Jump to content

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Huma Qureshi (actress)/1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Huma Qureshi (actress)

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: keep – consensus is that the article meets criteria 3a. No comments in over a month. Shudde talk 03:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article mainly fails on broad coverage criteria. Will list down how and add more points.

  • The article claims that the subject actress has starred in "several" theatrical productions but not a single one is mentioned.
  • It also states that she has worked with "several" NGOs and assisted a documentary filmmaker. None of the NGOs are mentioned either.
  • It further says that she signed a two-year contract with Hindustan Unilever. Then its lists down some commercials that she has worked in Samsung Mobile (Samsung), Nerolac (Kansai Nerolac Paints), Vita Marie (Britannia Industries), Saffola Oil (Marico), Mederma Cream (probably by Merz Pharma; i am not sure) and Pears Soap (Hindustan Unilever). So only one ad for Unilever in 2 years contract?
  • And main point is that the article is not about her but about her playing the role of Mohsina.
  • Classic WP:QUOTEFARM issue as always; to increase the prose size most probably. Excluding lead section and tables, the article has about 6400 characters out of which approimately 1/3 i.e around 2000 characters are from quotions.
    • "I never thought of coming to Mumbai or being an actress. But when my friend called me for an audition for a movie called Junction, it set me thinking. Sadly, the film never got made"
    • "I didn’t believe him then. You hear lots of such stories in this industry so I wasn’t waiting with bated breath"
    • "I have no regrets. I wish it had worked out but it didn't. I am not someone who sits and laments over things. I was approached for several other south films too but the roles weren't what I was looking for"
    • "Mohsina tries to copy everything she sees on the big screen in her own little ways. She is heavily influenced by Bollywood".
    • "an earthiness, sincerity, intensity and warmth of personality, qualities that distinguished Smita, apart from the fact that she was a very fine and instinctive actress. Huma is a good enough actress on her own, someone who can stand apart from the crowd and hold her own"
    • "Huma Qureshi, who's introduced much later in the film...is wonderful"
    • "Bollywood is largely about ex-beauty queens and size zero PYTs. Dusky and slightly bigger than the other newbies, she brings a raw sensuality on screen that is quite irresistible".
    • "When it comes to looks, [Huma] is different from the typical Bollywood actors"
    • "Huma Qureshi, with her gaudy clothes, designer sun-glasses and unusual attractiveness is the hottest cheez in Wasseypur. She beautifully lends support as a powerful man's 'prouder' better-half, even in his worst crimes"
    • "Huma Qureshi looks right for the role and she delivers a wonderful performance".
    • "[Qureshi], on the other hand, is charming as the fiery Punjaban, Harman. Her refreshingly natural acting style impresses again in a role that has shades of her character in the Gangs Of Wasseypur"
    • "The three leading ladies -- Konkona Sen Sharma, Huma Qureshi and Kalki Koechlin are smashing in their roles, and I refuse here to tell you who plays who. Each plays their given role with frighteningly good flair, and each deserves a big hand."
  • Whats PYT?

§§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 15:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I must say that it is very disappointing that you felt as if you should bring this straight to GAR instead of bringing up the issues with either of us. It shows disrespect to not only the editor but me as a reviewer, and gives the impression you'd rather work against us rather than with us. You cannot expect an article on a newbie actress to have "broad coverage". I believed the article was adequate given her current career status. You can't possibly compare this article to a veteran actor.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 15:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well well, That's why no one is interested in editing Indian articles of Wikipedia. I'm not interested in this Reassesment. Do what you want. But, if you have reassased the article then, why not Imran Khan (actor). This is called hypocrisy. I know who told you to reasses the article. Don't open my mouth. I'm not interested in this topic anymore. Also, Have you seen Ranveer Singh, the time it passed GA was a very small article. Ranveer Singh contains unwanted stuffs, do you want me to add How Qureshi was born, her thoughts, imagination , what she thinks of herself. Then I'm sorry, it is encyclopedia.Prashant talk 17:04, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The nominator's critiques strike me as frivolous from a criteria standpoint. The requests for more information are far outside the "main aspects" required by the GA criteria, which explicitly allow "articles that do not cover every major fact or detail"; since Qureshi clearly isn't known for her theatrical work or her NGO work, I don't think a comprehensive look is needed here. (Is this information even available from RSs?) As for the "quotefarm" concern, this isn't a GA criterion, and the article's use of quotations (less than one third of the article's body) seems reasonable in any case. I do agree that an explanatory footnote could be added to clarify what the Telegraph appears to mean by PYT (pretty young thing), but I don't see this as a major issue. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If she has worked in "several" plays and "several" NGOs, mentioning them in the article would make it comprehensive. Whether she is not known for that matters least here. When you mention several plays, you are talking about her acting. If that isn't what she is known for, then maybe she wasn't good at it and then you are not making it comprehensive by writing about her failure there. As to your question of "Is this information even available from RSs?", i would like to state that i am not yet done reading all the RSs of the world. (How are you asking to prove that?) For quotes, there are two aspects to consider. Firstly, dumping huge quotes doesnt fit in the way good articlea are written. And secondly, copying 1/3rd of the content from various copyrighted articles is copyvio. There isnt any fixed limit arrived by consensus or something stating howmuch is it allowed to copy. But i will ask some copyrights expert to check this situation. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If there is information on her plays available I strongly suggest that Prashant adds it, But "comprehensive" is not a requirement for GA, and given that this is a rookie actress you cannot expect widespread coverage. I stated in the GA summary that Prashant will need to keep updating it and building it over time. Asking for this to be demoted without trying to get the desired improvements first is belligerent and unnecessary.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "if it is available"? How is anyone ever going to prove that it is not available. No one can prove negation. If she doesn't have widespread coverage, how will the article satisfy "#3 Broad in its coverage"? (And when i said on my talk page that i don't like to give warnings using those templates for personal attacks, i did not infer that you may continue to attack me. I am referring to you part of "belligerent" here.) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 19:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're not being asked to prove that it's not available. You're being asked to prove that this information is available and that it constitutes a main aspect of the topic. If it requires reading every reliable source on earth to find this information, I think we can agree it's not a main aspect; there's already dozens of reliable sources on Qureshi linked from the article that you can check if you like. GAs can leave out even some major facts, and it doesn't appear this is a major fact per our RSs.
As for the copyright, I believe the important factor is how much of any individual source is used, rather than the precise article/quotation ratio, but of course you're welcome to get a second opinion. It doesn't appear at first glance that any source is being quoted to a degree that would rise to a copyright violation, however. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I wasn't overly concerned about the quoting is that as the actress gets older and her filmography gets longer I think the prose will fill out and it will become more balanced. The article appears to provide an effective summary of her work to date and is technically sound in sourcing. That's all that matters for GA. If Prashant can find sourcing for her theatrical roles great, add it.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 20:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The way the article stands now it states that she has worked in "several" plays and NGOs. And then you don't mention anything about it and you still call it a GA? Pick one; either the article is missing content or the so called RS which claims that is wrong. I have asked Moonriddengirl for her comments on copyvio issue. And if the article doesn't have any content at present it doesn't mean you start diluting it by adding such quotes. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Show me the sources which document her plays and I'll prompt Prashant to add the information. Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/7 Khoon Maaf/1 which you also put up for GAR I see no major issues either.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, Dharmadhyaksha, it's fine if the article is missing even some major facts about the subject per the GA criteria. The plays she acted in could be added if you can find them but it's not a reason to delist. I won't debate any further save to say once more that this is a clearly frivolous nomination. We'll have to agree to disagree. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a kid. Okay...I know everything regarding the criteria, but if there is no information about her theatre productions and NGOs. So, what you want I should publish myself that she has played Juliet, Mendonsa and Fantine in theatre and plays. You want this. For God sake, there are no further information about your Frivilous demands. So how can I add , you think what I should write fiction here! Prashant talk 16:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note : The article has just passed a good article review and the reassessment is unnecessary. Please close it.Prashant talk 16:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prashant if you don't want people to think you're a kid stop acting like one. No need to speak in bold lettering. I believe you when you say there is nothing documenting her theatre career in detail. That's enough. As Khazar said it's hardly a reason to delist as GA anyway, but I'm awaiting a source for you to show what is missing Dharma. Moonriddengirl has also stated that the quoting it perfectly within the guidelines, You've basically nominated this based on unfounded concerns with nothing to back up your argument..♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're embarrassing yourself Dharma. You can't possibly compare an article on a newbie Asian actress to somebody like Clint Eastwood. I am well aware of what meets good article criteria and what doesn't. Each article is different. We can only go by what has been covered to date in reliable publications. The author says there is no information available on her theatre work, and has managed to compile something which effectively covers her work as an actress to date. It is well sourced and the sourcing is technically sound, that's all that matters for GA. GAs don't need to be particularly comprehensive, just provide an effective overall summary. If you have a problem with articles like this passing when it seems others don't, then stay well away from reviewing and promoting Good articles. Obviously the article is not great because she has barely appeared in films to date. As I say as her career develops I would expect more and more information to become available and it balance out more and gradually become a real good article. I've stated this at the review and I think Prashant, provided he isn't frightened off by certain editors here, will take the responsibility to update it.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 11:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Am not embarrased at all. I am surely sorry to have bothered to clean this up. Won't bother from now onwards. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But you haven't cleaned anything up, in fact you've created a rather messy situation which was unnecessary by GAR. Your input into the articles is still very welcome, and as Bolly Jeff says your comments especially on 7 Khoon are valid and will help improve the article. But your approach to clean up has been done in a way which isn't friendly to WP:AGF. Work together with other Indian editors and get them to improve their game would be most effective. There is a difference between offering constructive criticism and doing something which is quite contrary to progress on wikipedia. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – The nominator's rationale for the article to be reassessed based on lack of comprehensiveness doesn't sound to be a valid one. The rule states, GAs need to be "broad in its coverage" and should "addresses the main aspects of the topic". The question of comprehensiveness comes into picture only in FAs which are a long way off from the GA stuff. —Vensatry (Ping me) 12:40, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Same reasons as Vensatry said.----Plea$ant 1623 ✉ 09:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Huma_Qureshi_(actress)/1&oldid=1144730033"