Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Shah Rukh Khan/archive2

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) 10:08, 21 May 2015 [1].

Shah Rukh Khan

[edit]
Nominator(s): User:Bollyjeff (talk), User:Dr. Blofeld (talk)

This article is about a man who is arguably the biggest film star in the world. During its first FAC, some reviewers cited excessive length. We have now moved non-essential elements into sub-articles, making it very manageable. I believe it is FA quality. Khan is turning fifty this year, and I would like to see this have a shot at TFA. Thank you, BollyJeff | talk 18:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ssven2

[edit]

Support — I supported in the previous FAC. With a lot of copyediting and a second PR done, the article looks even better. Just a couple of comments though

  • A line or two on Paheli can be included as it was well received by critics. Just a suggestion though. Your call, Bollyjeff.
  • Personally, I wouldn't want to see any possible deadlinks in this article. Archiving of all the references (excluding those from books) would be great.

Comments from Kailash

[edit]

Though I supported this during the previous FAC, the article has undergone substantial changes since, and some points I'd like to list:

Lede
  • "villainous roles" - I don't know how much of a POV statement it can sound like, but "negative roles" may do if needed.
I like it this way for the majority of English-language readers. I have already changed it from "negative" to "dark" to "villainous" based on other reviewers comments. BollyJeff | talk 22:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • DDLJ, DTPH, KKHH and K3G are all romantic films with varying subgenres. So I think they can simply referred to as romantic films. And fix the link to K3G.
  • "reportedly one of the richest actors in the world in 2014" - Sounds vague. According to who?
Acting career
  • "made-for-television English-language film" - I'd prefer "English-language television film", wikilink included.
  • "changed his mind" - I earlier said to change this to the more formal "changed his decision". Why is it back again?
  • Please update info on DDLJ's run; I guess it was never removed, only they announced that they would close it, though they did not.
  • Fix the link to Asoka.
  • "penned" is jargon. Say "written".
  • Veer Zara can simply be described as a romantic film, as "saga" usually means something longer, like a series.
  • Don can be simply described as an action film, because that it is what is, not entirely a thriller.
  • "portraying a 1970s junior artiste who is reborn in the 2000s as a superstar" - the reincarnation (Om Kapoor) was not born in the 2000s. he was born just after Om Prakash died in the 1970s.
  • "turning down" - refusing?
  • "11 September attacks" - must match the article name (September 11 attacks).
That would violate the date style, no? BollyJeff | talk 22:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a sequel to Don of 2006" - a sequel to Don (2006). I also think it is SRK's first sequel in his career.
In the media
  • "ad" - You mean advertisement.
Do you mean in "television ads, print ads"? It wont sound right using that big word twice in a row. I believe it is as shown in the source. BollyJeff | talk 22:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • We already know who Anupama Chopra is, so need to define her by occupation.
  • The quote box seems misplaced.
Awards
  • Single digit numbers must not be represented through numerals, but through letters... unless required.
Footnotes
  • "Chopra's book gives the date as 19 September 1980, making Khan 14 years old" - mention the book name, and I think you mean that SRK was 14 years old at that time.
Additionally, it would be great if all the links were archived, as once there were "I-don't-remember-how-many" dead links, possibly over 100. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Kailash29792: Is that a support now then or not?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Other reviewers plainly know much more about the subject than I do, but from the layman's point of view I find the article comprehensive and evidently well balanced, the prose is easy to read, and the word-count has wisely been brought down to about three-quarters of the previous length. It is not obvious to me how any reader wanting information about this performer could be disappointed by this article. It seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. Tim riley talk 08:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support; nicely put together and appears well-balanced. - SchroCat (talk) 21:09, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou Tim riley and SchroCat for taking the time to read and review this. Glad Tim that your earlier concerns with it have now been met.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cassianto

[edit]
Early life and family
  • "...served as chief engineer of the port in the 1960s." -- Looking at the date in the opening of the first section, I assume we will be completing the article in BrEng? If so, the definate article is much more preferable.
  • "As of 2010, Khan's paternal family was still living in Shah..."were" living?
  • "According to Khan, while he strongly believes in Islam, he also values his wife's religion" -- Which is?
  • "At home, his children follow both religions" -- So when not at home do they follow others? "At home" is a little redundent I fear.
Acting career
  • "Two weeks after his mother's death in April 1991, Khan changed his decision regarding acting in films,[41] citing it as a way to escape the pain of losing her." -- This sounds a little repetetive seeing as we only mentioned her death in the previous section. Might I suggest instead: "Khan changed his decision to act in films in 1991, citing it as a way to escape the grief of his mother's death." This will also get rid of the WP:EUPHEMISM with the"losing her" term.
  • "...and by June 1991" -- No need for the year again.
  • "... he had started his first shooting" -- " he had started his first shoot"?
  • "Another of his early signings, Deewana, was released in June 1992, becoming his film debut." -- Why not cut straight to it and say "His film debut was in Deewana..."?
  • "with actress Juhi Chawla." -- Def article?
  • "Darr marked the first of Khan's many collaborations with filmmaker Yash Chopra and his company Yash Raj Films. His stammering..." Khan or Chopra?
  • "...film of the year in India. His most significant release that year was Aditya Chopra's directorial debut" -- year/year in close proximity.
  • "The performance itself is, like the best in the business, played well enough to come across as effortless, as non-acting." -- Odd comma use. "The performance itself is like the best in the business, played well enough to come across as effortless, as non-acting." Check the sources to see if this correct.
  • "Later in 1997, he starred in Subhash Ghai's diasporic-themed social drama Pardes, where he portrayed Arjun" -- Laterin 1997, he starred in Subhash Ghai's diasporic-themed social drama Pardes, in which he portrayed Arjun..."?
  • "but India Today lauded Khan's energetic performance" -- They would've lauded Khan for his performance not his actual performance?
  • "Writer Anjana Motihar Chandra" -- Def article?
  • "He continued to have frequent associations with directors Yash Chopra, Aditya Chopra, and Karan Johar" -- We know they're directors so it sounds a little repetitive. Suggest: "He continued to have frequent professional associations with Yash Chopra, Aditya Chopra, and Karan Johar..."?
  • "Khan became a producer..." -- We can get away with a pronoun here.
  • "In 2002, Khan played..." -- For an article in BrEng such as this, I'm not sure of the American comma used in openers such as this. Having said that, consistency is present throughout regarding this and if others don't object then neither will I.
  • "Fuad Omar, author of Bollywood: An Insider's Guide..." -- Def article?
  • "WP:OVERLINK of New York City. I think we're safe in the expectation that most people would've heard of this.
  • "...with his wife Gauri serving as a producer." -- Copy edit "serving" out of this; it would work just as well without IMO.
  • Likewise with "new" immediately after it.
  • "...grossing film of 2004 in India, earning a worldwide gross..." -- grossing/gross
Other work
  • "...he and wife Gauri" -- Do we need a further introduction to Gaurj?
  • "He also sang in his own voice..." - Always much easier singing in your own voice rather than someone else's I suppose.
  • "I would link Manchester as there is no suggestion that we are in the U.K at this point. We mention the U.K with a load of other places and those not geographically minded my struggle to place it within the U.K in light of the other countries mentioned.

Support -- That's my lot, none of it essential of course so please adopt or disregard at your discretion. A much improved article on an important figure within the Bollywood industry. CassiantoTalk 04:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have adopted most of these. BollyJeff | talk 08:30, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Which ones did you skip? CassiantoTalk 16:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
His wife's religion was already mentioned twice in the paragraph, so I did not add it a third time. The odd comma that you mentioned was indeed that way in the source. I left all of the "In YYYY," commas. That's it I think. BollyJeff | talk 00:49, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. CassiantoTalk 01:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers Cass, some good points too.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer, although changes based on Cassianto's comments above (taken as a whole) would be an improvement over my work. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou Dank.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- plenty of support, don't forget to seek image/source reviews at some stage. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:07, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Crisco 1492: or Nikkimaria?♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Be consistent in whether you include locations for periodicals (they're not required)
Fixed.
  • Check use of hyphens vs dashes
I used the titles just as they appeared on the web site or in google books. Didn't know they had to be formatted better than the original.
  • Be consistent in whether you use sentence or title case for Bibliography
Ditto as above. What if the real book titles use different cases? Change some of them anyway?
Sorry about that; removed.

Nikkimaria (talk) 21:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Nikkimaria:, but I have some questions above. BollyJeff | talk 23:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, MOS allows us to make silent typographical changes, so long as we aren't changing the meaning. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Must I go through all 242 sources and attempt to correct the grammar of the titles? BollyJeff | talk 01:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's not necessary, as they're already mostly correct - there's just a few minor tweaks needed that shouldn't take more than a few minutes. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps User:SandyGeorgia could help address that?♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria is on top of those issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:13, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: What are the "few minor tweaks needed"? BollyJeff | talk 13:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Fix dashes (try this script)
  2. Ensure that all publication titles (in italics) use title case and article/page titles (in quotation marks) use sentence case (but don't change proper nouns)
  3. Other miscellaneous formatting fixes (eg. missing italics in title of FN81). Nikkimaria (talk) 14:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Article/page titles use sentence case' tells me that I do have to check/change them all. For FN81, NDTV is a television network with a website, not a publication. The wiki article does not use italics for them. I use italics where the wikipedia articles use them, generally for print publications, not for websites. I believe this is in agreement with the MOS. BollyJeff | talk 15:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jab Tak Hai Jaan is a work and is italicized in the source. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, but what if they are not correct in the source? There are about 45 more such as this. I checked several film and actor articles from the FA list, and they usually do not change the formatting of the source titles to italicize works. Also, what if it's a partial name like Slumdog without the Millionaire? BollyJeff | talk 15:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, we just need to preserve the italics which are present in the source. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just finished fixing all the ones that do use italics in the source. BollyJeff | talk 18:16, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have now used the dash script as well. BollyJeff | talk 01:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review - all images are from Bollywoodhungama.com (apart from the signature), which appears to have given permission to use images found on the site through OTRS. This is all fine, but I have one concern. Can we be sure that the photos were taken by people that work for Bollywoodhungama.com, and that the website has not reused images from elsewhere? Or that they have bought rights to use the photos, but not necessarily own their copyright? It is hard to determine, as none of the images have actual photographer credit. Perhaps the operators of the website should be asked. We need a statement like "all images found on Bollywoodhungama.com have been created by employees of the website" or some such. If someone could check if it is already stated in the OTRS permission, that would also be great. FunkMonk (talk) 13:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have access to the OTRS statement, but I was told in the past that anything in the PARTIES AND EVENTS section of the Bollywood Hungama images site is safe for use on Wikipedia with the OTRS statement attached. Here are some links to disclaimer pages from hungama.com for what that's worth: [2], [3]. I am not a lawyer to be able to understand all of this stuff, but I know that other images from this site are already used in numerous Wikipedia articles, including FAs. There have been discussions about this in the past, and the images are still here. BollyJeff | talk 12:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If it has been accepted in other FAs, it should probably be alright. FunkMonk (talk) 01:14, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the formal licensing agreement with them has been accepted in at least half a dozen FAs, probably more.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:23, 16 May 2015 (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/Shah_Rukh_Khan/archive2&oldid=1138471222"