Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/Freida Pinto/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Freida Pinto

[edit]
Previous peer review
Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because the last time when it was submitted here, it hardly received any interest. There were reservations about prose during the FAC, as a result of which I had to withdraw the nomination. I want to take this article to FA in good time. Thanks, —Vensatry (ping) 12:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cirt

[edit]

Just posting some ideas on how to get further input for copyediting help:

  1. Post to WP:GOCE requests page for a copyeditor to come through from the WikiProject Guild of Copyeditors.
  2. Post to all related WikiProject talk pages with a neutrally worded notice for a request for copyediting help.
  3. Consult Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers and post to user talk pages of those that have stated interest in the subject matter with a neutrally worded request for copyediting help.
  4. Ask some of your own friends, even if they're not Wikipedia editors themselves, to read over the article -- try to find those friends of yours with either Native-level English-speaking skills, or Professional-level.
  5. Read the article out-loud to yourself and to your friends or in front of a mirror. If you find yourself pausing to take a breath multiple times, it's possible you have some run-on-sentences or just too long sentences.

Hope that's helpful,

— Cirt (talk) 16:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cirt: Thanks for your time but this isn't going to help us anyway in improving the article. Can you please point out prose glitches that seem apparent to you? If you find time, feel free to edit the article yourself. —Vensatry (ping) 18:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment I'm afraid I don't have the mindset for that, a bit of stress in life. But hopefully if you do indeed follow my above recommendations, you will find it helpful to at least do the due diligence to try and get additional copyeditors. Good luck to you, — Cirt (talk) 18:33, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure! —Vensatry (ping) 13:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Relentlessly

[edit]

I'm doing a copyedit myself, but there are a few things that I'm not up to fixing but I'll draw attention to here:

  • "aspire" – You use this word too frequently. It's quite vague and not terribly elegant.
  • "Later, she enrolled in an acting course" – More precision, please. Though I don't think this is important enough to go in the lead.
  • Ditto the philanthropic stuff. Lovely, of course, but I'm not sure it belongs in the lead unless it's very important, in which case you need to establish that better.
    • Since the lead is supposed to summarise the whole article it very well goes into it. But I think you're right about "establishing" the stuff. Any suggestions? —Vensatry (ping) 18:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unless she's well noted for her philanthropy, I'm not sure what you can say. But you can cut down the content in the lead, to something like "Alongside her acting career, she has taken part in philanthropic and humanitarian campaigns." Relentlessly (talk) 20:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "endorsing products" – "Advertising", surely? I tried opening the link to check, but it spent so long showing adverts I gave up. This does slightly make me question its reliability as a source, but I don't know.
  • " The film was universally acclaimed" – That's quite a claim and doesn't seem substantiated by the reviews, as the only one of which you cite calls it a "colossal waste of time". (The "universal acclaim" seems to be for Tess itself, rather than for the adaptation.)
  • " The film showcased the power of education" – Not sure about the use of "showcase". Perhaps "portrayed"?
  • " Before making her film début, Pinto was engaged to her former publicist Rohan Antao." Unclear. Was he her publicist while they were engaged? The source isn't any clearer, I know, but is there some information somewhere? It reads very badly. If you can't find anything, I suggest "Before her appearance in Slumdog Millionaire, Pinto was engaged to Rohan Antao, who had at one point been her publicist."

To be honest, this is a long way from my area of expertise. I think I've generally cleared up the more problematic grammar/style problems. Things to pay particular attention to are comma splices, excessive use of the passive voice and sentences where the substantial point is in a subclause.

  • The tables are mostly unreferenced. I know the information is all in the article text, but it would not hurt to add it there as well.
    • Except for one entry, all have their own articles; I'll add a source for the red-linked one. Unless the filmography is to be forked out into a separate page, I don't think its necessary. —Vensatry (ping) 18:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do wonder about whether the article is substantial enough to be an FA. It's short, which isn't necessarily a problem, but a lot of it seems highly padded-out and some parts feel a bit trivial, especially §§ Personal life​ and Media image. This isn't an objection per se, just a feeling I have reading it.

Let me know if you have any questions or further requests! Relentlessly (talk) 21:28, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review from SNUGGUMS

[edit]

On another note, Daily Mail and Daily Mirror are not reliable. I'll leave prose and spotcheck to other users. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SNUGGUMS: Is there a consensus not to use those sources in WP? —Vensatry (ping) 08:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Probably; the majority of editors I know would advise against using them, especially when there are better quality UK papers such as The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, and The Independent. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Daily Mirror and Daily Mail are notorious for poor journalistic practices. They're in fact used as examples of mainstream media source which are unreliable WP:PUS. -- Frankie talk 15:35, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Removed all except an interview which tells her wish to become a barmaid. —Vensatry (ping) 18:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts from Cliftonian

[edit]

I've been asked on my talk page to have a look in here. I know nothing about Pinto, but I'll do my best.

  • Wasn't Mumbai officially called Bombay in 1984? I thought the name change was only in 1995.
  • We introduce her as "an American actress of Indian descent". Does this mean she's dropped Indian citizenship and become a US citizen, or what?
    • I don't think she has dropped the Indian citizenship. I've rephrased this slightly. You might want to have another look. —Vensatry (ping) 10:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think that's an improvement. I don't know the exact particulars of the case, but given what we know it is probably best to introduce her as Indian—it seems that her parents were both Indian and she was born, raised and educated there. If ten or twenty years down the line she's spent her whole career in America, we have reliable sources saying she's switched her Indian citizenship for American, etc, then perhaps it might be time to look at this again. —  Cliftonian (talk)  10:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Were both of her parents Indian? Mangalorean Catholics, specifically?
  • I did a bit of copyediting here and there but generally the prose looks quite good to me. I don't feel qualified to comment on due weight and so on.

I'm sorry not to have much to say here. I hope this helps in any case. Cheers and good luck. —  Cliftonian (talk)  19:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cliftonian: Thanks for the review and copy-edits; the comments were really helpful. However, I have a few clarifications as stated above. —Vensatry (ping) 10:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Great. I'm glad to have been helpful. Cheers and good luck. —  Cliftonian (talk)  10:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jim

[edit]

Nice article. I can't find much wrong with it, but a couple of points Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Freida_Pinto/archive2&oldid=1136085311"