Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Shah Rukh Khan/archive1

I wonder perhaps if the article is still a bit too long for the average western reader. The career section is quite long, it's longer than some of the career sections of some of our articles on veteran actors. Perhaps we should have a separate article on his film career and write a more condensed version for the main article?♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I literally cannot believe what I am reading. First we move the media info out, which seemed more or less unprecedented, to make the article shorter. Then you and I (at your request), added a bunch of new information to the career section, which is what made it long. Why did we have to do that? Can someone else please give an opinion on this article? BollyJeff | talk 01:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we needed that information in the career section to improve readability and break the monotonous tone of it. But I believe it might be a bit too detailed now for some readers. It is possible to condense it down a bit without losing too much. I'm not sure, it would be good if Tim riley or SchroCat could offer an opinion. I do think though that most Indian readers will appreciate the detail for somebody like SRK so I wouldn't want anything drastically cut.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For comparison sake, I looked at some other actor FAs. Angelina Jolie has 5 1/2 pages (on my computer screen) to cover her film career section; she has done 37 films. Brad Pitt has 5 pages to cover 50 films. Looking at one of the longer FAs on WP, the non-living actor Peter Sellers has 11 pages to cover 75 films. This compares with SRKs 8 1/2 pages to cover 80 films. SRK is slightly longer than one of those (Pitt) on a per film basis, but shorter than the other two. BollyJeff | talk 14:01, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]