big cities - definitely not as early. Most actresses were not at all married so early. Hers is a very weird and special case, because she grew up in a big city to affluent parents, so it was very unlikely. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
• I would avoid using the word "hit", as done in this part (in the box-office hit Arjun, an action film), as it is a little too informal.
  • Done, removed. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
• For this part, (At that time, she also worked in numerous Hindi films made by producers from the South), I would say South India in the prose as "the South" means a very different thing to me as an American. It would be better to clarify it in the prose to avoid confusion.
  • Done. Changed to South India. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
• For the Kaash paragraph, I would clarify from the start that Pooja is her character's name in the film. I was confused at first when Pooja was mentioned in the prose as I was not aware that it was the character's name until reading through that part more carefully.
  • Done. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
• The Times of India is linked multiple times in the body of the article when it should only be on the first mention.
  • Done. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
• I am not sure about the wikilink in this part, (becoming the second-highest grossing Hindi film of the year), as it is not immediately clear to me what the link would go to. I do not think the link is necessary.
  • Done. Removed. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
• For this part, (a past rape victim who now tries to persuade an alcoholic and unemployed village man to be a champion of justice for those around him), it should just be "a rape victim". The word "past" does not make sense in this context.
  • Done. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
• Filmfare Award for Best Actress is linked twice in the body of the article. Watch out for these multiple links. Akshay Kuma, Filmfare Award for Best Supporting Actress, and The Hindu are also linked multiple times.
  • Done, all instances taken care of. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
• I do not understand this part, (the mother of the title character of an elephant), specifically "the title character of an elephant".
  • Done, I think: "she voiced the character of Devi, the mother of the elephant Jumbo". Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
• I do no think the link is necessary here: (emerging as the most popular film of the year in India).
  • Done, removed. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
• I do not think "enacted" makes sense in this context: (She enacted a strict store owner and Kapoor Khan's mother).
  • Done. -> "played". Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
• For the 2011 and 2018 images, I would specify where they were taken in the captions.
  • Done for both. Just found that the 2011 one is actually from 2008. :) Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
• In the "Image and artistry" section, do not link the film titles again as they were linked in a previous section. The same comment applies to names linked in this section that are already linked in previous sections.
  • Done. Removed all duplicate links, which were practically all of them (I thought this section should include links again). Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Remember that items should only be linked when they are first mentioned in the article. Doing it multiple times is an example of over-linking and should be avoided. Aoba47 (talk) 18:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
• For this part, (on another accasion), I believe it should be "occasion".
  • Done. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
• Is the List of Indian film actresses really necessary at the end?
  • No it isn't. :) Removed. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I hope these comments are helpful. These are things I have noticed from my first read-through. Since this is a rather long article, I would like to read it through a few more times to make sure I can be as thorough as possible with my review. My primary concern is with the duplicate links in the article. Hope you are having a good week so far. Aoba47 (talk) 03:58, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Aoba47, for your detailed review and valuable comments. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• I support this based on the prose. I will leave the discussion about Kapadia's parents to Fowler&fowler. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any help for my peer review on a film article. Hope you are having a great week so far. Aoba47 (talk) 04:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments from TRM

This review will be submitted as part of my WikiCup work.

• No need to worry about Fowler's comments, just work with the rest of the reviewers, the co-ordinators here know how to deal with Fowler.
• Two refs in the lead looks odd, best remove them to the main body where those details are covered and expanded upon.
  • If you meant the two back-to-back sources, then I've removed one, which is anyway repeated in the body text. Kept just the other which supports a rather exceptional claim. Can remove the other ones in the first paragraph of the lead if you like. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• Lead says returned to film after she separated from Khanna, in 1984, but infobox says they separated in 1982, so the causality is a little wonky, maybe "She separated from Khanna in 1982 and returned to filming two years later" or something?
  • Right it's confusing - wrote "Kapadia returned to films in 1984, two years following her separation from Khanna". Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• " St. Joseph's Convent High School" has no full stop after St
  • Done. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• "She retired from acting for twelve years" retired 1973, restarted 1984, isn't that eleven years?
  • Done. Sorry, eleven it is. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• "to her.[16][7]" while not mandatory, these could be in numerical order while you're doing other edits.
  • Done. Totally agree. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• "content... Once" see MOS:ELLIPSIS, I think a non-breaking space is required after "content" here.
  • Done. Right. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• "She was reported " when was this reported relationship supposed to have happened?
  • Done. Clarified, in accordance with source. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• I don't think you need to link art exhibition.
  • Done, I agree. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• Loads of duplicate links, use the tool to find them, e.g. Rajesh Khanna, India Today, Filmfare, Sunny Deol, The Tribune, Asiaweek etc.
  • Done. All taken care of. Duplicates are allowed in references, though. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:30, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• J.P. Dutta -> J. P. Dutta.
  • Done. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• Luck By Chance -> Luck by Chance.
  • Done. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• Col scopes should be added to the table.
  • Done. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:04, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• In sortable tables, it's permissible to link every linkable item every time as once re-sorted it's not certain which item appears first.
  • Would you recommend doing it though? Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:04, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
    • I would. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
      • Done. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• ISBN formats should be consistent in the references.
  • Done. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

That's a quick pass, I'll take a more detailed look later. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your helpful and constructive comments. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I apologise for not re-visiting sooner but this is clearly a contentious nomination. I'm happy to come back once the major drama items are resolved. There seem to be a lot of Asian editors arguing over bits and pieces that makes me feel out of my depth, so perhaps after that, I'll take another look. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:36, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Exactly bits and pieces. Thank you for your kindness, TRM. Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:54, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Support from Graham Beards

There are many links, which is fine but some of them are duplicated. I suggest checking to see if they really need linking the second (or third) time. Here is a list of them: Goa The Tribune Rudaali Antareen Nana Patekar Amitabh Bachchan Vinod Khanna Rishi Kapoor Khalid Mohamed Saif Ali Khan Mithun Chakraborty Nana Patekar Times of India DNA India Anil Kapoor Hindustan Times Graham Beards (talk) 15:53, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Graham Beards, for pointing this out. Removed all the duplicate links from your list. Only those which appear in references kept, per WP:DL. Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I made a few edits [11]. Please revert them if you don't think they are improvements. I'm happy to add my support, mainly regarding the prose, since this is a subject that is not something I know about. Up until now. There's some good writing in this article. I loved, "Few people went to see the film; within two weeks it was declared a flop." Graham Beards (talk) 16:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your support and for your helpful edits. The example you gave, by the way, was one of my improvised attempts to avoid the banality of repeating the same pattern of "did or didn't do well", "success or failure". I'm glad you liked it. Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:58, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Harry

• Was her marriage arranged or was it voluntary?
  • Voluntary, should it be mentioned? Shahid • ^Talk2me 06:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
    • I would mention it, if only very briefly, because it's not entirely clear as it stands. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
      • Done. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• You use a lot of quotes. Some of them flow quite nicely into the prose but some don't. You probably don't need to quote a reviewer's opinion for ever film. I would trim quite a few of them, especially for films that didn't have a big impact on her career.
  • Yeah, there were even more before, I see your point, I'll go over it although honestly the article already mentions only half of the films she's appeared in. Shahid • ^Talk2me 06:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
• What the hell does "physical and cerebral travails" mean?
  • Done, I think, changed to "physical and mental efforts". Maybe just efforts will do? Shahid • ^Talk2me 06:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • "Efforts" alone is probably sufficient. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Done. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Or "deglamorised roles"?
  • Done, removed. Shahid • ^Talk2me 06:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
• "reinforced a weak script" Is "reinforce£ really the verb you want there?
  • Done. That's actually a change by one of the reviewers here. Changed to "enhanced an otherwise weak script". Shahid • ^Talk2me 06:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Is it the script that her performance enhanced? Or the film generally? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
      • The sources mention the script, but I would imagine the script and the film meaning the same thing in this context. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Rama Sharma of The Tribune noted her for lending "all her charisma to help the script sail through dead ends" with her "powerful presence" and "deep, natural and spontaneous" dialogue delivery See what I mean about excessive use of quotes?
  • Done, shortened it significantly. Shahid • ^Talk2me 06:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

The article is broadly in good shape. My main concern is that it relies far too heavily on quotes. Suggest you adjust some to use your own words and eliminate some others. You could probably trim a few hundred words. I made a handful of copy edits for concision; you could probably use those as a guide to make more as you go through. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Harry, for agreeing to take a look, and for your valuable edits. It's interesting how much your approach is similar to Encyclopædius's, by the way. Shahid • ^Talk2me 06:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

A few replies inline. I haven't been back for a thorough look yet. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Replied, Harry. I also went over and deleted several quotes across the board. If you spot any others which are probably less needed, let me know. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm happy that you've addressed all my comments, and I can see you've reduced your reliance on quotes. There's nothing wrong with quotes, especially critics' opinions in an actor biography, but the article should be written in your own words with quotes supporting major details or when you're citing an opinion. I've read Fowler's verbose source review (that's half an hour of my life I'll never get back) and the only things that stood out were the lack of detail on the unhappy marriage and details like her husband forbidding her from acting (as opposed to "disapproving", as the article says) and the very brief courtship. I would suggest addressing that. The rest seems to be a reasonable exercise in editorial discretion and summary style. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Harry, for your comments. You spent half an hour, and I've had to be dealing with this for the entire time of this FAC, just because I refused to remove one word supported by sources. I added details about her marriage, the courtship, and the subsequent inequality and infidelity on his part, which she cited. I'm not sure though there's a major difference between him disapproving of her career or forbidding it, but I changed to the latter. Is there anything else, you'd suggest, Harry? Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:38, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell: My review points out the dangers of tacking together an article almost entirely from Indian newspapers and magazines. Of the 249 citations in the article, 214 are to Indian newspapers or magazines published after 1985, the approximate time when they began to gush about Bollywood. The best-known newspapers in India are not entirely reliable in all contexts. See this Reliable Sources Noticeboard RfC on the Times of India, founded 1838. DK's father came from a socially conservative Hindu business family. The father, a nonconformist, married a Muslim woman in 1956, causing great upheaval in his family. DK's paternal grandfather and his four brothers, the Kapadia Group, were the subject of investigations and question time in the Indian parliament. The managing director of their business, Popatlal Chhaganlal Kapadia, was also a trustee of the Vishva Hindu Parishad, a right-wing Hindu nationalist organization, which is now on the CIA's list of religious militant organizations. Yet, this article is reporting the father's family to be: lapsed Khoja Muslims who had "embraced" Hinduism but continued to regard the Aga Khan IV as their mentor! When her father signed the contract for her role in Bobby (1973), the Kapadia Group fired him from the family business, putting great strains on the 14-year-old girl. At age 15, she fell for a prowling Indian superstar (aged 30), and was married within a week. The age of consent in India at the time was 16. And you @HJ Mitchell: are asking in your review, "Was the marriage arranged or voluntary?" Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:42, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:OR, WP:OR, and more WP:OR. Good luck in trying to understand what this user wants, Harry. First, when her father's religion was not included, he posted a threat to oppose the article. Then, when information was added with sources, complained Hinduism should be removed and only Islam kept (opposing and saying "not based in any reality that I am aware of"), and now he wants the Islam part removed, based on her paternal grandfather's brother's involvement in some religious group? Long, long sigh.

The point about the article using newspapers and magazines is addressed above, and it looks like another clear pretext for his original oppose. His claim about Indian newspapers is pure POV. The article uses books where books are available. It follows WP:RS, and uses the best sources possible from the best authors and critics. Looking at FAs of actors from India and others of her age and younger (Brad Pitt, Julianne Moore, Catherine Zeta-Jones) - all use similar sources. That's how actor BLPs can be sourced because that's where this field (and particularly this profession/occupation) is mostly covered.

This message to you, Harry, is merely intended to undermine your positive reaction to the article. You are probably the fifth editor on this FAC who dismisses his "review". Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

>>>"First, when her father's religion was not included, he posted a threat to oppose the article ..." It was the exclusion initially of the mother's religion, about which we have a reliable source, which you found to your credit after my initial post, but which you did not include. I gave you nearly a month before I made my second set of posts on 21 May. But as the discussion proceeded what began to show up in the sources gave me pause. It also had to do with what you considered plausible in them. I wasn't consistent at first because it took me a while to figure this out for the Indian newspapers and magazines published after the mid-1980s. Along the way, my experience on the page of her son-in-law, Indian "superstar," Akshay Kumar, gave me more pause. There I happened to agree with you and did not hesitate to say so on the talk page. You seem to think this is personal. It really has to do with the sources. You will be much better off withdrawing the article, working on adding only the more reliable sources even if it means trimming the latter half considerably and resubmitting in a month's time. I could help you there. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:43, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

This message is similarly amusing in its attempt to rewrite the otherwise positive status of this FAC. Have no worries, nothing is personal, of course, and I see it pretty objectively - every person who'd follow your comments would have no doubt it's just a classic case of agenda and probably ego but I wouldn't want to speculate much. I do understand that whatever it is, you can't help it. As for the sources, the article is very well, if not perfectly sourced with reliable sources of all kinds. Both you and I know it. FAs of its kind about actors her age (all mentioned above) hardly even use books, but this one does, and for each claim, the most reliable source available is used. It is benefitted by opinions of leading critics, scholars, film historians, and authors, and frankly I'm happy with the work and research put into its development. I suppose it's hard to understand that the standard of the sources is determined upon Wikipedia's policies and not your preferences. As for your last comment, considering the fact that this nomination has been widely met with positive reactions from respected editors who actually reviewed the article, that your comments have been deemed unconstructive, that your reviewing skills have been dismissed, that I've been advised multiple times to ignore your messages (which I still didn't do out of respect for the process) maybe it's you who should consider following your own gratuitous advice. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Harry, sorry that your section of constructive and valuable comments has been slightly interfered with. If you have additional comments, please leave them. I did address your latest suggestions. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Fowler rant Fowler&fowler's remarks

Note

This section—which was created by Encyclopædius, with its original title scratched by me—lay immediately below Encyclopædius's Oppose section, which he has since merged with his comments. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

In the last 34 hours (one day and ten hours) 120 edits have been made in this article, making it a paradigmatic example of how the FAC review is being employed by nominators to workshop articles that are being recommended for withdrawal, reworking off-FAC, and future resubmission—suggestions that nominators do not brook. See my analysis: Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Average_FAC_duration) More relevantly for other reviewers, the article is becoming unstable even if in theory it is a part of the review process—which is meant to proceed in such pace and transparency as allows other reviewers to reasonably assess what has changed and why. The last hundred-odd edits are anything but transparent. There are other issues: as others here have remarked, changes have been made in the article as a result of my suggestions, for example, sections 1 and 2.1 have changed substantially, yet the nominator has almost never acknowledged my input anywhere. See for example my suggestions 6 in the my talk page review I made a suggestion at 04:15 on 4 June 2020. At 19:59 he copied those suggestions verbatim in this edit, with edit summary, "Add information about her early opportunities." This is a pattern I am seeing throughout the review: the nominator is perpetuating the myth that I have made my last stand on one word. I am making my last stand on the unreliable sources being used in the article and the nominator's literal interpretation of them. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:34, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

PS And this has continued to the last remark above, "Yeh, that was Fowler's requirement before that. He objected the use of Hinduism which is mentioned in the sources, while I insisted on writing what the sources say explicitly." which brought me here. The nominator's relentless aggression leaves no room for a reviewer's evolving views. I don't for a minute buy the cock and bull story about the father's Khoja background. I checked sources about the Kapadia group, question time in the Indian parliament, Tirthankar Roy (economic historian) at LSE's description of their sudden rise to ownership of Killick Nixon, and their support of the premier Hindu nationalist organization. (It is of no importance that I actually contacted an acquaintance of DK's mother's sister's family in Pakistan (to which she had migrated), found "Bitti Kapadia"'s real name, first and last, DK's maternal grandparent's names, and what is more surprising the Pakistani family's lack of knowledge about Bitti Kapadia's birth year. Yet we don't have any issue telling stories in this article because they have bounced back and forth in the echo chamber of the Indian media. It is of no importance that I have written the major portion of the FA India. I'm being asked to believe fairy tales about India. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:25, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

The article is unstable. The frenetic editing has continued apace. In the last 48 hours, some 150 edits have been made by the nominator and Encyclopædius, constituting one-third of the total number of edits made in the article since the FAC review opened in the last week of April, which was seven weeks ago. After Encyclopædius posted his opposition and recommended withdrawal, and after what plainly is the nominator's open lobbying on the former's talk page, this wide-ranging transformation has been effected. (I will disregard their creating a separate subsection with a POV title for my comments). How are scrupulous reviewers who are volunteering their time to proceed? At the very least I will need to do a comprehensive source review; the one I posted on the article's talk page was just a casual spot check. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:42, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

A comprehensive source review is being done and the issues are fully being ironed out quickly.† Encyclopædius 14:53, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Obviously in the intests of transparency and neutrality, I will need to do one of mine after you have completed yours. You are now inextricably a part of the writing process. Some of the reviewing is proceeding on your user talk page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:55, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Your penchant to get in the way of every reviewer's comments, as you have done multiple times here, is tiresome and it's just one little example of your persistent attempts to destroy this FAC at any cost. I couldn't expect less from someone who opposed an FAC based on one word and some religious agenda. I replied to your comments, the great majority of which was not constructive, and I did fairly address the few that were, instead of ignoring you like most people were suggesting. The changes are perfectly acceptable, that's what FAC is about. I'd rather keep addressing Encyclopædius's meticulous review than replying to your empty remarks. Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

A note for Encyclopædius

This note was written at a time when Encyclopædius was opposing the nomination in a separate section immediately above the preceding section. He has since merged that section with his comments section (in this edit) without indicating anything in the actual Wikified output (by way of scratched text) that such a change took place. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Dear Encyclopædius

I just realized you are Blofeld. Hi. Sorry to meet in such circumstances, but I sincerely believe outstanding issues remain in the article. To demonstrate them, I have gone through just one paragraph in Section 1 of the article. I hope you will understand that the issues are not trivial ones. The discussion below might seem like reams of prose, but please bear with me. The "you" is impersonal.

• (Section 1) The family resided in Santacruz, Bombay and she studied at St Joseph's Convent High School.911

• I'm not seeing that:

• she went to St Joseph's

• ("Plucked out of obscurity, the St Joseph's Convent girl went from baby doll to trophy wife in one year. ... 'I would still get married at 16,' she says" [11])

• necessrily during

• the time they lived in Santa Cruz

• ("I must have been five years old. We used to stay in Santa Cruz in Bombay" [9])

• There is a synthesis here of location and chronology.

• She described herself as having been a precocious child, often making older friends, and, due to her father's wealth and social status, enjoyed a privileged upbringing.912

• Where do you see father's wealth and privileged upbringing?

• ("We used to stay in ... a one-bedroom hall. ... Dad used to have a black Fiat, ... Dad manufactured socks, then barrels. Pa was proud of being a factory owner. ... All of us girls wore identical clothes"[9])

• (The Fiat 1100, which saw production in India in the late 1950s, was an economy car, a people's car, albeit not the proletariat's. The "identical clothes" of that era (and earlier ones)—bespeaking the purchase of one cut of cloth from the same bolt and the family darzi's (tailor) fashioning clothes for all the children—was a common middle-class practice. This is comfortable middle-class, not wealth, in the early 60s India.)

• How do you see "precocious" as an apt description (in literal or transformed meaning)? (" I did lie like every child, at studies I was a no-no. ... Dad (hit) me on two occasions for my bad school report card. Once mom hit me for wearing her panties... I grew up too fast. I knew it all. I had older friends ... I had seen them wearing make-up, ..." [9])

• (Many girls in India, and elsewhere, ordinary ones, leading unremarkable lives, would identify.)

• The source [12], an article in IWI, August 9-15, 1987 is unavailable on the internet, not even in snippet form. I'd like to see a quotation from it verifying your paraphrase, and if you don't have it, then please remove the citation.

• She was 15 years old when she agreed to marry the actor Rajesh Khanna, then aged 30, after a short courtship. 1314

• How do you see "agree?" The age of consent in India in 1973 was 16. (This is a very serious objection.)
• Is "short courtship" an accurate description, when the second source says,

• "In the quickest wedding ever seen in our filmland, Rajesh and Dimple were engaged and married inside five days." and
• Source 15 below (page 109) says, "Rajesh Khanna made a dramatic midnight proposal to her. He'd taken the fifteen-year-old star-struck Dimple for a walk by the Juhu sea and had flung Rishi Kapoor’s ring (yes, she wore his ring on her finger) into the moonlit waters.’ The dream man of millions of girls wished to marry Dimple. With her feet hardly on the ground, she said yes. ... There was no time to send invitations ... Initially, the guests were invited by telegram"

• (i.e. When a 30-year-old man "marries" an underage girl in five days in such manner, and description, can WP describe it as "short courtship?")

• The wedding, performed according to Arya Samaj rites, took place on 27 March 1973 in her father's bungalow in Juhu—six months before the release of her first film, Bobby.[13][14]

• "Father's bungalow?" not the family's? The second source says, "at the bride's residence in Juhu."
• I thought they lived in Santa Cruz. See above. At the very least, there is an issue of coherence.
• Do you have information about when they moved?

(Added later. Not really needed, but just in case you are curious: It was the ground floor (AmE first floor) of a rented bungalow in Juhu (owned by the Birlas) into which they had moved in December 1972. See 32-yr battle over Dimple Kapadia's home to hot up, which says, "Dimple’s mother showed the court photographs of the actor’s (Rajesh Khanna's) 'baraat' (wedding party) arriving at the bungalow on March 27, 1973. She claimed protection under the Rent Control Act." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:53, 12 June 2020 (UTC) )

• She retired from acting for eleven years to raise her two daughters, Twinkle (born 1974) and Rinke (born 1977).15

• Page number?

• I see on page 131, which is not normally visible on Google Books, "There was no other heroine in her competition, but she gave up everything in a hurry [to get married].. .Perhaps the difference in star power and age helped subjugate her and robbed her of confidence. She wore what Rajesh liked and mixed with the people he approved of. Dimple gave birth to their first child, a lovely daughter, ..."

• (Can this be described as "retired from acting for eleven years to raise her two daughters?")

• Kapadia initially said it was Khanna who had forbidden her acting career following the marriage, though in later years she noted that "career has always been secondary" to her.[1] (p. 185) 16

• It is not p185, but 186, which is not visible in the Indian edition, but is in the p 148 (US edition)] Bumiller says ca. 1991, ::*"The film made Dimple into a sensation, but instead of using it to launch her career, she married, at the age of fifteen, the country’s most popular leading man at the time, Rajesh Khanna. He promptly told his new wife that her acting days were over. 'My husband believed that my place was at home,' Dimple said. 'It was not a husband-wife relationship—it was father-daughter.' After two children and ten years of marriage, she finally walked out. 'It’s a big stigma to leave a man,' she said. 'I didn't expect to be accepted. But after I left him, it made a tremendous difference to me. The best part was that I was earning my own bread.'
• Source [16] (published, November 2000) says,

• "There was no question of my doing films during my marriage. My husband didn't want me to work. As simple as that. I returned to films only when I had to look after myself and my children."

• How do the two sources together support, "in later years she noted that 'career has always been secondary to her'?"

There remain errors in citing, paraphrasing, and synthesis. And this was just one paragraph. It puts too much burden on the reviewer to sort things out. I am—in all earnestness—requesting that Shahid, the nominator, withdraw the nomination, work on it carefully for a month, and resubmit. It would save the FAC coordinators trudging through a long FAC review. I trust you, Encyclopædius, would do the right thing and support my request. And the same would apply to Shahid. I have nothing against you, but the article needs much more work and it cannot be done within the purview of this FAC review. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:22, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

The way she was seemingly snatched at that age is very creepy! I am very aware of claims which are not fully covered in the sources. As it's a highly tedious task to go through them all I did suggest he withdraws it initially, but the article has already been greatly improved in the last few days, and Shahid had worked very hard to improve it. I don't see any harm in it being kept open, at present, it's highly productive at the moment. But every claim and source does need to be rock solid for this to pass. I trust that he will deal with it.† Encyclopædius 08:00, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Fowler - first, your attempt to convince other editors to follow your way of thought is absolutely unacceptable. You've done the same with Harry. Coordinators should note this.

Second, Fowler, most of what you do is WP:OR - follow the sources and not what you think is likely.

As for your highly unconstructive points:

• Why does it matter when they moved to another house? How is it crucial to her life and career? They might have had more than one house and she did mention in one of the sources "The door to our house was open even when we shifted to Juhu" but I'm not sure it strongly implies they moved permanently.
• Why does it matter if it was her father or the family's? Here - another source says: "at her father Chunnibhai Kapadia's family bungalow in Juhu, in March 1973".
• Your Fiat analysis is one of many irrelevant points.
• Age of consent in India as a factor is again your WP:OR and as long as she agreed and her father agreed, there's no problem. We use sources and the source clearly says she gave her consent.
• As for two quotes - okay, kept just her early statement because that could be confusing.
• Now, your request to stop this FAC is a disgrace. You do not realise that people have opinions different than your own. Graham, Aoba - support this article, does your view count more than theirs? No, I would personally claim the opposite because you opposed this article based on one word and they supported it after reading through. Shahid • ^Talk2me 08:49, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• In response to my comment above about "She described herself as having been a precocious child, ..." you have changed the sentence to: "She described herself as having matured quickly, ..." in this edit.

• You did not acknowledge my comment, neither here, nor in an edit summary, nor did you consult with me if "maturing quickly" was more appropriate.

• Your second source, Alpana Chowdhury, says on page 9, of her Illustrated Weekly of India article: "While other children studied and passed exams, Dimple bunked school and saw movies. Of her favourite star, Asha Parekh Of her favourite hero, Rajesh Khanna. Sitting in the dark auditorium, she gave herself up totally to the silver screen."

• Is that maturing quickly? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:31, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• In another edit, you have responded to my criticism of "brief courtship" by changing the source. That source, Jyotika Virdi does use the expression "brief courtship," but says a great deal more on page 141 of her book: "But Kapadia's success as a star was truncated by an early marriage to superstar Rajesh Khanna, a man twice her age who forbade her from working in the industry. Without understanding what her heady success really meant, the idea of being proposed to by the nation’s foremost superstar, she later recalled, was an even headier experience. After a courtship that lasted a week, she married, quit working in films, and by the end of three years had two daughters. Rajesh Khanna’s career declined rapidly and reports of trouble in this “dream marriage,” and subsequent cover-ups, appeared in the press." Is "brief courtship" an adequate precis of what Virdi is attempting to say there? Again you have made no mention of my comments. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:56, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• Your last comment was a little funny - if you want to have an argument with Virdi, the author of the book, do so but not on this FAC. I'm using her words, not yours. Even funnier though was your complaint that I didn't consult you. Why would I do it? I'm not addressing your comments, because, as Harry said above, there's practically nothing to address. The few comments that offered something actionable were addressed. Otherwise your comments are just an attempt to destroy this FAC which started with your oppose based on one word. The changes I've made relate mostly to Encyclopædius's request that I go again over the the early sources and his review. Yours is not a review, much less this section, which is a note to Encyclopædius, trying to persuade him keep his oppose. I've been nice enough to not ignore you as others have suggested that I do based on your questionable reviewing skills and motives. But as I see, it's pointless - I seriously don't know what you want, I wish I could understand the reason for your hostility. Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:39, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• You have now changed the text in this edit, removing the "film-crazy" descriptor for DK, outside of the review process. I did say if you don't have blurbs from the Alpana Chowdhury Illustrated Weekly source, then remove the citation. But you need to acknowledge what you are doing. Your source, which I have been able to partially access, does say on page 8, "'I was thirteen when I signed Bobby. I was always film-crazy.' Dimple Kapadia's home on Juhu beach is a most unstarlike home. It is a large bungalow where the entire Kapadia family lives. .The family being father Chunibhai Kapadia (who stopped working, one thinks, the day his daughter entered films), mother Betty Kapadia (the kindest soul in the house), two sisters Simple and Reem (the former now does dress designing and seems to be the most enterprising." Do you really need to remove "film crazy?" As for your question above, I am trying to suggest that a good, careful, comprehensive revision takes time and communication, the necessary back and forth. It cannot be done hurriedly on the fly. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:17, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I strongly disliked the "film crazy" quote and fully support the removal. "Kapadia aspired to be an actress even as a child" is far superior.. Yes, Shahid has worked very hard to address the issues I have with the article and in my opinion it's now well on its way to reaching what we want. I merged my comments all into one tidy section.† Encyclopædius 16:28, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

"Strongly disliked?" How does that constitute a sufficient reason to remove, and not, for example, to paraphrase? She was by her own admission infatuated with the movies, cutting class to go to them, her mother a willing accomplice. (e.g "Mom would see a movie a day, making dad hopping mad. We’d lie that we’d gone out shopping or to a friend’s house. Ziddi was the first movie which registered on me. I wanted to be Asha Parekh, like the girl she played, ... To me, movies were very real. It was life up there on the screen."here + ref to cutting classes above)

The sentence "Kapadia aspired to be an actress even as a child" after all is mine. (See the discussion in the first section.) "Film-crazy" is not elegant, but she was obsessed, crazy, about films. We can't remove that essential aspect of her early biography. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:45, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

There you go then, more elegant prose is more desirable. "Mom would see a movie a day, making dad hopping mad. We’d lie that we’d gone out shopping or to a friend’s house. Ziddi was the first movie which registered on me. I wanted to be Asha Parekh, like the girl she played, ... To me, movies were very real. It was life up there on the screen." has biographical value though I agree. Perhaps a quote or part quote and paraphrase would benefit the early life section. † Encyclopædius 18:19, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I was taking a long nap.  :) How about: "Kapadia aspired to be an actress even as a child. Looking back, she thought her mother to have been the film buff in the family. 'Mom would see a movie a day, making dad hopping mad. We’d lie that we’d gone out shopping or to a friend’s house.' Kapadia's favorite movie star was Asha Parekh. (The last cited to Chowdury, IWI, 9 Aug 1987) Too long? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:23, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Fowler can you find "Masood, Iqbal (10 January 1993). "The edge of mediocrity". The Indian Express." online?† Encyclopædius 19:20, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

OK, will look. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:23, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't. I tried. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:02, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay I do understand Fowler's attempts to just fill this FAC with redundant talk (that's exactly what I was told he'd do, mess up the FAC to the point where his username is all over the place). I think "aspired to be an actress" is okay in my view, we can think of adding something later but it's not crucial. And I found the link Blofeld. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:54, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

The quote would be too long I think, I was thinking of something like "Kapadia was an extremely keen daily film viewer with her mother, and aspired to be an actress even as a child. She had said: "Ziddi was the first movie which registered on me. I wanted to be Asha Parekh, like the girl she played, ... To me, movies were very real. It was life up there on the screen." -something like that would benefit it I think.† Encyclopædius 10:56, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

It's really no big deal and I see no reason to quote the Ziddi part. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:59, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

It's not a big deal no, but in actor biographies we often include a quote or something related to how they got into acting or why they were passionate about if we have one. If you're not happy with it, leave it as it is with the aspirations wording please.† Encyclopædius 11:07, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello E. I've just woken up. I'll let you guys sort this out. If you do intend to include "Ziddi," I imagine it would be the 1948 film Ziddi (1948 film) written by the master storyteller Ismat Chughtai; the remake appearing in 1964, when DK was seven, is unlikely to be the first movie she would recall seeing. The earliest memories are generally older. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

We're not mentioning the film but just for the record, you should give this likelihood thing which keeps guiding you (and clearly not guiding you right) a break sometimes - it's definitely the 1964 film Ziddi with Asha Parekh. She said, "Ziddi was the first movie which registered on me. I wanted to be Asha Parekh, like the girl she played". Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:54, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

You are correct in this instance. My apologies. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:49, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

Note from coord

Okay, I've read through the whole thing. The first thing that jumps out at me is that this is a gigantic mess. There are comments all over the place, they are jumbled up with other people's comments, and the thread of the various opposes is totally lost in several places, making it very difficult for me to sort out what is still being opposed, what the basis for those opposes was, and whether those opposes are actually based on the criteria.

Some of the opposition seems to derive not from actual disenting sources but from reviewer's beliefs that something must be so without actually having a source to support the belief. Conjectures aren't what we build articles on - nor do we make assumptions like "I imagine it would be the 1948 film Ziddi (1948 film) written by the master storyteller Ismat Chughtai; the remake appearing in 1964, when DK was seven, is unlikely to be the first movie she would recall seeing. The earliest memories are generally older" - we base our articles on sources.. if the source does not specify which film it was, we indicate in our article that it is unclear which film is being referred to.

However, it does appear that there are significant concerns with the article that are being brought up. And that there are concerns with some of the sourcing that are actionable. This candidate has been open for almost two months. There is an insane amount of commentary ... so much so that it's difficult for me to untangle it totally without being concerned that I'm missing actionable items. Given that, I am going to archive this nomination and suggest that the several editors who are working on it do so on the talk page and get it straightened out before renominating. If most of the reviewers are then satisfied on the talk page and the article is renominated, I would expect that this sort of massively huge and sprawling FAC would not reoccur. It helps none of our readers when this sort of sprawling discussion doesn't help the actual improvement of articles.

I recognize this FAC sprawled out of control partly because of things beyond my control, for which I apologize to the various people who in good faith contributed here. I'm sorry that my computer died and it took almost three weeks to secure a replacement - we were hopeful we could get it repaired, and after that took over a week, then we were caught up in pandemic-related slowdowns of shipping and the like. I hope not to be AWOL again if this is renominated so that hopefully it will be able to a much more positive experience for everyone a second time around. --Ealdgyth (talk) 15:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.