Wikipedia:Peer review/Shah Rukh Khan/archive1

Shah Rukh Khan

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I intend to take it to FAC, and want to get out any obvious flaws ahead of that. It made GA two months ago, and had a thorough copy edit.

Thanks, BollyJeff | talk 01:08, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some observations:

I believe Khan sang in Chakde! India ("Ek Hockey Doongi Rakh Ke"), Don ("Khaike Paan Banaraswala"), Mohabbatein ("Aankhen Khuli"), Baadshah ("Main To Hoon Pagal"). Some of these songs were quite successful, I think. Don't you want to have something on that?

Are you sure that he sang, or was it more like talking/rapping. Is this very important, since you are already talking about the length? BollyJeff | talk 12:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

His career as a producer is strewn all over the article and it is very difficult to figure that part out. Can you streamline that part somewhat?

There once was a producing section, but it seemed to duplicate info already spread throughout, so it was removed. Since he usually stars in the films he produces, it would be hard to mention those films only in a separate production section. BollyJeff | talk 12:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is way too long - over 100 KB prose and 8,000 words. Check WP:SIZERULE. There are a few things that can be done:
- Shorten long sentences. Example: "1996 was a disappointing year for Khan because the four films he appeared in were critical and commercial disappointments." > "In 1996, all four of Shahrukh Khan releases flopped critically and commercially."
- Make the prose a little less verbose would also help in places. Example: "disowns him for marrying a girl (Kajol) belonging to a lower socio-economic group than his family" > "disowns him for marrying a poor girl (Kajol)".
- Eliminate some stuff that are trivial in comparison with the big and important information. Example: "After the release of the film, Khan took a six-month break from acting, during which he said he "just enjoyed the feeling of being sad"."
The two section - Artistry and Wealth and popularity. Why do you need entire sections for these? It is well understood that any major film star from any major film industry would have some artistry, wealth and popularity (unless there is seriously different story to tell). That part is already covered in the body of article, and whatever is necessary, though there can't be much essential stuff in these two sections, to keep can be integrated into the rest of the article.

More forthcoming. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 06:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but this is really not what I was hoping to hear. I am about to add more info, particularly in the early life section, since I got a copy of Chopra's book. There is just a lot to say about the world's biggest movie star. Its going to be hard to trim, but I will try, particularly in the sections that you mentioned. My previous FA Priyanka Chopra, was accepted with 7798 words, compared to this one currently at 8628. Let's see what others have to say. BollyJeff | talk 12:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that there is duplicate information in the Artistry section. I can probably make that one go away, but some of it will get integrated elsewhere, and the article will still be very long. We have already split off his filmography and awards into their own articles. Is there a precedent for splitting even further? One of the FA criteria is comprehensiveness, and I would hate to throw away good material. BollyJeff | talk 13:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even without deleting important information, it is possible to reduce word count in this article, as Aditya exemplified. Why 2011-2013 section is named major commercial success? He already had major major commercial success. What is different in 2011-2013? Mere numbers (100 crores) do not make these films significantly more successful, DDLJ is more succesful than a Chennai Express despite perhaps earning less.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:36, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was already copy edited to make it more tight, but I will look for further examples like those. I may also reduce the content in the career section by not covering so many films. What do you think? Also, I am open to ideas for renaming the later career sections. BollyJeff | talk 18:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie Chan is 5,000 words long, while Peter Sellers has 10,000 words. Article length is subjective. But, I assume that you are planning to make this article as excellent as possible. And, at that it could reduce verbosity and redundancy, which are enlarging it needlessly. My two paisa there.

Have you given any thought to making his producing career more accessible? That part of his story is still strewn all over the article in between long narrations on his acting career. Not very accessible.

Looks like the earlier version had a pretty nifty idea to organize his producing career.

I already posed the question above: How to do this without adding more redundant info? In Shah Rukh Khan filmography it notes which films he produced in the table and footnote. Here is what the producer section used to look like: [1]. Is that good? BollyJeff | talk 18:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And, the songs. I believe he sang for the movies, and some of the songs became quite popular.

I cannot find reliable sources for these, can you?

No, I am afraid. How good are IndiaGlitz or GlamSham?

Perhaps you can also consider a bit of his modelling career. I did walk for Lakme Fashion Week and so on. Right?

And, probably a bit on his estate. He owns a lot of stuff - property, luxuries, companies, cricket teams and so on.

Already there.

Fashion modelling too? Or is it not very important?

More forthcoming. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 17:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone else? BollyJeff | talk 00:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although I have not read it in details, seems like the article is ready for WP:FAC. I'd say go for it, and you'll get (hopefully) much better feedback there.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:18, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. In the past I tried multiple PRs, posting the PR to relevant project talks, and posting comment templates, along with indivudally requesting interested or potentially interested editors. But, all that is a lot of effort. FAC is better. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 05:31, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Aditya Kabir: - I have reworked that artistry section into a public image section and added the modelling stuff there. I have added a section for other film work that includes both production and singing details. BollyJeff | talk 03:07, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is disappointing that there is so little activity here. At FAC, they get really picky, so it would be better to get it cleaned up first. Oh well, I will put it up there soon. Thank you guys. BollyJeff | talk 13:22, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want more comments in PR, you can message, or even email, individual editors who may be interested in this topic.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Blofeld:, @Krimuk90:, @Vensatry:, @Vivvt: - Could you make some comments here so that I don't get killed at FAC? Thanks, BollyJeff | talk 14:47, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]