Talk:Bajirao Mastani

Paris attacks

please change ((Paris terrorist attacks)) to ((November 2015 Paris attacks|Paris terrorist attacks))

 Done - although I used the actual article title, without the pipe - Arjayay (talk) 18:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Critical response summary

In this edit I have again removed the attempt to summarize critical response. We are not critical response aggregators like Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic, and it is not our place to cherrypick various reviews and then attempt to summarize all critical response based on those hand-selected reviews. That's original research. If you want to report the aggregator scores (assuming there is any RT and Metacritic info out there) that's fine, but even in that situation, there's no need to summarize what is already a summary, the aggregator values. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:10, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I acknowledge what you are putting forward and I now agree with you. However, please do not assume that I "cherrypicked" these articles. I did not solely pick the positive reviews and ignore the negative reviews. It is not my aim to be in competition on this as I edit articles based on factual evidence and not based on my personal opinion, like many people have been doing to this very article. However, you did make sense and I will refrain from using the terms "critics" when referring to reviews by the media. Thank you Cyphoidbomb, after all, we work together on the articles here, and my edits were in good faith, as are yours. Manor4 (talk) 22:32, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that you personally selected reviews to create a biased picture, (I didn't even know that you were involved in the review selection) rather, I was suggesting that any sampling of reviews may not be representative of the entire critical picture, so summarizing that selection is almost certain to be problematic. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:21, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

In this edit, I have added more reviews, as I felt the section was short, and tried to organized all the reviews. I have approached this by keeping the first paragraph mostly focused on direction, the second mostly focused on performances, visuals, and costume/production design, and the last mostly focused on storyline and pacing. I have avoided to push any mixed or negative reviews to the bottom too. Instead, I have spread them with the positive ones throughout the section. With this, my intention was to provide a balanced viewpoint. Is this fine with everyone? I also do feel the section's length is now just right, but is that fine as well? Thoughts? 107.15.215.200 (talk) 04:54, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

The critical response section should be more than a collection of ratings and quotes. Ideally, the way to go is to organize the reviews based on specific areas like acting, writing, direction, and other aspects like special effects, or cinematography, or whatever else. Example with a made-up plot:

Critic A of ABC Newspaper felt that the story lacked cohesion, with specific criticism levied at the main plot between actors X and Y, who "were off running errands by themselves instead of working together to solve the core dilemma." Critic A felt that this writing choice made the three-hour film difficult to watch. He noted, "half the time I was jamming popcorn under my eyelids to keep them open, wondering why I was watching two boring characters pick up their laundry and groceries." Critic B of DEF Times described the story as "a snorer", commenting that "the last hour and a half was a complete waste of an hour and a half." These sentiments were not shared by Critic C of GHI Herald, who praised the story line, explaining, "the main characters start off as co-dependent. By forcing them to work alone, the two grow on their own, so once they are reunited you believe that they've gone through a change and that they are ready to love each other for real this time."

By organizing the reviews by topic rather than randomly or by rating, the prose that we provide has some coherence, can present the difference of opinion in a neutral way, and doesn't read like the back of the DVD case. It is, however, harder to do, which is why nobody does it. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Typo

Development is misspelled

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2015

EDITING OF THE CAST ORDER IS REQUIRED WITH DEEPIKA PADUKONE'S NAME AT THE TOP ,THEN PRIYANKA CHOPRA AND THEN RANVEER SINGH AND SO ON..

ALSO THE INTRODUCTORY LINE FOR PAGE WHICH SAYS THAT THE "Movie was praised for it's direction,music,costumes,performances,especially of chopra and singh"...is quite wrong....it should also be deepika and tanvi azmi.....most critics and people have applauded their performances too....or it should be just "performances of all cast was applauded".!!! BollyAsterisk (talk) 07:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

 Partly done Have changed the line to "performances of lead actors" without naming any of them. But I see no reason why cast order should be changed. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

In agreement that there's no clear reason to reorder cast. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:30, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2016

Therr should be a statement that sums up the overall critical reception to the movie, such as "highly positive", "Criticallly acclaimed" et al.

Piyush Pratik1 (talk) 03:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Done Added The film received positive reviews from critics. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 03:56, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Undone. Summaries of critical response must be attributed to reliable sources, not pulled out of thin air. Summarizing cherrypicked reviews isn't the way to go either. Whose voice would we be quoting when we describe overall critical response? And what exactly does "highly positive" mean? Critics were shouting "Oh my frickin' god, I LOOOOVE this film!"? It's promotional fluff. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Cast

@Krish!: What is logic behind writing Chopra's name ahead of Padukone's in cast list? Padukone is lead actress and performing titular role in film. Where is link of official credits of film? And Padukone's performance is widely praised, why you are removing her name and keeping Chopra's name? You have made 3 reverts, I will not like if editor like you get blocked for such minor issue. --Human3015 ^{she's baddest girl in town}  10:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

As per this edit summary involved editor is not interested in discussing the issue on talk page, so I am restoring appropriate version of article. It is very logical that lead actors have their names first, it is already written in "starring" section of infobox in proper order so no reason why it should not be in same order in "cast" section in body. Thank you. --Human3015 ^{she's baddest girl in town}  10:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• Piku for example: The film is titled Piku (the protaganist played by Padukone) but according to credits Amitabh Bachchan name appears on top. In the same way, Chopra is credited after Singh and befor Padukone according to films credits.
• Padukone's performance has received several criticism from respected critics. So we cannot say she was eually praised as Chopra or Singh. Most reviews either have said the film belonged to Chopra and Singh. Some of the revies for Padukone's performance are:-
• 1. Subhash K. Jha - "But Deepika could have done more with her part. She is way too subtle and silken, and not steely enough as the firebrand warrior-princess who will love her man, come what may."
• 2. Times of India - "But Deepika's Mastani remains muted - you occasionally glimpse dark eyes drunk on love, the fire of a fighter-princess, but you miss the full-blown passion of this lead pair. In contrast, by the end, Priyanka impresses as quiet Kashi conveys the sorrow of a wife, a lover, a friend, forgotten."
• 3. Mid-Day - "Surprisingly what should have been the strongest link of the film ends up being the weakest. Deepika Padukone as Mastani looks stunningly gorgeous but seems unfortunately handicapped with an unidimensional role and not so inspiring dialogues. Deepika Padukone shines as she is introduced as a brave fighter but loses her steam when she walks over to the other side to turn into a miserable woman pining for love and acceptance, while making predictable references to romantic cliches like Radha and Krishna's love story."
• 4. Raja Sen - Priyanka, Ranveer are terrific in Bajirao Mastani - "Padukone -- as Mastani, the fiery warrior princess -- looks dazzling, but her performance is wishy-washy. She starts off smiling oddly through grim dialogue and then appears to be making sword-noises with her mouth when in battle. We can't hear her over the thundering score, but she has the exact same expression boys with lightsabers sport while making their own sound effects.

Her Mastani is obsessed with Bajirao, and while it was perhaps the film's requirement that Padukone look giddily entranced, there are times when she appears completely lost.

It doesn't help that she's entirely eaten up by Priyanka Chopra, who, while not in the title, owns Bajirao Mastani. Her role is that of the moral right, but Bhansali goes out of his way to imbue her character with selflessness and dignity."

• 5. Rajeev Masand - "As far as central roles go, the film benefits from a nice touch of playfulness and humor in Priyanka Chopra’s Kashibai. Your heart goes out to her in scenes where she must confront the fact that she’s not Bajirao’s great love. Chopra brings grace to the character, and practically steals the film. Deepika Padukone as Mastani is a woman of exquisite beauty. You’re captivated by the heft that Padukone lends to her fight scenes, or when her eyes speak more of her suffering than words. Her character, though, is strictly one-dimensional and therefore tedious."
• 6. India Today - "Ranveer Singh and Priyanka Chopra are the stars in Bhansali's latest ill-fated romance. The film may be called Bajirao Mastani but it is Kashibai who makes a formidable impression in Bhansali's version of the historical tale."
• 7. Firstpost - "Priyanka Chopra overshadows everyone in Bhansali's dazzling but not perfect magnum opus"
• 8. Dawn] - "Review: In Bajirao Mastani, Priyanka Chopra outshines Deepika Padukone"

These are some of the reviews for Padukone's performance. And the rest reviews praise all three stars as well as the cast.Krish | Talk 11:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Now, after this summary it is obvious that Padukone's performance was highly criticised. That means the film article should say that while Chopra and Singh receiv ed praised Padukone was criticised for her performance. I hope its clear now.Krish | Talk 11:25, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

One can give many such different views of different critics. I will not go much deep but some reviews like of Hindustan Times says Bajirao Mastani review: Deepika overpowers Ranveer and Priyanka.--Human3015 ^{I'm up all night to get lucky}  17:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Even that review praised Chopra: "Priyanka’s subtle performance adds grace to her character of Kashibai, the Peshwa’s first wife."

• 10>1. I think you didn't read my line beloe all the reviews saying all the rest reviews praised the whole cast. It;s clear that Chopra was singled out for Praise and Pakukone was panned for her performance. I have other reviews as well, some more criticising Padukone. Well, that you now, I can add that Padukone's performance received criticism or Padukone was criticised for her performance. Isn't that youy wantwd the opposite? But truth is truth. I will amke sure this line will be on the lead and body as well.Krish | Talk 20:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Before reverting my edits, please look at here @Carl Waxman:. Thank you.Krish | Talk 13:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Billing

I believe Wikipedia articles should reflect reality and not what the producers initially did to please their stars. In Bollywood they play games with the credits in accordance with seniority, stardom and other reasons, which we do not have to adhere to (actually we'd rather not). Amitabh Bachchan will always have top billing in any film regardless of the length or importance of his character (unless it's a cameo); not always is it right to follow the same listing on Wikipedia.

Deepika Padukone is the leading lady of Bajirao Mastani. Her character's name appears in the title, she is the one on the poster, she is the film's leading actress from every possible angle. Previous discussions regarding the film's critical reception and whose performance was better appreciated make absolutely no sense here. It appears that Chopra was more praised by the critics, and that's why we have the right section for that. The cast should appear, IMO, as follows: Ranveer, Deepika, Priyanka. Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I must also note that Krish! (talk · contribs) is a little possessive over this article and is constantly reverting it. Right now most people are in disagreement with him, and at least two of them appear on the talk page. I expect discussions to precede further edit warring. Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

While some adjustments may need to be set up for Indian cinema articles, is any consideration being paid to the instructions at Template:Infobox film and MOS:FILM? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

It's unsurprising but also quite disappointing to find out that our esteemed editor Krish! found an easy time to change what used to be an unsettled problem. I visited this page in the midst of numerous edit wars where Krish! instantly reverted several other editors who maintained that cast order should reflect common sense and not personal preference. Most people agreed (I don't mind citing links) that Padukone should be placed before Chopra for the very simple fact that hers is the leading character, the titular one, the major one, whatever you would call it. This is not to say Chopra is not a lead in this film, she could be, but this film is essentially a love story between Bajirao and Mastani, and that's what we, Wikipedia, should be showing to our readers. Since the history of this page shows more agreement with this sentiment rather than the other, a consensus should be reached first.

I don't really get people's obsession over casting orders, but I think it's totally puzzling to have Padukone, who plays the titular character, appear after Chopra. As mentioned almost two years ago in this very section - filmmakers have many of their own reasons to decide upon billing. There are some Hindi films where the opening credits and the end credits are totally different. In the 1950s many of Raj Kapoor's leading ladies preceded him. In the case of Bajirao Mastani, we have Chopra, who is more senior, arguably more popular. It is hardly surprising that she was listed first. Eventually she even gave the more acclaimed act (based on this article), which is good for her and the article is quite clear about that. In some of this film's official trailers, Padukone appears first. As a matter of fact, the official EROS website (the film's producer) does the same, and so does the official Facebook page. I personally wouldn't care at all if having Priyanka billed first made any sense. But it doesn't. However, we are not the film's producer, we are an online encyclopedia free of bias (well, that's how we should be) and not only should we not only not abide by but we actually should resist, the amusing considerations which Bollywood moguls take to make their stars happy. Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Although I agree with you perspective Shahid, I would still prefer if cast listings here followed an official order, i.e. the film credits or any other order released by the makers. This is to maintain consistency with other articles, and avoid listing based on personal interpretation/interests. --Kailash29792 (talk) 03:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Kailash! Long time no see. I actually agree with your observation, but I think there must be cases where we should interfere and draw the line, especially in films like Bajirao Mastani, which is named after its two leads. The second problem is that no such thing as official order really exists. Filmmakers often play games with their credits. Take a film like Life in a Metro, for one, which presents different orders in the opening credits and end credits. And everybody's happy. In the case of Bajirao Mastani, the official Eros website has Padukone mentioned first actually. The promotional tools do the same, but the film does not. I don't feel very strongly about cast orders, and I agree that not having specific guidelines would be a great POV prompter, but how personal can it be when the two titular roles who are the film's two leads and around whose characters the story revolves are interrupted by the name of another actress (who might even be a third lead and not necessarily a supporting actress but that doesn't change the wild logic break) here on Wikipedia? The last thing Wikipedia should do is adopting the patterns of Bollywood's bureaucratic regime. If I were to use my personal preference or POV, Priyanka would be placed first anyday, but it's not about my opinion as you can see and it's not about the stars themselves and their power, seniority or mass appeal.

Finally, I think this dispute could be settled by general agreement on keeping the order as it appears in the film in the "Cast" section, but have the infobox and the lead present the material in accordance with pure common sense, namely have the order as Singh, Padukone, and Chopra, which is not too far removed from what producers did as well and what the press agrees on (look up trailers, promotional events, film reviews). Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

It's quite possible that Krish! (talk · contribs) is operating under the illusion that this page belongs to him/her, and that's why he/she does not feel the need to take part in talk page discussions in spite of history showing that several editors (Human3015 (talk · contribs), Vivvt (talk · contribs), to name a few, if my memory serves me right) disagree with him. I think we should discuss everything before deleting, and I think I have provided enough reasoning not to follow the patterns of starry regimes. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

On a side note, I am a male. Even a 5 year child can know that a person named Krish is a man but I guess this Shahid man/woman can't tell the difference.Krish | Talk 15:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I did assume that you are a male but I was trying to be polite because not always do usernames reflect reality behind one's PC. Your remark, however, was quite rude, and that's not a very classy sort of behavior. You better focus on the matter at hand, instead of discussing me. Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:28, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

See, I also assumed that you were a male but I was trying to be polite because not always do usernames reflect reality behind PC haters (ask Twitter and DP fans who have millions of fake accounts to abuse PC). My remark was not meant to be rude. Anyways, I just want to rest my case by listing some of the films which have adopted similar pattern as this: Cinderella, Ghajini and Piku. I am sure there are many. In fact, there is a rule on wikipedia saying the cast should be listed according to end credits. Now coming back to your accusations of WP:OWN I just want to say that no, I don't own the article. I stood by the wikipedia rules, one of which talks about listing name as per credits. Also, if I were a based fan, don't you think I would have tried to list Chopra's name first in the Dil Dhadakne Do article? I would also like to answer your above query about why the article tries to paint that Chopra gave the best performance among all the cast members. It's because she did as per reputed Critics, unlike the paid praise Padukone buys every now and then. So I would like to repeat that "Deepika Padukone was panned for her performance. Period." Just because she was nominated for Best Actress, it doesn't mean she gave a good performance. I am sure you are among those who think Filmfare nomination equals best performance. I hope it's clear now.Krish | Talk 16:59, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Dear Krish,

By PC, I meant personal computer, not Priyanka Chopra! :) For some reason, I thought you might have created the account in name of Krrish the movie - that's why I preferred to stay neutral out of pure politeness. I, for one, am very fond of PC the actress, so the "haters" thing is totally alien to me and it's weird to think of anyone who would "hate" an artist for no particular reason. Anyway, to each his own.

Back to the point. As a matter of fact, you are wrong about Wikipedia having any such rules as following film credits. You could use the official site of the movie by Eros - that's also official, you could use all the official promotions, that's also official, you could use reliable sources, and you could also use common sense, which you are totally allowed to do. I've been on WP for over a decade now - have you any idea how many such discussions about billing I took part in? Of course in principle I agree with you - there should be some pattern. But there must be cases, as I said above, where we draw the line and use our own logic. The film is named after these two characters, how on earth can we present it any differently? By the way, I do not see Priyanka any less leading than Deepika (I don't care who was nominated for what), but how important is it really? This film is not just named after them, it's about them - Bajirao and Mastani. It's not even similar to Devdas, for one, where Dev is the main character and one could argue about who's the leading actress and Dixit's higher billing is therefore totally in place, IMO.

Now, if you're talking about rules, there you go - WP:FILMCAST could be very useful:

Actors and their roles can be presented and discussed in different forms in film articles depending on three key elements: 1) the prominence of the cast in the film, 2) the amount of real-world context for each cast member or the cast as a whole, and 3) the structure of the article. Editors are encouraged to lay out such content in a way that best serves readers for the given topic. If necessary, build toward a consensus.

You see, nothing is black and white - we are encouraged to discuss. From what I saw, all the promotional sites, the trailers, the official Eros site, film reviews, follow the order by having the two main leads mentioned first. Again, of course we should follow official patterns as a general rule, but we should discuss in cases where disagreements arise, such as this one.

As far as the rest of your message goes, I can't see how it even links to this discussion. I did not accuse you even once of bias for being a PC fan. No one is bias free of course, but you are definitely a positive example of someone who makes use of this admiration to contribute appreciable quality work rather than fancraft. It just happens that I respectfully disagree - be cool.

"I would also like to answer your above query about why the article tries to paint that Chopra gave the best performance among all the cast members" - my query? What are you talking about? I couldn't care less about who gave what performance, I'm all for fair presentation of facts, and if that's what you did, way to go - that's not what I'm here for.

"I am sure you are among those who think Filmfare nomination equals best performance." - you will have to let go of your habit of making conclusions about people. Try to stick to the point and discuss the issue itself rather than the person you are in disagreement with, as well as other issues which have nothing to do with the matter at hand. What makes you think Filmfare holds such great value in my eyes? How is it even relevant in this section? Not that I feel any need to justify myself to you, but I'll be nice to let you know that you are greatly mistaken. If you wanna know my opinion about Bollywood awards - feel free to leave a message on my talk page and we'll discuss it just out of common interest, but here I see absolutely no relevance to even mention awards. Actually I think award organizers and film producers have one thing in common - they wanna make their stars happy. We, on Wikipedia, should be totally devoid of such cheap considerations.

Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:03, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, I thought you meant the actress PC as we are on a talk page of a film starring her and I didn't read properly. BTW, I just want to say that I changed it back after realising that almost all the articles use end credits sequence to list the cast. So before the GA nomination, I changed it. There is no conspiracy theory behind this. I would also like to add that I don't care whose name is put first as I did it based on end credits. That's it.Krish | Talk 18:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2016

39.42.24.230 (talk) 19:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. No request made. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:35, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2016

Hello in music part the song malhari was composed by devrath but its not written there only the singers name is written plzz change it asap. Raftaar7777 (talk) 18:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Edit summary of 18 May 2016

Please see Talk:Bajirao Mastani (soundtrack) and Bajirao Mastani (soundtrack) Arjann (talk) 16:46, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

New sub-section

In the Production section, during my requested GOCE copy-edit, I've created a sub-section titled Costumes. This contains four significant paragraphs of text about costumes and jewellery that previously belonged to the (imo) over-lengthy 'Pre-production' sub-section. If it's decided this text shouldn't be sub-sectioned, do feel free to re-merge it. Alternatively, you may wish to demote it to a 4th-level subsec; either way i'm not precious. The same goes for any other re-sectioning or sub-sectioning I do during my c/e. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 03:06, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bajirao Mastani/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: HindWIKI (talk · contribs) 11:08, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I am reviewing this GA nomination and I start it after two days. Thank you -- HindWiki^Connect 02:42, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

• Note: The reviewer can't review it further and they have requested to find someone else. Anyone interested in taking the review forward, are welcome.Krish | Talk 13:14, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Lead

• it stars Ranveer Singh as Bajirao I and Deepika Padukone as Mastani, with Priyanka Chopra playing Bajirao's first wife Kashibai - remove the characters from this sentence. Instead, introduce and link them in this sentence: the film narrates the story of the Maratha Peshwa Bajirao (1700-1740 AD) and his second wife Mastani.
• Bhansali announced the film in 2003 but production was delayed several times due to its changing cast. Bajirao Mastani, a passion project for Bhansali, spent the next twelve years in development hell before being revived in 2014 - Please see that the math is correct. When a film enters production, it is no longer in development hell. Bajirao Mastani was revived in 2014 when filming began, so that means it was in development hell for less than 12 years, because 12 years after 2003 (when the film was originally announced) is 2015, when the film was released.
• Principal photography was done on sets constructed in Film City - replace "was done" with "took place".
• Padukone's performance as Mastani was much criticized - you could merge this with the previous sentence and remove "however" to maintain neutrality. Also, use Indian English (criticised).
• Recipient of several accolades, Bajirao Mastani has won seven National Film Awards - I'd prefer something like, The recipient of several accolades, Bajirao Mastani won seven National Film Awards.

Plot

The actor names may be removed to reduce the word count (the plot should be no more than 700 words per WP:FILMPLOT), and to avoid overlinking.

Cast

Nice to see this complies with WP:FILMCAST. The "as" in "Irrfan Khan as (Voice-over)" can be removed, since there are many articles that go like, * Actor (special appearance in the song "Bla Bla"). Or maybe you could write, Irrfan Khan as the narrator (voice-over).

Development

You have put the word "development hell" in quotes, possibly because of how informal the term is. While that is the name of the Wiki article, the supporting source reads "developmental hell". You may remove the quotes from the word, as you need not follow the exact wording used in the source. Like in the lead, please make sure the math is correct.

Casting

• Later, Milind Soman joined the cast - It is the beginning of a paragraph. It seems he joined the cast in late August 2014 as per the source. You may want to add the time of his casting.

More comments to follow tomorrow... --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:40, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• Done.Krish | Talk 21:09, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Costumes

• Since no pictures of Kashibai existed the paintings of Raja Ravi Varma were used as a reference for designing her looks and costumes. You have to put a comma somewhere. Also, there is a painting by Varma placed in this section, which you should identify by name in its caption.
• Trust me I wanted to do the same but there is not a single source which says that. But Chopra had tweeted about the same painting being the inspiration. Unfortunately, it was not covered by the media other than Bollywood Life. If you see the character poster of Kashibai, it is very similar to the Damayanthi painting. Both are standing beside a Swan sculpture.Krish | Talk 14:31, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Music

• the soundtrack album was composed by Bhansali & Devrath - the "&" indicates an official partnership between Bhansali and someone named Devrath (like Simon & Garfunkel). But the latter is mentioned nowhere else in the article, especially the lead and infobox where Bhansali is listed as the sole composer of the soundtrack. Even BH lists Bhansali as such, with no mention of anyone named Devrath, even in its music review. Perhaps Devrath is best removed.

Marketing and release

• News18.com should be re-written and linked as CNN-News18. Or simply News18.
• "Video game" is a common term, so you may de-link it.

Historical inaccuracy

You may want to re-title this section because there seems to have been many inaccuracies. Also, why are there many redlinks? Do you intend to create articles on them? Kailash29792 (talk) 12:08, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

@Kailash29792: Done.Krish | Talk 14:31, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Krish!, thank you for addressing these comments. I don't have much to say anymore (any minor issue, probably prose-related will be addressed by myself), but I hope Ssven2 will keep his word of being guest reviewer. One last comment though: please reduce the usage of "film" in the lead section. --Kailash29792 (talk) 15:51, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Guest review from Ssven2

By my word, I'll now leave my comments.

• Link Sironja to Sironj.
• "Mastani tolerates this insult and appears to dance before Bajirao on the occasion of Parava." — What do you mean by Parava here? Find a link or try to at least add a referenced footnote. If either of them is not possible, then just simply write it as "Mastani tolerates this insult and appears to dance before Bajirao."
• "Shiva Bhatt, a Brahmin priest, informs Kashibai of a plan to murder Mastani and her son during a festival." — The festival is Ganesh Chaturthi isn't it?

• There is clearly some "Maha-arti" going on but the festival is not specified.Krish | Talk 19:17, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Aditya Pancholi joined the cast as an antagonist." — Mention that he is Shripad Rao with a reference stating the same.

• When his casting was announced, his character was not specified.Krish | Talk 19:17, 25 December 2017 (UTC)·

• "between 10-20 kilos" — rephrase it as "ten-twenty kilos" as you have written numbers above or equal to 100 as numbers, while those below 100 in words. Maintain consistency.

That's about it from me. I'll perform a source review tomorrow.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 17:27, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

• Done.Krish | Talk 19:17, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Source review

• Author's name for reference no 7 is "Test Sharma" (Strange name but its there). Do add it in the style of "|last=|first=".
• Author's name for reference no 19 is "Ram Madhav". Do add it in the style of "|last=|first=".
• Author's name for reference no 26 is "Pooja Kulkarni". Do add it in the style of "|last=|first=".
• Author's name for reference no 30 is "Nayandeep Rakshit". Do add it in the style of "|last=|first=".
• Author's name for reference no 87 is "Sonup Sahadevan". Do add it in the style of "|last=|first=".
• Wikilink SET India (Reference no 138).
• Wikilink STAR India (Reference no 139).
• For all newspapers, the reference should start with "cite news". I see some of them written as "cite web". Fix it.

That's the source review.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 07:53, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Done. Thanks you guys, Kailash29792 and Ssven2.Krish | Talk 15:04, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall: Passed, my queries were met and solved by the nominator.

   Pass or Fail:

@Krish!: Congratulations. A Bhansali article (with him as director that is) has become a GA for the first time. As per this edit, I hereby promote this article to GA.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 10:22, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Much criticism towards Deepika?

Hey there everyone, is that so? I do realise that Padukone's performance was not received as well, but was it really that badly accepted by the majority of critics? Since I haven't seen the film (and not sure I would want to), I can step in as a neutral party. I think this conclusion of critics' collective opinion is not very correct.

Let's see what the reviews have to offer (those mentioned in the section above):

• Subhash K. Jha - "Deepika could have done more with her part." - it's not that bad, is it?
• Mid-day - "unfortunately handicapped with an unidimensional role and not so inspiring dialogues" - not really criticism of her acting but the role itself.
• Raja Sen - "but her performance is wishy-washy" - again, not that bad, although much less positive
• Rajeev Masand - "Her character, though, is strictly one-dimensional and therefore tedious" - again, the role is not quite appreciated, the performance, from what I see, is.

Now, going on to explore the reaction to Deepika, that's what I see from the reviews which appear on the page itself:

• Anupama Chopra - "Deepika Padukone is riveting as the legendary beauty Mastani. Her face is so luminous that she seems lit from within."
• Mumbai Mirror - "Deepika has never looked as good and layers her Mastani with various shades. Her ability to channel a selfless princess and an indestructible warrior makes her a formidable foe and relentless lover."
• Taran Adarsh - "Deepika is enchanting as Mastani and displays the strength as an actor in several pertinent episodes"
• Zee News - "Ranveer, Deepika and Priyanka have absolutely nailed it with their portrayal of real life characters"
• NDTV - "Deepika is absolutely outstanding as Mastani, a woman in a man's world, a Muslim in a conservative Chitpavan Brahmin setting, and a mother driven by the power of love."

The reviews are extremely favoring of Deepika's performance, and I can't see any majority view which gives any actor exclusive praise. Some reviews mention Ranveer as the film's brightest spot, some mention Priyanka, and some, well, mention Deepika. Going through these reviews, I have to confess I see no particular preference among critics for Priyanka's performance. Moreover, I can't see how Padukone was "much criticized". As a matter of fact, while one review from India Today says "Ranveer Singh and Priyanka Chopra are the stars in Bhansali's latest ill-fated romance", as does another one from Deccan Chronicle (to be fair), as someone had pointed out above, there are reviews showing otherwise, like the other one from Hindustan Times which is titled "Bajirao Mastani review: Deepika overpowers Ranveer and Priyanka", and is concluded by the line, "It can be a good one-time watch, for Deepika’s performance, if not anything else." This review, for one, balances out quite well the review by India Today.

But this is not the end. Looking to explore a little more from reviews which do not appear on this page, I can see this:

• The Guardian is positive of the actors' overall work.
• Namrata Joshi from The Hindu says, "Deepika smoulders and looks radiant, as usual, but it is Priyanka, disappointingly absent from the first half, who is disarmingly warm and dignified in the second."
• Filmfare is positive of both ladies: "Deepika Padukone as the tormented lover looking for solace is on Madhubala in Mughl-E-Azam levels of tragedy. Her portrayal of Mastani is the perfect balance of allure and misfortune. And a slew of superlatives will not be enough for Priyanka Chopra in the role of Kashibai. She’s the one with a broken heart and stoic demeanor. She’s phenomenal to say the least. Together, the trio fills the Bajirao Mastani screen with verve and subtlety. Their performances are top notch."
• The Financial Express speaks of "a splendid show by Deepika, Priyanka and Ranveer. In fact, the entire cast has excelled."
• Another review by India Today, titled "Bajirao Mastani review: Ranveer, Deepika, Priyanka shine in this epic love story", says that "Deepika's Mastani can kill with a look from that pair of un-kohl-ed eyes. She is as agile and consummate with the sword, as with her words."
• Tribune India: "In fact, it’s Priyanka who provides the emotional core more than the trials and tribulations in love story of Bajirao and Mastani. Without a doubt, Deepika dazzles as does much else in the film. But beyond the razzle dazzle, it’s the piercing intense gaze of Ranveer Singh that makes you sit up and notice him and others who spar with him, idolize him and love him passionately."
• Gulf News: "brilliant performances by not just the lead actors Singh, Padukone and Priyanka Chopra."
• DNA India: "Deepika looks ethereal. She is pitch perfect throughout. And a brilliant supporting cast.", while the same review says "Kashibai's character is not consistent. Her approach towards both Bajirao and Mastani keeps fluctuating. Priyanka tries her best to make it work and manages in a few scenes but her character lacks the punch because there is little to cheer for her Kashibai" - there you go, another review which clearly prefers Deepika over Priyanka!
• Saibal Chatterjee of Deccan Herald says "But thanks to the strong central performances by Ranveer Singh and Deepika Padukone, the impressive sets and costumes, and the power of the visuals rustled up by cinematographer Sudeep Chatterjee, Bajirao Mastani is never less than watchable". The review does mention Priyanka and says she "gets her due in the drama," but it treats her just as a good supporting role, and definitely not better than others.

In the end, I see that all actors were praised for their performances, and that's why I believe it is okay to write that the film was praised for its performances without singling out anyone in particular because reviews might differ, but the majority opinion speaks for itself. Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:05, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Choosing the bitd from reviews to show what according to you is a criticism and praise is just baffling. Who are you to judge who was praised and who was not. Deepika was mostly panned for her performance. I don't want to interact with you again because you are manipulative BTW, Saibal Chatterjee and NDTV reviews are the same and the Hindustan Times review's title was changed twice to make it in favour of Deepika. I didn't ecpect this from you, you are manipulative but am I surprised? No Dr. Blofeld was right about you. I don't have time to argue with a biased person like you. Krish | Talk 14:49, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Actual texts from the reviews which mostly criticses Padukone's performance

In the above section, User:Shshshsh manipulated the texts from reviews to show that Padukone was equally praised as Chopra and Singh which is not the case. He took the text which had mild criticism from the articles and put his own spin on it saying "see, this not that critical, it is mildly critical, we should take this as praise, hey that too is praise and blah blah blah......" He gave his own summary as if he is the review aggregator. LOL Who are you to determine which is "not so critical and which is little praise? The articles themselves portray the right picture thanks to the texts written by reviewers. Padukone's performance had received much criticism (and little praise) as compared to the other leads. So we cannot say she was equally praised as Chopra or Singh. Most reviews either have said the film belonged to Chopra and Singh while rest have praised all three of them. Here are the true texts (without tempering) as opposed to User:Shshshsh's biased/manipulated texts which showed that Padukone received equal praise.

• 1. Subhash K. Jha - But Deepika could have done more with her part. She is way too subtle and silken, and not steely enough as the firebrand warrior-princess who will love her man, come what may. Priyanka conveys all these emotions with near-flawless comprehension of her character’s inner world. This is her best to date.

• 2. Times of India - But Deepika's Mastani remains muted - you occasionally glimpse dark eyes drunk on love, the fire of a fighter-princess, but you miss the full-blown passion of this lead pair. In contrast, by the end, Priyanka impresses as quiet Kashi conveys the sorrow of a wife, a lover, a friend, forgotten.

• 3. Mid-Day - Surprisingly what should have been the strongest link of the film ends up being the weakest. Deepika Padukone as Mastani looks stunningly gorgeous but seems unfortunately handicapped with an unidimensional role and not so inspiring dialogues. Deepika Padukone shines as she is introduced as a brave fighter but [Deepika] loses her steam when she walks over to the other side. Giving him good support is Priyanka Chopra who plays his first wife, Kashibai. Priyanka Chopra plays a finely etched out character with interesting layers, and it is difficult to take your eyes off her face as thousand emotions fleet across it. The chemistry between Priyanka and Ranveer is natural and effortless.

• 4. Raja Sen - Priyanka, Ranveer are terrific in Bajirao Mastani - Padukone -- as Mastani, the fiery warrior princess -- looks dazzling, but her performance is wishy-washy. She starts off smiling oddly through grim dialogue and then appears to be making sword-noises with her mouth when in battle. It doesn't help that she's entirely eaten up by Priyanka Chopra, who, while not in the title, owns Bajirao Mastani.

• 5. Rajeev Masand - Deepika Padukone as Mastani is a woman of exquisite beauty. You’re captivated by the heft that Padukone lends to her fight scenes, or when her eyes speak more of her suffering than words. Her character, though, is strictly one-dimensional and therefore tedious. As far as central roles go, the film benefits from a nice touch of playfulness and humor in Priyanka Chopra’s Kashibai. Your heart goes out to her in scenes where she must confront the fact that she’s not Bajirao’s great love. Chopra brings grace to the character, and practically steals the film.

• 6. India Today - Ranveer Singh and Priyanka Chopra are the stars in Bhansali's latest ill-fated romance (Does not even mention Padukone's performance) The film may be called Bajirao Mastani but it is Kashibai who makes a formidable impression in Bhansali's version of the historical tale. Credit goes to Chopra who further humanizes the character, making audiences feel Kashibai's loss and anguish. The scenes between Singh and Chopra - first as the happy couple and then estranged - are dramatically the most enriching bits in the film.

• 7. Firstpost - Priyanka Chopra overshadows everyone in Bhansali's dazzling but not perfect magnum opus. - Deepika looks ravishing but her contact lenses don’t let you see the historical, strong figure of Mastani. Priyanka's performance touches the most with her moist-eyed dialogue delivery, even though this is not Kashibai’s story.

• 8. Dawn - Review: In Bajirao Mastani, Priyanka Chopra outshines Deepika Padukone - However, Padukone is merely coasting on her good looks.' Though Mastani talks of eternal love and longing, there is very little soul to Padukone’s interpretation. Even worse, though, are her terrible Urdu pronunciations. Not only does Priyanka Chopra carry off her navaris (nine-yard saris) and naths with elegance, her child-like ways allow her to be a little more believable, and she is able to add an aura of dignity to her pain and suffering as the wronged wife.

• 9. Deccan Chronicle - Deepika ... It’s an imposing character on paper, but the actress fails to bring it out to its full strength. thanks to the sheer brilliance Priyanka Chopra brings to her act. The film is not meant to be hers --- she’s only the third wheel. Riding on very minimal lines, a strongly etched out character and letting her eyes do the talking for the most part --- PC owns the role of the neglected wife.

• 10. The Hindu (Namrata Joshi) - Deepika smoulders and looks radiant, as usual but it is Priyanka, disappointingly absent from the first half, who is disarmingly warm and dignified in the second.

• 11. Rediff.com (Sukanya Verma) - Sadly, it's also Deepika Padukone's most affected performance in a long time. I almost pretend I didn't hear her awful Urdu dialogue delivery. Then there's surprise package, Priyanka Chopra, who's absolutely alluring and warm as an 18th century Jennifer Aniston. Simply put, it's Team Kashi all the way.

• 12. Sify (Sonia Chopra) - Deepika Padukone ... the actor struggles to make the character as flesh-and-blood as possible. Priyanka Chopra’s performance, particularly towards the second half, is the only time you actually ‘feel’ something for any of the characters. And Kashibai proves to be the most layered and interesting characters among all.

These twelve reviews are from reputed/notable critics and they all heavily criticize Padukone's performance. While they all have heavily praised Chopra's performance using such word as "steals the show/own the film/maximum impact".

• The reviews from NDTV (Saibal Chatterjee), DNA (Sarita A. Tanwar) and Hindustan Times. All these articles praise the cast and Chopra to a lesser extent but focuses more on Padukone. DNA kind of gave the only mixed review to Chopra's character's (not performance) motivation in the film (which does not make sense) asking why her characters behaves a certain way saying Kashibai's character is not consistent. Her approach towards both Bajirao and Mastani keeps fluctuating. LOL but then says " Priyanka tries her best to make it work and manages in a few scenes but her character lacks the punch because there is little to cheer for her Kashibai" which is okay so let's take that as mixed. Also, I know it does not matter but Hindustan Times had earlier titled the review as "Padukone Shines in this over-indulgent drama" and later changed to "Deepika Overshadows this and that", still it should be noted (Deepika Padukone is infamous for her PR team).

• Anupama Chopra has said that "it's Priyanka Chopra's performance which made the film for me". I know it does not matter but whatever.

• Rest of the other reviews praise the three lead stars and the supporting cast. So considering all the above stuff, we can say that most criticism was given to Padukone and most Praise to Chopra and Singh. Plus Chopra and Singh also featured on the best performances of year for their portrayal in the film and over the years has been noted as the best characters/performances in SLB films and Padukone's name does not even gets a single mention.

• User:Shshshsh chose to manipulate the texts in the above section by using lines from the reviews which focused on Padukone's beauty and looks in the film as if a chacter's look and makeup equals performance. LOL He used lines like "Padukone looks etheral. Padukone's killer Kohl-ed eyes are enough to kill men, Padukone's looks radiant, Padukone looked blah blah blah. So I rest my case. Unlike Shshshsh, at least I did not manipulate anything nor I used beauty and makeup and looks praise to make my point that an actor's performance was well recieved. That's all.Krish | Talk 17:28, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

My take

First off, Krish! (talk · contribs), please chill, if there's anything that I find annoying at the moment, it must be your exaggerated reaction and attitude, which start getting on one's nerves, rather than the discussion itself. So far I've been very nice, but I am not going to tolerate this behavior any longer. Please try to focus on the discussion and be as fair and objective as you possibly can without discussing the user who is in disagreement with you. For the record, I do not have any bias towards any actress, I don't care for either, and neither is a great actress in my books. Moreover, I haven't seen the film, but I do not like subjective opinions becoming the mantra of WP articles. Words like "who are you to" - I'm a WP editor, and so are you, in case you forgot it.

It will be of note to remember the difference between critics' views about a character and a perofrmance. I will also try to ignore your comment about Deepika's PR team, which, in my view, is quite a funny claim to throw.

Coming back to the matter at hand, I do not see that majority view prefers one actress over another. You have cited several reviews, and I have done the same, but I will be happy to do it again and be more specific:

1. The Guardian: "The director handles his performers with similar sensitivity and intelligence, and all three offer real star turns, thereby avoiding fading into some singularly lavish scenery. Padukone’s Mastani, a Mughal Alex Forrest, displays a steely determination in the face of her hosts’ contempt that proves oddly ennobling."
2. Anupama Chopra: "Deepika Padukone is riveting as the legendary beauty Mastani. Her face is so luminous that she seems lit from within." - if she is riveting, then I suppose it's positive feedback of her performance.
3. The Financial Express: "But thanks to the strong central performances by Ranveer Singh and Deepika Padukone, the impressive sets and costumes, and the power of the visuals rustled up by cinematographer Sudeep Chatterjee, Bajirao Mastani is never less than watchable." Strong performance, ain't it?
4. Another review by India Today, titled "Bajirao Mastani review: Ranveer, Deepika, Priyanka shine in this epic love story", says that "Deepika's Mastani can kill with a look from that pair of un-kohl-ed eyes. She is as agile and consummate with the sword, as with her words." - very positive review of Deepika.
5. Hindustan Times - "Bajirao Mastani review: Deepika overpowers Ranveer and Priyanka", and is concluded by the line, "It can be a good one-time watch, for Deepika’s performance, if not anything else." - so there are people who do think that Deepika is the highlight, after all.
6. Taran Adarsh of Bollywood Hungama - "Deepika is enchanting as Mastani and displays the strength as an actor in several pertinent episodes"
7. Mumbai Mirror - "Deepika has never looked as good and layers her Mastani with various shades. Her ability to channel a selfless princess and an indestructible warrior makes her a formidable foe and relentless lover."
8. Zee News - "Ranveer, Deepika and Priyanka have absolutely nailed it with their portrayal of real life characters"
9. Gulf News: "brilliant performances by not just the lead actors Singh, Padukone and Priyanka Chopra."
10. DNA India: "Deepika looks ethereal. She is pitch perfect throughout. And a brilliant supporting cast." - this is definitely discussion of her performance, while the same review says "Kashibai's character is not consistent. Her approach towards both Bajirao and Mastani keeps fluctuating. Priyanka tries her best to make it work and manages in a few scenes but her character lacks the punch because there is little to cheer for her Kashibai"
11. NDTV: "Deepika is absolutely outstanding as Mastani, a woman in a man's world, a Muslim in a conservative Chitpavan Brahmin setting, and a mother driven by the power of love."
12. Namrata Joshi: "Deepika smoulders and looks radiant, as usual" - that's not just looks.

So far I see twelve reviews which are very favoring of Deepika's performance. I have absolutely no doubt that Chopra was very much hailed for her performance, and there were some scathing reviews of Deepika, but they are not very extreme (except for three at the very most) and they are well-balanced by numerous positive comments as shown above. Let's keep discussing this and get more editors stepping in. Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:44, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Does any of these reviews describe Chopra's performance as "failed to make a mark", "terrible portrayal", "failed to do justice", "looses stream", "her performance is wishy-washy", "Chopra is merely coasting on her good looks", "the actress fails to bring it out to its full strength", "awful dialogue delivery", "Chopra ... the actor struggles to make the character as flesh-and-blood as possible"?

No! It doesn't. These are the words used to describe Padukone's performance. While your above mentioned reviews have praised Chopra too not just Padukone. It's clear that Padukone has kind of received criticsm and hence can't be included in "whole cast was praised" phrase. You are manipulating text but I will not give up. So try harder to cover your biasness towards Chopra.Krish | Talk 09:38, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

It apparently didn't help kindly requesting you to be cool. I am not trying anything, my messages cannot get more concrete than they actually are, I'm standing behind everything that I'm writing here, and the reviews which appear above do not warrant the claim "much criticism" towards Padukone. Period. Did Chopra get more praise? Of course she did - I didn't refute that. Did Padukone receive much criticism? No she didn't. And that's why, I will have to disappoint you by not agreeing to include that line in the lead. :)

As I mentioned on your talk page, I am so used to 'big X-star fans' accusing me and other fair editors of bias. There were even such blames as jealousy. Those and many other such accusations are childish and amusing, to say the least. That's why I am left shocked by the style of your messages.

And again, I couldn't care less about Padukone or Chopra, I have no bias against anyone. My only bias is against bias - and that's why I'm here, to not let Chopra glorification take place, and certainly not at the expense of other actors. No WP article will be a sub-page of Chopra's fansite, sorry. I'll be putting all of them on my watchlist. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:56, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

In what way I over praise Chopra? Can you describe? Saying that "Singh and Chopra were particularly praise in Bajirao Mastani" in what way is over-glorification? I don't understand. Plus you should know that I did not add "Padukone received criticism", it was added by someone else while it was under copy/editing. If you want over-glorification go and read articles written by Krimuk, who praise her favourite actresses as if they are the only good actresses in Bollywood.Krish | Talk 10:22, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

As I said on your talk page - my only claim is to exclude the line "much criticism" towards Deepika. I did not present the negative reviews of her performance because it had already been done by you before. My goal was to balance it with additional reviews which you wouldn't take notice of. Now, speaking of exposing lies - your lies are by far the most amusing - YOU, dear Krish, and no one else, added that terrible line yourself! Not only that, you even restored it afterwards by reverting someone with a strangely unprofessional edit summary, in the midst of which you sneakily reversed the casting order in spite of the talk page discussion we had closed before. How can you even claim otherwise? And then you are mentioning Krimurk. I have read Krimurk's articles, and they are terrific, by the way, he sets an example to many of how to write balanced and informative biographic pages without ever letting bias stand in the way of objective and hard work. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:46, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Really? Oh well! Just because I reverted the cast listing, it makes me a liar? Chopra is given the second billing and she should appear second on both the in th cast section and in the infobox. I firmly stand with my edit because other articles do the same. Now coming to reverting another one, since when the IPs edits are taken in consideration for featured content? On a side note, since both your and that IPs claims are same, are you telling me you were editing through IPs to revert all this time? Now coming back to Krimuk, well, you don't think negatively about him because you are his friend. His articles use phrases like "Through a successful career", "biggest this and that and blah blah", with listing positive reviews even when the performance were panned etc It's not hard to understand why you don't feel his articles are biased. Though I can agree that his articles are terrific "prose wise" as opposed to mine whose English is just as bad as Padukone's performance in Bajirao Mastani and Padmaavat.Krish | Talk 11:01, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

First of all, if you want to come back the discussion of billing, then go back to that section and we'll restart it all over again. Trust me, I don't mind doing it. Until then, respect consensus, because, as you see, you have been reverted on that ground time and again.

Second - I posted two links, the first of which shows you actively adding that sentence yourself - which makes your statement, "it was added by someone else while it was under copy/editing", a lie.

I will ignore the discussion about Krimurk, which you keep bringing back here, but this claim of yours - "as bad as Padukone's performance in Bajirao Mastani and Padmaavat" - shows clearly your personal agenda, and it shows exactly why I've come on board to not let it stick on this page. I rest my case, Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:21, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey guys, since this ought to be an RfC, here is my take on it. Although there is no denying that Chopra was unanimously praised for her performance and Deepika not so much, it would be just fine to say that "with praise directed towards Bhansali's direction, various technical achievements and the performances of the cast." That covers Deepika too right? More judiciously? I am not sure. If you ask me, this is turning into an unending discussion of interpretations which which would continue to defer. I honestly would rather have it "with praise directed towards Bhansali's direction, various technical achievements and the performances of the cast" in the lead, and let the details be explicated in the reception section. From what I get after reading this "including Best Film, Best Director for Bhansali, Best Actor for Singh and Best Supporting Actress for Chopra" bit in particular the mention of Chopra and Singh earlier in the lead redundant. Them winning the award is a testament to their performances, right?

Exactly, facts should speak for themselves. Otherwise it's just original research. Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:54, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think so. Even Deepika wa nominated for her panned performance, so how does winning an award proves someone was praised? I think we can conclude here. You are free to remove that "Deepika was panned" line in the lead because I did not add in first place and people can judge themselves by reading reviews, which most of them have panned her. Plus here is the edit by an IP that added it attacking me saying "Biased article. Shame on the writer". This was done during the copy-editing. Now what you have to say Shahid? Don't you think a particular someone added it so that he can later remove it and put the blame on me?Krish | Talk 11:56, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

As you can see, while most of the praise is directed towards Chopra and Singh, Padukone has also received her great share of positive feedback, more so than the negative.

I would settle this out by taking our collective agreement and writing "...with praise directed towards Bhansali's direction, various technical achievements and the performances of the cast, particularly of Chopra and Singh." - that's how Chopra and Singh get their due and Padukone is not left completely in the shades for a performance that was appreciated by a great many critics. Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:08, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

More than 50% of the articles have panned Padukone's performance which can never be counted as evem mixed and you saying she was praised? Phrases like "failed to make a mark", "terrible portrayal", "failed to do justice", "looses stream", "her performance is wishy-washy", "is merely coasting on her good looks", "the actress fails to bring it out to its full strength", "awful dialogue delivery", and "the actor struggles to make the character as flesh-and-blood as possible" have been used to describe Padukone's portrayal of Mastani. How is this positive? Am I missing something here? Also 'Bajirao Mastani's case is completely different than other ensemble cast film because only five characters' performance was mentioned by reviewers unlike a film like Dil Dhadakne Do where whole cast' performance was praised. Saying particularly means a different thing and maximum praise was given to Chopra, followed by Singh while Azmi's performance recievd mild criticsm and Padukone's was outright panned. So no! We cannot say what you have trying to do this whole time, guving credit to a panned performance.Krish | Talk 12:25, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I was going to put this: "with praise directed towards Bhansali's direction, various technical achievements and the performances of the cast, particularly of Chopra and Singh." up first too. Now that Shahid has suggested the same, I believe that it is our best shot for a consensus. Again, when we say "performances of the cast, particularly of Chopra and Singh.", the cast includes the likes of Tanvi Azmi too, who was also lauded passionately, if not extensively. The cast, then, IMO would not stand for the three central performances, but for everyone and with special mentions for Singh and Chopra. That would highlight them [deservedly?] for their performances. The more concrete criticism towards Padukone's performance​ can be added to the Reception section. Sound good Krish? Shahid? VedantTalk 13:17, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

But don't you think if we are going to say "and performances of the cast, particularly of Chopra and Singh", we will have to add that Padukone was criticised? As you can see more than 50% of reveiwers have used phrases like "failed to make a mark", "terrible portrayal", "failed to do justice", "looses stream", "her performance is wishy-washy", "is merely coasting on her good looks", "the actress fails to bring it out to its full strength", "awful dialogue delivery", and "the actor struggles to make the character as flesh-and-blood as possible" to describe Padukone's portrayal of Mastani. Do you still think it's anywhere near the well rounded praised cast? We would have used the above thing if her performance was not panned like the way it did. Similar to Padmaavatwhere only Singh's performance was praised and there is also a praised supporting cast. You know what I mean?Krish | Talk 13:41, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I completely agree, Vedant. I think that's the best option.

And Krish - what you're saying is just totally incorrect. Throwing many quotes from the same reviews (and misquoting some) does not hold water. You're ignoring the many positive reactions she received for her work, which I listed. Out of the reviews you have cited, many actually criticize the character being one-dimensional. The only reviews which are critical of her performance are Raja Sen, Sukanya Verma, Dawn, and Deccan Chronicle, with Subhash K Jha expecting more but not actually panning it to the core. The other reviews are more critical of the character itself being one-dimensional or badly written - including Mid-day ("handicapped with an unidimensional role"), Rajeev Masand ("Her character, though, is strictly one-dimensional"), Sonia Chopra of Sify ("with a hollow characterization that is given repetitive dialogue"). That leaves you with just very few negative reviews, and you cannot ignore a dozen of other reviews which provide positive comments. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:54, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I get it, Krish!. I even agreed with what you once said about the Indian awards being a joke and your reluctance to accept the mention of the awards as a testament to the performances (which should ideally be the case). I also get your vehement advocacy of a truer (truer on your mind) representation of facts here. That's what I get. Now, what I do not understand is your failure to accept that Wikipedia is a portal to report and not to represent. That's what erudition (original as is the case with your thoughts on the award shows) is for, and WP doesn't accommodate that. I am sure you can accomplish a great deal by advocating what you believe in, but here we simply have to report what has been said in accordance with the certain guidelines.

I'll say it again, I do not think that the lead should accommodate every detail about every performance (as per the guidelines WP:LEAD), that's​ what the article's body should do. I'll volunteer (in good faith) to help you rework the section once you agree at that at this point the lead cannot accommodate a note on every performance in the film. If we can later substantiate the performance, we can always discuss the prospects. I am sure Shshshsh doesn't mind discussions either? VedantTalk 14:05, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I have NOT misquoted anything, it's all above but it i s you who is misquoting everything. More than 50% of reveiwers have used phrases like "failed to make a mark", "terrible portrayal", "failed to do justice", "looses stream", "her performance is wishy-washy", "is merely coasting on her good looks", "the actress fails to bring it out to its full strength", "awful dialogue delivery", and "the actor struggles to make the character as flesh-and-blood as possible" to describe Padukone and her performance NOT her character. In what world they are talking about her character? They are taking about Padukone being unable to do justice to the character (it does not matter what your and my personal opinion is). I am saying it again 60% of reviews gave neagtive reviews to Padukone while 40% praised her. So majority is leaning towards negative. Hence negative or mixed and I am being generous here. Your agenda is showing here Shahid which is to accuse me of biasness, which I am not.Krish | Talk 14:45, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Also I want to say this for the last time yes there are several positive reviews for her performance but there are also several negative reviews for her performance as well and this makes the reception towards her performance MIXED, NOT PRAISED. So if we are going to add that whole cast's performance was praised then we will have to mention that Padukone's was met with mixed reception. Use some common sense on Rotten Tomatoes if a film has 40:60 ratio or 50:50 ratio of positive and negative reviews, it is aggregated as mixed, NOT POSITIVE. We cannot say that the film is getting positive review because there are critics who have praised it. Same goes for the performances.Krish | Talk 15:03, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Vedant, you are simply spot on, I totally agree.

Krish!, only four reviews are negative of her performance, as I stated above; the 50% claim is utterly false unless you can number all the reviews taken together and show that 50% are negative of her performance. In reference to your previous assertion "who are you to...", I would like to quote your latest remark, "I am being generous here" - no one is authority on here to show generosity towards facts. Facts do not need us, they speak for themselves.

As for the misquoting part - please provide full quotations for "terrible portrayal", "failed to make a mark", and "failed to do justice". I'm waiting. Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:21, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I am so done with your hypocrisy. You made my life hell in just one day as opposed to others who atleast took many. You have been misquoting reviews adding stuff about her radiant skin and good looks to make her performance look well received. FYI, if a review mentions that her character is one-dimensional, its because the actor cannot portray it or do justice. While a good actor can make an underwritten character work and we are not talking about it. I gave almost a week to this article, worked hard day and night took it good article status and here you are shaming my hard work and me. You are literally the meanest person I have met here, period.Krish | Talk 15:32, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

All the blood and we still do not have a consensus. Just for the sake of it, I'd like to bring up American Beauty​ in a final bid for a consensus. Shahid, the lead says that "Reviewers praised most aspects of the production, with particular emphasis on Mendes, Spacey, and Ball". Although other performances were also praised, it isn't mentioned in the lead. Can we use the same format here? "Reviewers praised most aspects of the production, with particular emphasis on Bhansali, Singh, and Chopra (and a technician if that's still relevant)".? Please be nicer Krish!, and acknowledge that the constructive criticism too. VedantTalk 15:55, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Vedant, I stand with the previous wording, where the entire cast was acknowledged and Singh and Chopra in particular. By the way, it is not just about not being nicer, it is about totally rude.

Krish!, you better take that back and apologize for this terrible message of yours. You have been warned to discuss content and not other people, and now, not only are you discussing other people, you are calling them names just because they disagree with you. Are you even aware of your behavior? This is how you deal with proper, civilized discussions? I've been putting up with your melodramatic attitude for hours now. You feel too strongly against my certainty about how the wording of just one sentence should be, you're repeating the same mantra, throwing impolite remarks in every message ("who are you", "manipulate", "bias", when you are practically the only one who's been showing bias, and now "hypocrite" and "mean"), and now that you're asked to provide quotes you run away, not before you throw unbelievable insults in spite of being warned. This is not done.

"worked hard day and night took it good article status and here you are shaming my hard work and me" - you know how unfair what you're saying is. After our last argument, I left a very sincere message on your talk page, with a barnstar for your hard work. I wanted to make clear that in spite of professional disagreement, I am truly appreciative of your efforts. It took just another disagreement for you to delete it. You are probably younger than I am, so please do remember that when you run out of arguments and can't prove your points, attack is never the best form of defense. Until then, I demand an apology. Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:09, 13 March 2018 (UTC):

It's good but Isn't this the same thing (the current version)? I am upset because this has affected my day so much. I am here as opposed to the work I should be doing in real life. It's like a depressing day you can't figure out how to overcome.Krish | Talk 16:16, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Last warning was left on Krish's talk page pertaining to his continuous personal attacks. Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:16, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Alright, that's ​about it from me then. I cannot think of anything beyond what has been said; I am fine, rather more comfortable with either of the two following versions:

• "Reviewers praised most aspects of the production, with particular emphasis on Bhansali, Singh, and Chopra (and a technician if that's still relevant)" (it's ​different from the current version as it doesn't directly address the contentious claim of the performances of the cast.)
• "with praise directed towards Bhansali's direction, various technical achievements and the performances of the cast, particularly of Chopra and Singh."

Good luck, you guys. VedantTalk 16:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I would support the latter, but I want Krish to come back first. I will create a table with all the reviews appearing together, or take it to RfC, if we must. Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:30, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay - there was some drama going on with Krish. I tried to help in spite of his tasteless, disgraceful remarks. My concluding remark though, I see that so far there's some sort of agreement on at least one proposed version, and it shall probably pass through if no other solution comes. I still stand by my points - most reviews are positive of Padukone's performance, five are not, and some are scathing of her character. The assertion that it's still her fault as an actress is useless. I'm all for full representation of all the facts, but the lead should not exclude the fact that as a whole, Bhansali's Bajirao Mastani was considered a well-acted film overall and the acting, by one and all, was well-received by the majority of critics, even if some actors received more acclaim. When Krish comes into his own, hopefully apologizes for his behavior, I'll be willing to further discuss this. Right now I think I've had my fair share of WP-dedicated time for a whole month. Thanks, Numerounovedant, for weighing in on the matter. Cheers, Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:26, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Additional source on descendants

Found https://movies.ndtv.com/bollywood/bajiraos-descendants-object-to-altered-history-dancing-kashibai-1245599 WhisperToMe (talk) 23:13, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Removal/Alteration of a consensed version

Why was the consensed version of this article changed without any discussion and explanations? This version removed criticism of Padukone's performance, Chopra's image, quotes and the mention from the lead. What was the purpose? I would like to invite Numerounovedant who was present in that last discussion and whose suggested version was ultimately added to the article. But was removed by an editor without any explainations and discussion. Also, Kailash29792 and Cyphoidbomb.Krish | Talk To Me 21:27, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think there's much value in discussing edits that are a year and a half old. If you have changes to propose, feel free to propose them. Also, I'd rather not be part of content discussions, as I feel I'm more helpful in an administrative capacity. No disrespect intended. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:35, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

So what should I do Cyphoidbomb? If I restored that version, I would get reported for not asking that editor's permission. If I start discussions then nobody wants to help in it. So what should I really do? An editor changing things consensed by a community is fine but my inputs are not? Even though I have written these articles from the scratch? This is not the Wikipedia I remember. I remember the Wikipedia that ran by rules which was supposed to be followed by everyone and not by just few.Krish | Talk To Me 21:43, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Well why don't you try making a proposition like, "Hey all, I'd like to revert aspects of this last edit for a number of reasons. 1), 2), 3)." Invite Krimuk to the discussion. If they don't want to participate, wait a few days, let's say a week or so, and if there are no objections, make the change, noting in your edit summary something to the effect of "No responses to the open discussion on the talk page, so I am boldly making the change." If you are reverted, (which I hope you are not if you are opening discussions in good faith) the reverting editor should then comment in the appropriate discussion. But note that articles do evolve over time and just because you wrote something three years ago doesn't mean that it is set in stone forever. Further, if a version has existed for an extended amount of time, that is a form of consensus per WP:EDITCONSENSUS. I also am not comfortable with repetitious attempts to revert Krimuk, because then it starts to look awfully personal, and like you're trying to force a POV into an article, which I'm sure isn't your aim. Similarly, I don't like the idea of Krimuk reverting the bulk of your edits without discussing. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:57, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Well this is a discussion. So let's see what others have to say about it. And Cyphoidbomb (I think you have not seen but let me tell you) that editor in question has reverted my 90% of edits and you are yet to tell him that. Also, Just because misleading and biased edits stayed in an article for 2 years, it doesn't make them right. As per Wikipedia rules, it was duty of the editors to revert his edit 2 years ago as it was disruptive/vandalism.Krish | Talk To Me 22:04, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how it was vandalism. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:39, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb Well, "WP:VANDALISM says The malicious removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia."Krish | Talk To Me 22:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any malicious intent to damage the encyclopedia. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb Read the second part: or, the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia.".Krish | Talk To Me 23:18, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

If you were to pursue a vandalism case against Krimuk, that would almost certainly backfire on you. If for no other reason, than the edit cited above shows the editor's regard for a balanced perspective, right in their edit summary. Further, it appears to me Krimuk was, in good faith, converting lengthy quotations to summaries, as is probably preferable. There was no malicious intent to disrupt anything and I doubt you'd be able to convince another admin otherwise. But feel free to pursue it if you're aware of the WP:BOOMERANG risks. I have to be honest, I think you're being hypersensitive and overly analytical here. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:06, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb I never said anything about a case. Also, I never said anything about "the quotes he removed were bad". In fact I agree with his decision to remove those big quotes. But the problem is the "removal of criticism of Padukone's performance and Chopra and Singh's name from the lead". The article passed GA with those edits and later consensed and agreed by the community. In in fact applaud him for removing the long quotes.Krish | Talk To Me 00:56, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Krish!, I don't know what to say. While I appreciate Krimuk's desire to maintain conciseness, I'm not sure if he is biased against Chopra and towards Padukone. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:28, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Kailash29792 I don't get what was the reason for specifically changing the thing that was "discussed for days" and consensed after a grueling discussion.Krish | Talk To Me 04:35, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I think the consensus was more about not dismissing Padukone's work as badly received. Again, is there any article which summarises the reviews and concludes how the reception was towards the actors? This could be helpful because otherwise this debate will go on forever. Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Shshshsh Criticism of Padukone's performance was was removed, Chopra's image was removed and the mention from the lead was removed. There is also no summary of Chopra's performance in 7 Khoon Maaf being panned yet we agreed on that. Don't you think it's time to agree on this too?Krish | Talk To Me 20:57, 20 April 2020 (UTC)