Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Deepika Padukone/archive1

Comments from Crisco 1492

Very quick comment as it's late here: what's with the mounds and mounds of citations? "Padukone is an active celebrity endorser for several brands and products, including Tissot, Sony Cybershot, Nescafe, Wrigley's Orbit and Pepsi, among others." is followed by five refs which are used nowhere else. You can group those, and likely some other ones. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:40, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done I think?♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:22, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's what I was thinking of. There's one more where this would help, I think, namely where there are three footnotes in a row up in the early life section. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:18, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --smarojit ^HD 16:29, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Also, Wrigley's in the image caption is a dab link. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

Padukone, the daughter of badminton player Prakash Padukone, - way to avoid repeating the family name?

Done.

I think he meant this in the lead, Blof. Not sure how to change this. --smarojit ^HD 15:45, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

in Bangalore (now Bengaluru) - one, Bangalore remains the best-known English name. Two, do we need to know Bangalore's new name in the lede?

Removed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:36, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

for state and national level championships, - I'm assuming she played for a team, in some championships, right?

Yeah, I would assume so too. --smarojit ^HD 15:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, can you play for a championship? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:15, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(gets the exam jitters) Just did a quick Google check and they do use "playing for a championship" quite frequently. (See http://prosoccertalk.nbcsports.com/2013/08/04/despite-saying-he-wouldnt-play-in-the-championship-barton-starts-for-qpr/) --smarojit ^HD 16:24, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not "play for (championship)", that's "play for (team)". The title of the article uses "in". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:03, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Thanks. Changed it. --smarojit ^HD 03:14, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

She later discontinued her career in sports and established herself as a fashion model. - Perhaps "She later left her career in sports to become a fashion model."

Done.

First sentences of #Early life and background switch between present and past tense.

Sorry, but I can't seem to find an issue here.

Why is the sister so far from the parents in the text?

Changed.

said that she didn't have too many friends. - spot the errors! One is quite glaring.

Removed "too".

That's one. Read Wikipedia:CONTRACTION to help find the other. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changed. Hahah, I feel like I am writing an exam! --smarojit ^HD 16:22, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

modelled for a couple of campaigns - political? Advertising?

Added advertising.

tenth grade - suggest linking "Education in India" as tenth grade/tenth year/year ten/whatever is different in various countries.

Done.

At the age of 21, she ... - Your last subject was "designer Wendell Rodricks". I'm assuming that's not the correct subject in this new sentence.

Actually, Wendell Rodricks is a "he". But anyway, changed.

I knew Wendell was male. Hence why "I'm assuming"... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

her aunt's place - colloquial. Her aunt's home, her aunt's apartment, with her aunt, etc.

Done.

Rodricks had spotted - why is Rodricks both before and after the aunt?

Changed position.

This is not really a stellar start. Will continue tomorrow, hopefully there are not as many issues later on. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments Crisco. :) --smarojit ^HD 15:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, some very good points by both you and Cass so far, look forward to seeing the rest.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indrajit Lankesh's Kannada film Aishwarya. - Per WP:SEAOFBLUE there shouldn't be as many links in a row.

Changed.

The romantic comedy was a remake of the Telugu film Manmadhudu in which she was cast in the titular role opposite actor Upendra. - this suggests she acted in Manmadhudu, not Aishwarya

Corrected.

reincarnation melodrama - link reincarnation

Done.

Hindi film industry, the film tells the story of a struggling actor in the 1970s who is reincarnated to avenge the murder of the woman he loved. - wouldn't he have had to die first? This plot summary isn't quite clear.

Reworded.

a popular release, - sounds odd. Perhaps "had a successful release", or "was a commercial success"?

Changed.

At the annual Filmfare Awards ceremony, Padukone was awarded the Best Female Debut Award, - didn't she already appear in a film before this?

Om Shanti Om was her first Hindi film release, and Filmfare awarded her for that.

the "big league". - Might as well just rephrase this to use more encyclopedic language. Don't see why we should use the term "big league".

Removed.

a casanova - a womaniser, you mean? Again, not quite an encyclopedic term

Removed.

tells the story of a casanova (played by Ranbir Kapoor) who is romantically involved with three women (played by Bipasha Basu, Minissha Lamba, and Padukone) at different stages of his life. - Feels odd to have both this and the character role. Let alone in separate sentences. Why not something like "a student and one of star Ranbir Kapoor's love interests"?

Reworded.

in which she portrayed the dual roles of Indian-Chinese twin sisters Sakhi and Suzy, alongside Akshay Kumar. - this suggests that Kumar played one of the sisters, which I'm pretty sure is incorrect

Yeah, changed.

colossal economic failure. - numbers, please?

Provided.

from the writer-director Imtiaz Ali - doesn't really add to the sentence and could be removed easily

We have mentioned the directors for every other release, isn't it required here?

Why are your elipses with only two periods? They should be three.
who attributed her poor performance to her "plasticky expressions". - suggest repeating "Padukone" here.

Done.

Later that year, Hindustan Times published that Padukone's role in Pradeep Sarkar's Lafangey Parindey contributed in changing the general perception regarding her film roles, with focus directed on her acting prowess rather than her appearance. - you haven't even introduced the film and you're already talking about its reviews. Not that logical of a progression, I'm afraid

I just tried to mix it up a bit. Isn't it boring to follow the same pattern again and again? I can change it if it's an issue though.

Biographies are almost always chronological. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:26, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Changed.

the book Do and Die by Manini Chatterjee - are either book or author notable?

Yeah, both the book and author are notable.

Redlinks might be worth having then. With Dr. B. as a collaborator, I doubt they'll be red long. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:26, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

Although a review published in The Telegraph was appreciative of Padukone's portrayal, the film was met with polarising reviews from critics and proved a major commercial disappointment. - What makes The Telegraph's review stand out so much? Wouldn't it also have been polarising?

The Telegarph's review (along with some other others) was overwhelmingly positive, though some other critics didn't like the film as much. Hence, the polarising reviews.

But why single out The Telegraph — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:26, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because it specifically talks about Padukone's performance. Couldn't find any other suitable review for that.

That makes sense. Thanks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:36, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the song's "suggestive lyrics" and "raunchy moves" attracted controversy including a court case for indecency. - did Padukone get charged too?

No, she wasn't charged. The film's producers and the Indian Censor Board were.

caste-based reservations in India. - there should be something to link here

Wikilinked.

Critical reaction to the film was largely negative, with critic Pratim D. Gupta mentioning Padukone as the most "refreshing thing about [the] movie". - "with" suggests the two are both positive or both negative. This mixes a positive and a negative.

Reworded.

dramedy - link? This doesn't seem to be a standard term for a drama-comedy

Changed to comedy-drama.

Rediff.com opined and published that she had successfully proved herself to be a "stunning girl who can also act". - A reviewer did, not the site. Who's the reviewer?

Mentioned the name of the author.

established Padukone as a leading actress of contemporary Hindi cinema. - for an opinion this strong I'd attribute it

Mentioned the name of the author.

action comedy or action-comedy

Changed.

a local don - Mafia don, you mean? A link may be useful

Linked.

Watch out for repetition of the same word in sentences, like "Tamil film ... period film"

Reworded.

Ramleela - You note that she will play Leela, and the title is Ramleela. Does this mean that she will have the Juliet role?

That's right. Mentioned it.

district neighbourhood in Mumbai, - a district or a neighbourhood? What is the proper term?

Removed "district".

temples - if you're going to link "Hindu" (a very common term) might as well link temple.

Linked.

her relationship with him. - her relationship with the cricket manager, perhaps?

..her relationship with the actor.

This is regarding Siddharth Mallya, not Kapoor. Mallya's article says nothing about acting. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:26, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. My bad, changed it now.

She denied to publicly talk - denied or declined?

Changed.

later that year performed in Macau for the 14th IIFA Awards. - singing?

Nope, dancing. She isn't a singer.

Might be worth mentioning. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:26, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned.

Last section tonight, maybe. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look forward to the comments, Crisco. :) smarojit ^HD 12:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up: I wanted to start reviewing, but it appears Dr. B. is busy editing. Ping me when your done, good doctor (on English Wikipedia, doctor call you) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:59, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just converted the dates to word format that's all. Not busy editing at all, just finished watching a film actually. Don't let me get in your way of continuing!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Rediff.com described her personality" - Again, websites don't describe. People do

True, but the author isn't mentioned in the source.

"A reviewer for Rediff.com"... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Added. --smarojit ^HD 07:21, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Padukone has maintained a Twitter account since 2009, and launched an official Facebook page in 2013. - is this really encyclopedic?

I included this as this was mentioned in Priyanka Chopra's article, a recent FA.

Gag, but you're right... precedent. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the "World's Sexiest Woman" by FHM - Should definitely note that this is the Indian edition of FHM and not American or UK, in text (don't rely on the link). Dewi Sandra was ranked 7th in the world by FHM Indonesia in 2004, but I would bet every last dollar in my account that most of our readers have never heard of her.

Added.

That's it, I guess. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:57, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you once again for taking time out to review this article, Crisco.I hope that your concerns were resolved. :) --smarojit ^HD 05:24, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prashant's oppose

Strong Oppose: The article is not close to FA standard by any terms. The tone of the article is the main problem. It praises her like whatever..... A hugely biased article. It lacks neutrality.—Prashant 18:33, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prashant, you need to put your own personal gripes to one side and try not to see all articles as some platform for a battlefield between you and those with whom you disagree. I hope you strike out your comments quickly and only focus on specific issues within the article - this is close to an FA, as many others have already indicated, and your actions are not really helpful or beneficial here. Please strike what you have written and, if you are able to, produce a review that is helpful to the article, rather than one that is only based on your dislike of the editors. - SchroCat (talk) 19:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its not like that I don't like the nominators but, the tone (which I specified above). Read this analysis of her. Career by HT, she admitts that she received negative reviews for her debut (but the articles say accalaim), after her debut and got positive only for Cocktail but, the article praises her like ..... The article's tone is not correct and here is the proof.[1]. So, I think it's clear that it lacks neutrality.—Prashant 19:31, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how used you are to reviewing FACs, but it is usual (as you can see with all e reviewers above, and all the other articles listed at WP:FAC, to point out specific instances where articles are in breach of the MOS or the FAC criteria. If you could highlight all ocurrances of this, then it allows the nominators to deal with your points in a constructive manner. - SchroCat (talk) 19:40, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes his "strong" oppose is nothing but a childish retaliation to his list which failed today and suggestions that he be banned from FAC. I'm sure the delegates here will be aware of his recent behaviour and ignore this anyway. I think his actions on here today is the final straw. Sorry that Smamo and the others here have been exposed to this sort of thing.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:55, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, tell me now that who is not taking theOppose in a positive way??? I think I gave a link above which proves that she was panned for all her previous films but the article goes on to praise her even for her disaster performances. Read this:

"the 27-year-old, who was written off by many film critics when she made her debut in Om Shanti Om (OSO) back in 2007. She added, “I was questioned for my choice of films; people raised fingers at my acting abilities. A very famous film critic wrote me off after my first film ... ".

It has nothing to do with my failed flc. Please, take it in a positive way. Resolve my comment regarding the tone and ill be happy to support.—Prashant 20:21, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A single comment to be addressed about tone wouldn't bring about an immediate "strong" support would it?♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:24, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single comment but, the whole tone of the article which only praises her. She has been only praised for Cocktail.—Prashant 20:29, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In only the second paragraph of career I spot "but Namrata Joshi of Outlook wrote that Padukone's performance was disappointing: "She is mannequin-like and utterly lacks fire and zing" and "a colossal economic failure", "Film critics were generally disappointed with the picture and Padukone's performance, "Justin Trout of Orlando Weekly noted that she "is so wasted in Chandni Chowk". Only praise you say? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:38, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note to delegates – I would request Prashant!'s oppose be struck from this FAC. As far as I can see it is based on opinion only and does not mention any breach of the criteria. His incivility towards others who criticise his work is well known, and can mostly be found on Dr. Blofeld's talk page. It is obvious to see that this oppose was given in retaliation for his failed FLC, which DID have criteria flaws. -- Cassianto ^Talk 20:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am aware of the background to this and Prashant's opposition will not be taken into consideration. I will move this discussion to the Talk Page later. Graham Colm (talk) 21:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Dr. Blofeld and the delegates for dealing with this negativity. --smarojit ^HD 04:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]