Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kangana Ranaut/archive1
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 23:33, 7 August 2014 [1].
After Rani Mukerji and Vidya Balan, Kangana Ranaut is one such Bollywood actress who has helped push the boundary for a Hindi film heroine in a fiercely male-dominated industry. The article has been thoroughly researched and well-sourced and I look forward to a lot of constrictive comments. Cheers! KRIMUK90 ✉ 15:30, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Kailash29792
[edit]Just one comment for the time-being:
There is a category named "Actresses in Tamil cinema" - is it really necessary? I mean, she has appeared in only one Tamil film, and is unlikely to appear in anymore. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:40, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- True. Since others like Priyanka Chopra and Deepika Padukone don't have that category either. Removed AB01 I'M A POTATO 00:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Brief comment. I found that the high number of (often very short) quotations in the text made it difficult to read. I suggest more paraphrasing (perhaps target a 50% cut in the number of direct quotations); readers will be thankful and there'll be more of a chance of the article passing. Also, write out all contractions (e.g., "didn't" → "did not"). EddieHugh (talk) 21:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, I think AB01 I'M A POTATO 01:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the comment EddieHugh. A lot of the quotes have now been paraphrased. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 01:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The rest of my comments:
The lead says, "She then played opposite Hrithik Roshan as a superwoman in the science fiction film Krrish 3 (2013)" - I think you mean that she "acted" opposite him. Also, the term "superwoman" sounds too colloquial, just like how a strong man is called "superman" even if he cannot fly or release heat vision. So can we say "mutant" instead? Because that is what the character is.
- "Played opposite" is quite correct. Changed "superwoman" to "mutant". -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 15:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the URL's can be archived in order to avoid link rotting. The India Today links may very likely die, as Checklinks always tags them as "Soft 404".
- Actually, that's a Checklinks error. The India Today links are the least likely to expire, as they have online articles dating back to 1998. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 15:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why are some newspaper/website fields italicised and some not? Please maintain consistency.
- All print sources are italicised, and online sources are not, per the formatting used in the other FAs. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 15:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Kaya, a shape-shifting mutant" - you can wikilink "shape-shifting" as it is not such a common term (I don't think many Indians know of the term, and they would refer to any Mystique-type of character as "form-changing").
- Wikilinked shapeshifting. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 15:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The same paragraph reads, "The critic Sarita Tanwar reviewed" - for which newspaper/website?
- Added. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 15:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FA's like Priyanka Chopra, Vidya Balan and Deepika Padukone have a filmography table, why is it absent here? If the list is too long, you can at least include "Selected filmography" just like for PC.
- As I wrote below for Dwai's comment, that there is a separate page for her filmography. And since her filmography isn't as large as Chopra's or SRK's, I felt that a summary in prose would be better here instead of inserting another table. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 15:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can't review this FAC so deeply due to time constraints, but it does look very well written and all the statements are well sourced. Once my few comments have been addressed, this FAC has my "support". Kailash29792 (talk) 14:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comments Kailash. :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 15:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You are welcome Krimuk, and this FAC has my Support. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:09, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Dwaipayan
[edit]She has an elder sister, Rangoli, who now works as her manager..." Remve "now", may use as of.
- Done.
"her grandfather, was an IAS officer" "IAS" needs to be elaborated.
- Done.
"Ranaut who had been observing the character from a distance played the part along with " Perhaps can remove "from a distance". Also, is this info at all needed? Seems trivial.
- -->We think it's important since it outlines what led to her pursuing a full-time acting career (which is shown in the next sentence)
"A positive reaction from the audience prompted her to relocate to Mumbai to pursue a career in film" The preceding sentence is on her male role. So, do you mean the audience response to her male role playing encouraged her to move to Mumbai (it's possible to interpret in that sense due to proximity of these two sentences)?
- -->Basically, a positive reaction towards her overall performance
- At present it reads, "During a screening, one of the male actors went missing; Ranaut who had been observing the character played the part along with her original role of a woman. A positive reaction from the audience prompted her to relocate to Mumbai to pursue a career in film". So, the audience reaction to this particular performance (in which she played two characters, one male and one female) prompted her to relocate to Mumbai? If that is what the source says, then this sentences are perfect, no need to change. I thought good audience reception of all her performances during her theatre days prompted her move!--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:53, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, that's what the source says. She relocated because the audience appreciated her in the dual roles. :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 16:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- At present it reads, "During a screening, one of the male actors went missing; Ranaut who had been observing the character played the part along with her original role of a woman. A positive reaction from the audience prompted her to relocate to Mumbai to pursue a career in film". So, the audience reaction to this particular performance (in which she played two characters, one male and one female) prompted her to relocate to Mumbai? If that is what the source says, then this sentences are perfect, no need to change. I thought good audience reception of all her performances during her theatre days prompted her move!--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:53, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"for a four-month acting course from Asha Chandra's drama school" "from" versus "in".
- Done.
"Ranaut later said..." when did she say?
- Added.
The long quotation "People in the industry treated me like I didn't deserve to be spoken ..." does not have any attribution: where/when did she say so?
- Added.
"Ranaut found support in the actor Aditya Pancholi..." need a hint of timeline -- the year/ something like "at the begiining of her struggle".--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Added.
- Thanks for the comments, Dwaipayanc. :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 01:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Added.
Are we generally avoiding table of filmography in actor articles? The Filmography, awards and nominations section in this article looks very short.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:53, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, since there is a separate article for her filmography and awards, and since her filmography isn't too large, I felt that a summary in prose would be better here instead of inserting new tables. What do you think> -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 16:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, there is no right or wrong way. Personally, I prefer the table available in the actor article (unless the table is huge in size). I like that because I don't have to navigate to another article to have an overall yet quick glimpse on the filmography. You don't need the awards table, of course. So, it's a matter of personal choice/preference.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. And that's why her most successful films are listed in the paragraph of this section. Anyway, I hope this doesn't affect the outcome of your review. :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 02:19, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, there is no right or wrong way. Personally, I prefer the table available in the actor article (unless the table is huge in size). I like that because I don't have to navigate to another article to have an overall yet quick glimpse on the filmography. You don't need the awards table, of course. So, it's a matter of personal choice/preference.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, since there is a separate article for her filmography and awards, and since her filmography isn't too large, I felt that a summary in prose would be better here instead of inserting new tables. What do you think> -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 16:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- All points were appropriately addressed/answered.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I re-read parts of the article again. I have not spotchecked for parity with cited references, except a very few random ones. This article appears to meet FA criteria.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you so much! :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 16:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Redtigerxyz
[edit]Disclaimer: I have not read the whole article; but only parts. Pardon me, if some of the comments are already addressed in other parts of the article. Most of what I have read looks good.
- "Ranaut initially aspired to become a doctor on the insistence of her parents." seems UNDUE IMO, as it is not really relevant to her career
- I think it's important to show how she rebelled against what her parents wanted her to do, and establish herself on her own. It also puts into context why she was estranged from her parents. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 06:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The doctor part really doesn't reflect the sentiment. You have say that something like "against her family's wishes," she joined Bollywood. --Redtigerxyz Talk 06:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, that is said later. Initial career aspirations are mentioned in other FAs such as Priyanka Chopra and Rani Mukerji too. So why not here? -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 06:55, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm, wasn't the intention to show that she is a rebel. That is not established. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, but that is established much later. This one line just talks about what her initial career aspirations were, just like engineering and psychiatry were for Chopra. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 16:47, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Does she talk about it much; besides that interview and wikipedia mirrors. WP:LEAD says "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points". Is this one of them?--Redtigerxyz Talk 04:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I tried. Can we please have some other users commenting on this? -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 05:42, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That point is like a one-sentence summary of the Early life and background section, which talks a lot about her growing up days, education and career aspirations. So, yeah..I feel this is an important point AB01 I'M A POTATO 05:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Redtigerxyz: I still maintain that this part is notable enough to be mentioned in the lead. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 09:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dank: Can I please get your opinion on the statement "Ranaut initially aspired to become a doctor on the insistence of her parents" being in the lead? AB01 I'M A POTATO 03:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It wasn't my favorite sentence, but there's nothing wrong with it. (I just changed "on" to "at", btw.) - Dank (push to talk) 03:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Awesome! Thank you :-) AB01 I'M A POTATO 03:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It wasn't my favorite sentence, but there's nothing wrong with it. (I just changed "on" to "at", btw.) - Dank (push to talk) 03:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That point is like a one-sentence summary of the Early life and background section, which talks a lot about her growing up days, education and career aspirations. So, yeah..I feel this is an important point AB01 I'M A POTATO 05:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I tried. Can we please have some other users commenting on this? -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 05:42, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Does she talk about it much; besides that interview and wikipedia mirrors. WP:LEAD says "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points". Is this one of them?--Redtigerxyz Talk 04:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, but that is established much later. This one line just talks about what her initial career aspirations were, just like engineering and psychiatry were for Chopra. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 16:47, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm, wasn't the intention to show that she is a rebel. That is not established. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, that is said later. Initial career aspirations are mentioned in other FAs such as Priyanka Chopra and Rani Mukerji too. So why not here? -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 06:55, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The doctor part really doesn't reflect the sentiment. You have say that something like "against her family's wishes," she joined Bollywood. --Redtigerxyz Talk 06:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's important to show how she rebelled against what her parents wanted her to do, and establish herself on her own. It also puts into context why she was estranged from her parents. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 06:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "Ranaut's off-screen life has been the subject of extensive tabloid reporting in India." Almost every heroine has this feature. Is really needed in the lead?
- Since the personal life section describes several instances of how much her relationships were covered in the Indian media, I think we need atleast one sentence in the lead to say something about it. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 06:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, disagree. Look at Angelina Jolie FA for example. No mention in lead.--Redtigerxyz Talk 06:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Jolie's article states "...relationship notable for fervent media attention". As do other FA's like Deepika Padukone. So why not mention it here? -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 06:55, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, Messed up in a hurry what I really wanted to say last time. There is no reporting of individual media focus. Also, the Ranaut media attention pales to the scale of media frenzy over Bradangelia or even to the desi Deepika-Ranbir-Mallya.... relationships.--Redtigerxyz Talk 16:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I understand. How about something like "Ranaut's off-screen life has generated media coverage in India". One line about this needs to be mentioned in the lead, don't you think? -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 16:47, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, Messed up in a hurry what I really wanted to say last time. There is no reporting of individual media focus. Also, the Ranaut media attention pales to the scale of media frenzy over Bradangelia or even to the desi Deepika-Ranbir-Mallya.... relationships.--Redtigerxyz Talk 16:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Jolie's article states "...relationship notable for fervent media attention". As do other FA's like Deepika Padukone. So why not mention it here? -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 06:55, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, disagree. Look at Angelina Jolie FA for example. No mention in lead.--Redtigerxyz Talk 06:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Since the personal life section describes several instances of how much her relationships were covered in the Indian media, I think we need atleast one sentence in the lead to say something about it. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 06:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(←) "extensive tabloid reporting" is an overstatement for Kangana whose coverage pales to the frenzy over the Kapoors, Bachchans, Deepika etc. "Ranaut's off-screen life has generated media coverage in India" is stating the obvious. Page 3 media works like that in Bollywood.--Redtigerxyz Talk 04:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I would appreciate comments from other users on this point too. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 05:42, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess it would be ok to remove that statement, and instead add something about how she aspires to break away from stereotypical heroine roles and do more performance-oriented roles based on women empowerment (like in Vidya Balan's article) AB01 I'M A POTATO 05:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Redtigerxyz:Okay, I have removed the sentence from the lead. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 09:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess it would be ok to remove that statement, and instead add something about how she aspires to break away from stereotypical heroine roles and do more performance-oriented roles based on women empowerment (like in Vidya Balan's article) AB01 I'M A POTATO 05:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like POV-pushing of Ranaut; : "In a 2011 interview, Ranaut said: "Today, I have everything..."
- Well, it's a direct quote. I agree that the "everything" sounds very pompous of her, but the rest of the quote acts like an apt conclusion to all the fights she had with her parents. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 06:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Beg to differ. It sounds like "They hate me, but I the magnanimous one still love me". Even "although I do a lot for my family and friends today." is her POV. A neutral observer's view saying the same will be NPOV. --Redtigerxyz Talk 06:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Hence, in quotations. It's her quote, so it will obviously be from her POV. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 06:55, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with you, Krimuk that it would sound incomplete without that quote. However, I've added a bit about her reconciling with her parents. I'm thinking we don't need the quote anymore. What do you say? AB01 I'M A POTATO 02:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I still don't think the quote was not a case of POV-pushing, but anyway, we have removed it now Redtigerxyz. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 03:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with you, Krimuk that it would sound incomplete without that quote. However, I've added a bit about her reconciling with her parents. I'm thinking we don't need the quote anymore. What do you say? AB01 I'M A POTATO 02:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Hence, in quotations. It's her quote, so it will obviously be from her POV. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 06:55, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Beg to differ. It sounds like "They hate me, but I the magnanimous one still love me". Even "although I do a lot for my family and friends today." is her POV. A neutral observer's view saying the same will be NPOV. --Redtigerxyz Talk 06:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it's a direct quote. I agree that the "everything" sounds very pompous of her, but the rest of the quote acts like an apt conclusion to all the fights she had with her parents. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 06:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Ranaut has maintained a strong connection, and makes yearly visits to her hometown of Bhambla." Seems to be overstating the fact that she makes yearly visits.
- Agreed. Removed. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 06:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
--Redtigerxyz Talk 06:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comments Redtigerxyz. Do let me know if you disagree with me on the first three arguments. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 06:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Dr. Blofeld
[edit]Support I've given it a thorough read and copyedit and removed a few quotes. I'm happy that the article is a sound account of an actress who hasn't been around that long really. One thing though, why was it only the 2014 film which made her a leading actress of Hindi cinema? It does sound a bit OR, is it in the source?♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Doctor. Much appreciated. :) Yup, this cited source says that Queen established her as a leading actress of Bollywood. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 09:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Daan0001
[edit]Oppose Article does not exist or carry content to become a Featured content. Daan0001 (talk) 12:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, this comment carries no weight as is -- clearly the article does exist, and objections based on content require explanation and/or examples to be considered actionable. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:37, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly! The user is clearly against the nominator/article. Going with the past FLC records, it would be clear that he is a fanatic. —Vensatry (ping) 02:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Nikkimaria
[edit]Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:02, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Dank
[edit]Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. But not just yet, I'm using VisualEditor. - Dank (push to talk) 18:44, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- ₹600 million (US$7.2 million): See WP:$: "In general, the first mention of a particular currency should use its full, unambiguous signifier."
- I am not sure how to do this when using the currency conversion template, and would appreciate some help in this. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 04:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- If this is acceptable, write: "600 million Indian rupees (₹)". WP:MOS says it's "desirable" to put after "600". - Dank (push to talk) 11:42, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, changed it. :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 13:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- If this is acceptable, write: "600 million Indian rupees (₹)". WP:MOS says it's "desirable" to put after "600". - Dank (push to talk) 11:42, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not sure how to do this when using the currency conversion template, and would appreciate some help in this. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 04:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Please fix any of these if I got them wrong:
- "a poor initial at the box office": I changed it to "a poor initial run at the box office".
- "her floundering career": You may be right, and I'll leave it alone, but substitute "foundering" if that's what you meant. (The two words are often confused, particularly since the meanings are close.)
- Yeah, foundering is more apt. Changed it. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 04:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "women-oriented films": I don't know what that means. Films that women like more than men do?
- Okay, so "women-oriented" or "women-centric" film is a phrase that is widely used in the Indian media to refer to films that have women as protagonists. I agree, it's very silly and extremely sexist, but since the cited source talks about these "women-oriented films", I have used it here. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 04:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is, the word "oriented" means other things in British English (in the nature of "aimed at"), and I see that BrEng is what you're aiming for. What you just said works ... "films with women protagonists", if that's what they mean. - Dank (push to talk) 11:42, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yup, rephrased. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 13:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is, the word "oriented" means other things in British English (in the nature of "aimed at"), and I see that BrEng is what you're aiming for. What you just said works ... "films with women protagonists", if that's what they mean. - Dank (push to talk) 11:42, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, so "women-oriented" or "women-centric" film is a phrase that is widely used in the Indian media to refer to films that have women as protagonists. I agree, it's very silly and extremely sexist, but since the cited source talks about these "women-oriented films", I have used it here. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 04:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "and in preparation she observed": changed to "and that to prepare she observed"
- All done. I copyedited the article per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 23:57, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dank:Thank you so much for the copy-edits. Much appreciated. :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 04:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure. Excellent article btw, very readable. - Dank (push to talk) 11:42, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dank: The two remaining points have been addressed. And I'm really glad you liked the article. :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 13:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- One more thing: as soon as a bug is fixed in the script, I'll be offering you a script you can add to your User:(name)/vector.js file that will automatically change the appearance in any article of some of the problematic phrases I found while copyediting. (It doesn't actually edit the article, it just puts those phrases in bold.) That might be useful, in case the points covered are things you sometimes forget when you're writing or reviewing articles. You'll be able to remove or add any phrases you like to the list. - Dank (push to talk) 21:22, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dank: The two remaining points have been addressed. And I'm really glad you liked the article. :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 13:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure. Excellent article btw, very readable. - Dank (push to talk) 11:42, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dank:Thank you so much for the copy-edits. Much appreciated. :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 04:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I made the following changes, feel free to change them or comment:
- Adamant on building: You can be adamant on a point you're making, but if you're adamant to do something, you need "to", not "on".
- subsequently: See FLOW.
- haveli: See CLARITY.
- to not [verb]: not to [verb]
- it led: Grammarians call this "it" an "expletive" ... not in the sense of a dirty word, but a subject that acts as a placeholder, such as "There" in "There's a man at the door." If there's an easy way to reword without the expletive, then the sentence will often become more concise and readable.
- she is "[a] hugely ...": she is a "hugely ..."
- marred by dispute: marred by a dispute
- Production on the film was temporarily halted when the director ... died of cardiac arrest and the film was completed by the crew members.: Without a comma after "arrest", when the reader has made it to "and the film", they'll be assuming the meaning of that last clause will be something like: "When the director ... died of cardiac arrest and the film was completed by the crew members, production on the film was temporarily halted." When they get further into that clause, most readers will figure out your real meaning from context, but that forces them to rethink and backtrack. Also see COMMA.
- described ... to be: described ... as (SOED, Cambridge Dictionaries)
- Ranuat portrayed a brief role as the fiancée: In a brief role ..., Ranuat portrayed the fiancée
- Bollywood Hungama published that ... Ranaut was seeking projects: According to Bollywood Hungama, Ranaut was seeking projects. ("published" isn't a synonym for "wrote" or "said".)
- The critic ... reviewed: "...": The critic ... said: "..." ("reviewed" isn't a synonym for "wrote" or "said".)
- based on: See VAGUE.
- In a 2013 interview to Daily News and Analysis: In a 2013 interview with Daily News and Analysis
- owing him money worth ₹2.5 million (US$30,000): owing him ₹2.5 million (US$30,000)
- - Dank (push to talk) 21:22, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. The topics in small capitals are in a style and usage guide that I haven't transferred to Wikipedia yet, I'm working on it. - Dank (push to talk) 21:26, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments, Dank :-) AB01 I'M A POTATO 00:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure thing. I forgot to mention: I'm really ignorant about Indian English, so my guidelines and edits only concern the other main variants of English. Someone chose British English as the variant for this article, so I went with that. If you'd like to correct my comments where they're wrong if the variant is Indian English, that would be great ... I'm slowly building up a style guide, and it would be good to have advice on Indian English in it. - Dank (push to talk) 00:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments, Dank :-) AB01 I'M A POTATO 00:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent copy-edits! Thank you so much once again. I look forward to using the script you are developing, and would be happy to offer you advice on an Indian English guide, in whichever way I can. :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 02:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the phrasing is the same whether you use British English/American English. It's the spelling that's different. Like, for eg. realise/realize, colour/color, etc. AB01 I'M A POTATO 03:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks kindly, Krimuk. If any of the things I changed are actually fine in Indian English, let me know. The script is almost ready; it can handle single words, and all we need is a change of one character in one line of code in Mediawiki to fix the rest. - Dank (push to talk) 03:38, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a quick note: I'm going to slant the style guide toward articles that have the feel of history articles ... so I can't promise a script for every article, but I'm hoping the style guide will be relevant on most points for articles on the film industry, and I'll keep copyediting these articles. - Dank (push to talk) 16:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah! I see. It would be excellent if we could use it for the film-related articles. Anyway, your copy-edits have definitely improved this article. So do you think that the article is now ready to be promoted or does it still need some work? -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 16:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not a reviewer these days, just a copyeditor. The prose looks really good. - Dank (push to talk) 16:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No issues. Thanks once again. :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 16:58, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not a reviewer these days, just a copyeditor. The prose looks really good. - Dank (push to talk) 16:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah! I see. It would be excellent if we could use it for the film-related articles. Anyway, your copy-edits have definitely improved this article. So do you think that the article is now ready to be promoted or does it still need some work? -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 16:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a quick note: I'm going to slant the style guide toward articles that have the feel of history articles ... so I can't promise a script for every article, but I'm hoping the style guide will be relevant on most points for articles on the film industry, and I'll keep copyediting these articles. - Dank (push to talk) 16:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks kindly, Krimuk. If any of the things I changed are actually fine in Indian English, let me know. The script is almost ready; it can handle single words, and all we need is a change of one character in one line of code in Mediawiki to fix the rest. - Dank (push to talk) 03:38, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comment -- Promoting without a formal source review, however a brief scan didn't reveal any obvious issues re. formatting or reliability. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.