Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hrithik Roshan/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:04, 13 March 2017 [1].

Hrithik Roshan

[edit]
Nominator(s): FrB.TG (talk) 22:43, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Hrithik Roshan, known for his acting and dancing ability, and good looks. I have been working on this for a month now in hopes of having another FA about a Bollywood actor (at the moment there is only one FA about an actor at Portal:Bollywood and two about male personalities). I have shamelessly copied a little bit from other articles linked to it, hoping that is not a problem. Otherwise it is a very well-researched article.

PS, a big thanks to BOLLYWOOD DREAMZ for all the help during expansion. – FrB.TG (talk) 22:43, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kailash

[edit]
Resolved comments from Kailash

I'll do a readthrough of the article today, and post comments tomorrow. But after I ran the article through Checklinks, I must say the URLs must be archived to prevent link rotting. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have archived one source and might do others sometime in the future but I don't have that much time now.
Early life and background
  • "Punjabi people" redirects to "Punjabis"; please fix.
  • "During an interview he revealed that he was traumatised because of stammering, a speech disorder that surfaced when he was around six-years-old, which he still has today" - interview with who? And I think we should not violate WP:REALTIME.
  • "Roshan's maternal grandfather, the filmmaker J. Om Prakash, first brought him on-screen at the age of six in the film Aasha (1980)" - Om Prakash was already introduced in the first para of this section, so why introduce him again?
  • "Roshan turned down a master's degree" - you mean refused? "turn down" sounds idiomatic.

More to come soon... Kailash29792 (talk) 15:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Look forward to it.
Film career
  • "Roshan was originally scheduled to make his screen debut in Shekhar Kapur's Tara Rum Pum Pum opposite Preity Zinta, but the film was cancelled" - I'm not demanding this, but is there a reason why? Besides, he already appeared onscreen in Aasha (1980). Perhaps you mean "screen debut" as lead actor.
"Kapur had signed Hrithik for Ta Ra Rum Pum opposite Preity Zinta. The film was supposed to mark Roshan Jr's debut. Unfortunately for Hrithik, Kapur got busy with Elizabeth and Ta Ra Rum Pum never took off". checkY now done.
  • In this same para, two Rediff reviewers are anonymously mentioned. Can you please mention their names?
Sorry, checkY done now.
  • "Yaadein was reviled by critics" - but there is only one review mentioned: that of The Hindu. Perhaps an additional review could be added to support the statement.
  • "He enjoyed little success in 2002" - do not begin paras with pronouns.
  • "as did Arjun Sablok's romantic film Na Tum Jaano Na Hum (2002)" - I'd prefer simply "romance" over "romantic film". We could reduce usage of the word "film".
  • "A 2010 article on the website Bollywood Hungama claimed that Roshan's starring role in Koi... Mil Gaya revived his career." - Remove "the website", since BH has already been introduced in "Debut, success and setback". And mention the year of Koi... Mil Gaya.
  • "Rediff.com opined that "Hrithik is back where he belongs. At the top." " - who of Rediff?
  • "Described as "India's first sci-fi flick"," - actually, no. Kaadu (1952) holds that honour. Courtesy, The Hindu.
  • "Roshan denied reports suggesting that his character was inspired by Tom Hanks' portrayal of Forrest Gump in the titular film" - I'm not demanding this removal, but are you sure it doesn't violate WP:RUMOUR?
Well, it was not merely a rumor. Comparisons were made by critics even after the film's release, this for instance.
Very well. Looking back, even I feel the pre-Jadoo Rohit Mehra was very much like Forrest Gump. If any critic has noted striking similarities between the two characters (like how Benedict Cumberbatch compared Doctor Strange to Sherlock Holmes), feel free to add. If not, never mind. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Used the same source I referred you to.

Just wait for more. I'll put a sign at the end of every group of comments like this. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:18, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All done. – FrB.TG (talk) 13:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He co-starred with Naseeruddin Shah and Priyanka Chopra in his father's superhero production Krrish, the first Indian film in this genre. A follow-up to his family's production Koi... Mil Gaya, it saw him play tripple roles—the title superhero, his alter ego Krishna Mehra, and his father Rohit." - But there have been prior superhero films, as noted here. And Hrithik played only two roles (Rohit and Krishna, the latter who gains the "Krrish" moniker.) Since Koi Mil Gaya and Rohit have already been introduced, you don't have to introduce them again. But do mention Hrithik returning as Rohit.
Ugh, if it is not the first Indian superhero film, I don't understand why does the media report it to be one. Anyway, rectified.
Done. – FrB.TG (talk) 17:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Personal life
  • I think this image can have a reworded caption, like Roshan and Sussanne Khan (pictured in 2012) were married for fourteen years.
In the media
  • Could any statements regarding nepotism be added here? I say this because that's what Bollywood is notorious for. And I'm sure Roshan didn't find success entirely on his own terms.
Added a sentence on favoritism although something about it feels off (perhaps because the way it is phrased).
Final comments

Very impressive work so far. Once my remaining comments have been resolved, I'll support this FAC. And do archive all URLs to avoid link rotting. As for source reviewing, I'm too lazy to do that. But I may make minor c/e at times, so I hope you don't mind. I'm sure there are more experienced users for doing source reviews. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:27, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will archive them when I can and don't worry about the source review (that, thanks to Wehwalt, has already been done). Feel free to rephrase any sentence. Thank you for the review. – FrB.TG (talk) 13:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have resolved your concerns. Please have a look and consider capping/striking them. – FrB.TG (talk) 17:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is my final comment: the lead requires no citations, but quoted material must be attributed per WP:LEADCITE: "material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation." I see "one-trick pony" in the lead section with no attributed source. But otherwise this FAC has my Support. So congratulations! Kailash29792 (talk) 11:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Kailash. I wouldn't like to mention India Today in the lead so simply removed the claim.

Source review by Wehwalt

[edit]

Also recommend archiving sources. In addition:

Source review All sources appear to be of encyclopedic quality and are consistently cited, with the following caveats:

  • Titles do not appear to be consistently capitalised (the various cites to rediff are an example, as are the ones to Bollywood Hungama). I understand you are reproducing them, but MOS:TITLE?
Do you mean I should capitalize every word in the title (except for prepositions, conjunctions etc)? I usually write the title exactly how it is written in the source, including the capitalization. But I did correct a Rediff source from "NeT" to "Net".
  • I think that accessdates should be more recent than 2009. Since you have read the sources, this should not be difficult.
  • There is a discrepancy between the title given for ref 77 and that stated in the source.
  • Reference 165 and also 168 contain six different sources. Can this not be split up? Verifiability should not be an obstacle course.
They are not used elsewhere. It looks weird with the mounds and mounds of citations and is practical to group them. Verfiability, I believe, should be no problem here, as the titles reveal the year e.g. "Roshan in Most Desirable Men 2009".
Thank you for the source review. – FrB.TG (talk) 16:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Moisejp

[edit]
Resolved comments from Moisejp

Hi, FrB.TG. I'm quite busy and can't promise I'll get through a full review, but let's see how far I get. For now, comments about the lead:

  • "Roshan is one of the highest-paid actors in India and has won six Filmfare Awards among others." Here "among others" might be okay, but it doesn't seem as clear as would be ideal. I see from a Google search that "Filmfare Awards" can be referred to as "Filmfares". How about "Roshan is one of the highest-paid actors in India and has won many awards, including six Filmfares."
  • The last paragraph of the lead seems jumbled to me. Have you considered grouping the mentions of stage and television performances together, and then the endorsements and clothing line together? Moisejp (talk) 04:38, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Moisejp, both your points have been addressed. Return for a review only when/if you can. Regards, – FrB.TG (talk) 15:14, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Early life and background:

  • "He said that things improved for him gradually, after he started practising speech therapies on a daily basis.[6] He was treated at age 14.[7]" I didn't look at the sources, but is it possible to combine these sentences? It sounds like the speech therapies occurred when he was 14. If so, there may be a smoother way to say so. A side note: I would normally use "therapy" as an uncountable noun, unless there is need to really stress the plurality of multiple types of therapy—but I haven't looked at the source, so please keep it as is if you feel it is appropriate.
  • I'm confused by your latest edit. I thought the therapies were the treatment, but it now says the treatment was subsequent, so presumably a separate process? Or is "was treated" meant to mean "found himself cured (after having received the therapies)"? Moisejp (talk) 02:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually speech therapies and treatment are taken from two different sources. The first talks about his speech therapies while the latter says that he was treated at 11 without explicitly stating how so I'm not sure if it is right that we just assume therapies treated his stammering. — FrB.TG (talk) 06:27, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Prakash first brought Roshan on-screen at the age of six in the film Aasha (1980); Prakash filmed him dance in a song enacted by Jeetendra, for which he paid Roshan ₹100 (US$1.50).[8][9] He followed with uncredited appearances in various family film projects, including his father's production Aap Ke Deewane (1980)." The main subject of the first sentence is Prakash, so the switch to Roshan for "He followed" may not be as clear as would be ideal. Moisejp (talk) 04:42, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He was diagnosed with scoliosis that would not allow him to dance or perform stunts. He locked himself in his room and remained disconsolate for months.[13][14] Roshan considers this phase "the turning point of my life".[13]" It could be good to clarify, was this all when he was 12—if not, when was it? Also, "turning point" suggests he overcame his depression, but there is no explicit explanation about how he did so.
Well, the source does not quite go into details about this, but still I have used another quote from him which might make it less awkward.
  • "To learn filmmaking from the ground up, he started off sweeping floors, then gradually progressed to more demanding responsibilities like story development, camera work, direction, and editing." I'm sure it's true he started by sweeping floors—and maybe even that someone can soak up a bit of knowledge by just being on set (sweeping floors) with open eyes—but nonetheless it feels a little bit out of place between "to learn filmmaking from the ground up" and "more demanding responsibilities like story development, camera work, direction, and editing." Some people might not consider sweeping floors to have anything to do with learning the filmmaking trade, plus surely the gulf in amount of responsibility between sweeping floors and doing story development seems huge—to the point it almost seems comical to have them in the same sentence. I wonder whether there is a better way to indicate that he humbly started from the bottom (sweeping floors), but still transition more coherently into how he made the leap into real filmmaking duties. I guess one reason he was able to make this leap was that it was known he was from a filmmaking family, so he had some clout? If so, it could be good to clarify this, but also clarify why he was required to start by sweeping floors—if your sources get into these details. Moisejp (talk) 06:42, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What was stated in the article was not even in the source. Another source I found insists that he swept floor and made tea while he assisted his father, not before. Now why he did those jobs, the source doesn't explain that.
All done, I guess. – FrB.TG (talk) 11:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that you might be busy in real life and not be able to resume your review, but I have resolved your concerns. Please have a look and consider capping/striking them. – FrB.TG (talk) 17:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, FrB.TG! Sorry for the delay. I will look at your changes very soon. Thank you for your patience! Moisejp (talk) 09:14, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Okay, all my comments above have been addressed. One more thing about the "Early life and background" section, I was wondering whether the block quote about his stammering is really necessary, and whether it really adds much to our understanding of him. It tells us that he found the experience very unpleasant, but not how it may have affected his long-term outlook in life, for example. You may have already made enough of a point with the earlier bits about "traumatised" and "For oral tests at school, I used to bunk school, I used to fall sick, I used to break my hand, I used to get a sprain." But if you disagree, that's okay too. I still hope to work my way through the rest of the article, but we'll see if I manage. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that he compared it to hell and described what he went through really says a lot about his suffering, but I don't feel strongly about it, so I can remove it if it's not add much. – FrB.TG (talk) 20:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Removed per my edit summary. – FrB.TG (talk) 16:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More comments:

  • "In preparation for the part, he trained extensively to bulk up his physical build with the actor Salman Khan." May I suggest "In preparation for the part, he trained extensively with the actor Salman Khan to bulk up his physical build"
  • "He also took acting, singing, dancing, fencing, and riding lessons for years in addition to working on his diction." I understand that this comes right after "trained extensively" and is related, but "for years" feels out of place to me. It breaks away from the timeline in progress.
  • "For his second release, Khalid Mohammed's crime drama Fiza, Roshan found himself challenged playing the role of Amaan, an innocent Muslim boy who becomes a terrorist after the 1992-93 Bombay riots." I interpreted "found himself challenged" to mean that the role was difficult or challenging for him. But it is not specified why this might be so. (Or is the fact that it was a "different role"?—but it was only his second film, so we can't really say he had been doing a certain kind of role until then.) Or if "found himself challenged" isn't meant to mean that, maybe a more simple phrasing would be better.
Whether I have attached the wrong source to the statement or I have misinterpreted the source since nowhere did it say that he found the role challenging, so scrapped that part.
  • "Roshan appeared in the arthouse film because he wanted to play different roles." This comment goes hand in hand with the last one (addressing one of them might solve the other). I would like to suggest that "wanted to play different roles" is not the clearest way to say this. This is just my imagination and may be not accurate but, for example, maybe something like "Roshan appeared in the arthouse film because he wanted to push himself outside of his comfort zone, and challenge himself to portray a terrorist in a sympathetic way." Moisejp (talk) 06:10, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Adarsh criticised the film's "exhilarating" screenplay". Normally "exhilarating" is a positive quality, so without more context it is unclear why this would be cause for criticism.
  • "Roshan at the 2001 book launch of Kabhi Khushi Kabhie Gham...—his biggest commercial success to that point" It's a "book launch" but the main text only talks about the movie—and the wiki-link is to the movie. Was it the movie-version of the novel? I found this confusing. Moisejp (talk) 06:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The source for the image says so, but I have never known about a book version of the film. Rephrased.
  • "Film critics were polarised on their view of the film, comparing its storyline to the 1982 Hollywood release E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial,[51] but were unanimous in their praise for Roshan." The structure of this sentence suggests that all (or many) critics compared its storyline to E.T.'s and this "polarized" them—but that doesn't make sense. Do you want to say something like "Film critics were polarised on their view of the film—some of them negatively comparing its storyline to the 1982 Hollywood release E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial—but were unanimous in their praise for Roshan." Moisejp (talk) 06:45, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed your comments. – FrB.TG (talk) 14:28, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I'll strike through them soon when I get a chance. More comments:

  • "Roshan had reservations about the role but later agreed to the project after the script narration." I can guess but am not sure what a script narration is. Is there a wiki-link or paraphrasing you can provide? And do you have further information about what happened at this script narration to change his mind?
  • I see you have changed it to: "Roshan had reservations about the role but later agreed to the project after being impressed with the film's story." It sounds a little weak to me because it sounds like he wasn't familiar at all with the story at all when he first wanted to turn it down (which is implausible). How about something like "Roshan had reservations about the role but later agreed to the project after becoming more familiar with the specifics of the story." Would that work for you?
Moisejp, but it is what happened; he rejected the film before even reading the script but was hooked after reading the script. – FrB.TG (talk) 20:56, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Roshan received the Zee Cine Critics Award for Best Actor – Male and nominations for Filmfare, IIFA and Zee Cine Award for Best Actor." It looks like the Zee Cine Award for Best Actor is mentioned twice, or are they two separate awards? If they are separate awards, is there a way to more clearly differentiate them for the reader?Moisejp (talk) 19:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The award he won is Zee Cine Critics Award for Best Actor while the nomination is Zee Cine Award for Best Actor, two different categories. – FrB.TG (talk) 20:06, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK. I see from Zee Cine Awards that the non-Critic awards are decided by Viewers. Would it be worthwhile to add a precision like "Roshan received the Zee Cine Critics Award for Best Actor – Male and nominations for Filmfare, IIFA and Zee Cine (Viewers) Award for Best Actor"? For people like me who aren't familiar with the Zee Awards and could get easily confused. That would be a lot clearer for me. But if you feel strongly that it is clear enough, I won't insist. Moisejp (talk) 23:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Shifted "Critics" to the end for it to be more noticeable. – FrB.TG (talk) 12:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm almost done. Other comments:

  • "Alongside other Bollywood stars, Roshan played a football match for charity organised by Aamir Khan's daughter in 2014." Would it be worthwhile to name her?
  • "In 2006, Roshan was one of the four Bollywood actors, along with Priyanka Chopra, Kajol and Shah Rukh Khan, whose miniature dolls were launched in the United Kingdom, under the name of "Bollywood Legends"." I wonder whether there would be a better place for this sentence. The sentence before and after are talking about his power in the industry, and the whole paragraph talks about his income and power. Possibly putting it next to the point about his wax figure could be an idea—although that para is about his sexiness, which miniature dolls are not necessarily related to. What do you think? Moisejp (talk) 03:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Shifted it to the next paragraph, but in a way that it does not feel forced there.

Those are all of my comments. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 05:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moisejp, thank you so much for such a thorough review of the article, which I hope you also enjoyed reading/knowing about. I have hopefully resolved/responded to all of your concerns much to your satisfaction. Cheers, – FrB.TG (talk) 13:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. You changes look good, and you have pretty much addressed all of my comments. The article is very thorough and well written, and is interesting. There was one more comment above that I'm not sure you saw (another idea for the "reservations" sentence) that I guess is not a deal-breaker but I would still urge you to consider. In any case, excellent work on the article! Moisejp (talk) 15:05, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cas Liber

[edit]
Resolved comments from Casliber

Reading through now. Prose looks ok at first look...

.He locked himself in his room and remained disconsolate for months. Believing that "[t]here was no pain. The doctors were wrong", Roshan considers this phase "the turning point of my life". - this sorta jumps...one minute he's sad and the next it's been a turning point. Is there something missing here about how he got over being disconsolate?
Roshan appeared in the "art-oriented" film because he wanted "to experiment with all kinds of characters". - get rid of quotes - first bit is just an art-house film (?), second bit, "try different roles"(?)
Thank you, I hope both your comments have been addressed to your satisfaction. – FrB.TG (talk) 19:06, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it still doesn't tell me how he snapped out of it..
All the source says is that about a year later he went to a beach wondering about his future and deciding to take a chance against the doctors. He ran faster as he became more confident. Is it something worth adding?
Yes - the way it is at the moment it doesn't flow or make sense. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:04, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Elaborated. I hope at this point it makes sense while also not reading trivial.
Tamarind links to a tree...presumably should link somewhere else...?
Supposed to link nowhere as the article for the brand does not exist.
If it is a notable brand, redlink it (or better still, make a stub) - if not, leave unlinked. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:04, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think that is notable enough.
Roshan prefers to avoid getting "stuck with just one kind of screen persona", and takes on roles to "create another version of him". - in other words, he prefers not to be typecast by taking on diverse roles...(simpler)

Roshan is among Bollywood's highest-paid actors and most high-profile Indian celebrities - I'd take out the high-profile mention and leave it to the facts in the following sentences to demonstrate this. This section does come over as somewhat effusive.
I have tried not to be unduly demonstrative here, but what can we do if he is so popular and wins so many media honors. – FrB.TG (talk) 20:33, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - I am a bit torn as I am unfamiliar with the actor - safest is to let the facts speak for themselves. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:04, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yup! – FrB.TG (talk) 09:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have resolved your concerns. Please have a look and consider capping/striking them. – FrB.TG (talk) 17:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cautious support in comprehensiveness and prose, though not a topic I am familiar with. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:51, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

[edit]
Resolved comments from Aoba47
  • The image in the infobox requires an ALT description. Make sure that every image you use in the article has one of these.
  • You use the quote "one-trick pony" in the lead. You would either have to put the reference for this quote or paraphrase it to avoid the link.
Per my response above to Kailash i.e. removed.
Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 17:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it really true that he is the highest-paid film star on television? The source you cite appears to back it up, but it seems like a rather large claim (especially since you repeat it in the lead) to argue that he is the highest-paid film star in ALL television history. I know that Jennifer Lopez was paid $17.5 million for a single season of American Idol, which seems higher to me. Also Charlie Sheen (who has appeared in numerous films) was paid $1.8 million per episode for Two and A Half Men so I am not sure if your claim is entirely accurate. I would either recommend doing further research on this to better support it or removing it altogether.
Actually that was meant to be Indian television. Sorry about that.
No worries, thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 17:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say that he was born with an extra thumb; I am assuming that this was removed shortly after birth, but could you please clarify this for me? Also, the way you tie this with him feeling isolated for not feeling attractive can lead to the impression that this extra thumb was a cause of this and I am not sure if that is true.
The last time it was known to me; he still showed it in a 2003 film so no he did not have it removed, but I guess the sentence makes it sound that way.
Oh, I just assumed that it would be removed. Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 17:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following sentence does not seem entirely encyclopedic in tone: (A year passed, he went to a beach, wondering about his future). I understand what you mean, but it seems a little odd when compared to the rest of the article. I would cut this sentence completely, and start the next sentence with "After a year, he started jogging..." to keep the tone as encyclopedic as possible.
  • Is the following sentence, (Roshan found separation to be "worse than death"), really necessary? It does not anything to a person's understanding of the actor. I am pretty sure that a majority of people who go through divorce experience similar feelings so it is not unique to him. I would remove this.
  • Do you have any follow-up information about the case with Kangana Ranaut? (I am referencing the second paragraph of the "Personal life" section.) I would assume either some sort of progress or resolution came of this.
The case was closed by the cyber crime cell of the Mumbai Police because of lack of any leads. Should that be mentioned?
I would include this information if you have sources to back it up to be comprehensive. Aoba47 (talk) 17:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have any information on why he changed his mind to be a part of the film industry again? (I am referencing the first sentence of the third paragraph of the same section).
No. I hate how some of the stories in the article are incomplete because of lack of information in the sources.
No worries, it is fine as it currently stands then. Aoba47 (talk) 17:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is an "item number"?
Item number is common in Indian cinema especially Bollywood. It is a musical performance during a film without having anything to do with the plot. Our encyclopedia has a great article about it.
Thank you for the clarification. Could you possible provide a Wikilink for the article on its first use? Aoba47 (talk) 17:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is wiki-linked in the second line of the second paragraph of second sub-section of second section, its first instance. ;)
Thank you for pointing this out; I must have read over it. Aoba47 (talk) 21:02, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @FrB.TG: Overall, great job with the article. These are my notes from my first read-through of it. After you address my comments, I will read through it again and add more notes to my review. Let me know if you have any questions/comments about my review so far. I apologize if I miss anything obvious as I have never heard of this actor before or seen any of his work. Aoba47 (talk) 15:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. I figured that you might not be aware of this actor. It is always good to invite reviewers not familiar with the subject they are reviewing. – FrB.TG (talk) 16:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@FrB.TG: I agree; it is always better to get an outsider's perspective on a topic. Ping me when you are done with my comments please. Aoba47 (talk) 17:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: Two remaining queries, one replied, other done. – FrB.TG (talk) 20:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • No audio files used, images only.
  • All images were originally uploaded on Flickr and are properly licensed.
  • Good use of captions that illustrate the image in a clear and concise manner for the reader. All images in the body of the article are appropriate for the sections.
  • Every image has an appropriate ALT description.

Everything looks good with the images. Good luck with the rest of the comments. Aoba47 (talk) 21:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Bollyjeff

[edit]
Resolved comments from Bollyjeff

Not all references have the author listed. For example,

  • "Masand's Verdict: Go Dhoom 2" lists the author as Rajeev Masand in the article, but not here.
  • "Playing the good guy is boring" implies in the second sentence that the author is Subhash K Jha.

Please check them all for authors.

  • Please alphabetize the categories
  • Some confusion with the names. Third paragraph of Early life and background starts with Prakash. I assume this references J. Om Prakash from first paragraph, but why not say "His grandfather J. Om Prakash" on the first instance here to be sure?
I think it is better the way it is: "his mother, Pinky, is the daughter of producer and director J. Om Prakash". It is quite obvious from the sentence that Prakash is his grandfather. If we say grandfather; we will also have to say whether maternal or paternal that might make it even more confusing.
I am talking about the desire to identify in the 'third' paragraph that this is the same Prakash that is his relative who helped him get started. The full name is two paragraphs earlier.
  • Same thing in first para with his father 'Rakesh' and grandfather 'Roshan'. It might be better for most readers to list their full names the first time to avoid confusion.
  • Within the career text, it seems fairly random which films titles have the year in parenthesis afterwards and which don't. What's the rule here?
Well, I don't think there is such thing as consistency here; I mean won't it be a little boring to have every film listed as xxx (2000), xyz (2001), blah blah blah (2002)? – FrB.TG (talk) 20:56, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Personal life

  • Source says there were 'rumours' of alimony, and there is a link to another article that says no alimony was paid.
  • Source says he 'thought' about quitting the industry, not that he did.
  • "In December" [of the same year] would be more clear. I almost thought you meant this year.
All done. – FrB.TG (talk) 07:04, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Artistry and media image

  • "On the other hand, Roshan is acknowledged in the media for being one of India's most talented actors of his generation, his devotion to his work and his ability to commit heavily to each role" - incomplete sentence.
Ok, what's missing here?
Perhaps change "generation, his devotion" to "generation for his devotion" or "generation, for his devotion"
Done; I can request for spot-check if it is needed. – FrB.TG (talk) 20:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At a 2015 film festival, he was named the Most Versatile Artist.[151]" - source does not support this claim. This is now the third time I have found an unsupported claim and I have not even checked very many sources. Disappointing.
They were not unsupported claims - slightly phrased differently or misinterpreted. As for this one, it is an honest mistake that could honestly happen to anyone - I found the text below Roshan's image which was for Ali Zafar. My bad! – FrB.TG (talk) 16:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Early life and background

  • The video source is over 30 minutes long. Please specify the time at which the relevant information is presented for each use.
  • Can you find alternate/additional sources for his birth date, religion, school, college degree, etc? The ones given do not specify exactly. I don't know if this one is good enough because it may be circular from wikipedia, but as an example it has some of the information at least: [2]. To me, the sources given do not flat out state the facts; much is inferred. I will not be able to support the article without better sources for this critical personal information.
Added a book source, but it does not have information of when the book was published and ISBN (but that shouldn't be a problem). – FrB.TG (talk) 09:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a self published ebook will work. @Wehwalt: What do you think of this source [3] that was added or and one I suggested above [4]? Are either one of these acceptable? Bollyjeff | talk 15:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced the book with a source from The Times of India, which was used only for his Punjabi heritage in that sentence. – FrB.TG (talk) 17:02, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Times of India is acceptable. I wasn't thrilled with the other two and hope you can make do without them.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:21, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This one has several of the items on pages 51-53 [5], [6]. Bollyjeff | talk 02:11, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done and it was already used for one sentence in the article but not for info like date of birth, college education etc. Thanks for referring me to it. – FrB.TG (talk) 07:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we really need to list 5 films as his "greatest commercial success" in the lead? You have already mentioned Krrish 3 earlier. It is not just he that made the films successful anyway. I think it will be cleaner without this.
Tweaked. – FrB.TG (talk) 22:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe the lead or somewhere can mention his many injuries, which are scattered throughout?
  • From Artistry section again, "Roshan was noted for his versatility in..." - By whom?

Film career

  • I think there should be info about the massive level of instant fame he received after Kaho Naa Pyaar Hai.
At the end of the para, there is one discussing that: "Rediff.com's Vivek Fernandes remarked that the success of the film established Roshan as a prominent actor in Bollywood". I think that it should suffice.
I would like to see it emphasized more, it possible.
Added a sentence. – FrB.TG (talk) 15:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • On Koi Mil Gaya, you say "Film critics were polarised on their view of the film—some of them negatively compared its storyline to the 1982 Hollywood release E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial—but were unanimous in their praise for Roshan.[18][51]" - The two sources given do not convince me of 'unanimous' praise. You should also mention that KMG came out in 2003.
  • "Dhoom 2 became the highest-grossing Indian film of all time, a distinction it held for two years.[67]" - The source seems to indicate one year, no?
Well, no. Dhoom 2 stands at no 12 with ₹1.5 billion before Om Shanti Om (2007) that earned ₹1.49 billion. And then there is Ghajini (2008; with 1.9 billion), the film that broke its record, which makes it two years.
You are right. I was confused because number 11 did not have the year beside it.
  • "Bang Bang!, an official adaptation of the 2010 Hollywood release Knight and Day" - Source please.
I have just gone ahead where I have not replied. – FrB.TG (talk) 08:30, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The new source also does not say it is "official", as in sanctioned by the owners of Knight and Day. A valid source is needed, otherwise it's "unofficial".
Tweaked. – FrB.TG (talk) 15:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Good job. Bollyjeff | talk 17:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sarastro1

[edit]
Resolved comments from Sarastro1

Oppose: (Recusing as coordinator) I looked at this with a view to promoting, but noticed quite a few prose points. There is nothing major, and I expect to strike the oppose, but I wanted to put a brake on here first. A quick look revealed quite a few bits of uncomfortable prose, and these are just from the lead and first section, which is a little concerning this late in a FAC. I think we need someone to take a look at the whole article and give it some polish as the prose is not currently quite at FA standard. I emphasise that these are samples, and just addressing these would not be enough for me to strike the oppose. Someone needs to look for similar instances throughout the article, particularly examples of redundancy. I may be able to copy-edit this a little myself, but I can't guarantee anything at the moment. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:45, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "he has been noted for portraying a variety of character types and for his dancing ability": This is not ideal phrasing; why not just "has portrayed a variety of characters and is known for his dancing ability"?
  • "He ranks high in listings of the most popular Indian celebrities": This should be "highly" rather than "high" but I'm not sure of the need for this. Why not just "He is among the most popular Indian celebrities", or just stick "A popular figure in India [comma]" at the start of a sentence?
  • "marked a major turning point in Roshan's career": Redundancy: why not just "was"?
  • "The 2003 science fiction film Koi... Mil Gaya marked a major turning point in Roshan's career, earning him two Filmfare Awards—Best Actor and Best Actor (Critics), and he later appeared in its highly successful sequels: Krrish (2006) and Krrish 3 (2013).": In fact, this whole sentence is a little untidy; we have an unclosed dash, and there is just a little too much going on. Why not "The 2003 science fiction film Koi... Mil Gaya, for which he received two Best Actor awards, was a turning point in Roshan's career; he also appeared in its highly successful sequels: Krrish (2006) and Krrish 3 (2013)."
  • "He went on to earn wide [earned widespread] critical praise for his portrayal of a thief in the 2006 adventure film Dhoom 2,": Redundancy.
  • "While performing stunts in some of his films, Roshan has sustained severe injuries.": This is a bit of a non sequitur as it just seems added randomly to the end of a paragraph. My inclination would be to cut this.
Given several injuries he sustained while performing many of his stunts, Bollyjeff suggested that it should be mentioned somewhere in the lead, but removed.
  • "As a judge on the latter, he became the highest-paid film star on Indian television": The highest paid star, or just the highest paid film star?
Film star.
  • We use the serial comma in the last paragraph of the lead, but not the others. It is fine to use it or not to use it, but we need consistency.
  • "Roshan was born on 10 January 1974 in Mumbai to a Punjabi family of Bollywood personalities": This is not the best phrasing as it makes his entire family sound like some kind of circus act. Maybe "a Punjabi family prominent in Bollywood"? Or something similar.
  • "After he started practising speech therapies": Surely just "speech therapy" rather than a plural?
  • "He locked himself in his room and remained disconsolate for months.": As written, it appears that he locked himself in a room for months, which sounds unlikely.
I don't think there is much I can do about it, as the source puts it that way: "he locked himself in his room and stayed disconsolate for months".
  • "Roshan sees this phase as "the turning point of [his] life".": What phase are we talking about? Several different things happen here, and we need to be clear what was the turning point. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:45, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I just glanced through the rest of the article, which isn't too bad. In that case, I may be able to copy-edit this myself this weekend. Sarastro1 (talk) 00:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have adapted most of your suggestions and shall wait for the possible copyedits before adding anything else. – FrB.TG (talk) 04:47, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One little point. Do we need to list so many films in the lead? I'd prefer to cut a few but I'm not sure which ones would be the most important. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Removed one recent film that wasn't as successful as his previous films but I can't think of removing another one as they all proved very successful for him. – FrB.TG (talk) 14:51, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The source says that he learned it to perfect his dialogues and pronounce the words correctly. Fun fact (or not): anyone who can speak Hindi understands much of Urdu and vice versa as many words and sentences are similar.
Item number is common in Indian cinema especially Bollywood. It is a musical performance during a film without having anything to do with the plot. Our encyclopedia has a great article about it. It is linked in the second sentence of the second para of the second sub-section of second section. ;) – FrB.TG (talk) 19:45, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support with a copy-editing disclaimer: There is one point above, but that doesn't affect my support. I've copy-edited this quite heavily but feel this now meets the FA criteria. I think this is admirably balanced for an article about a current actor. Nice work. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:37, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a million for your copyedits and support. I admire the fact that after opposing, you stepped in to help, quite rare among reviewers. Also, I apologize if I added too much work for you. – FrB.TG (talk) 21:46, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Hrithik_Roshan/archive1&oldid=866030866"