Talk:Hrithik Roshan/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Numerounovedant (talk · contribs) 18:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Will put up comments shortly. NumerounovedantTalk 18:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Lead

• "Known for frequently collaborating with his father Rakesh,* - that's a rather odd fact to be put up right in the beginning of the article.

Well, I think that is what the first para is for - to introduce the subject, what they are, what they are known for, what they have done etc. Mr Wehwalt explains it so much better than me; see his third comment here.

But I am sure that there are better things that Roshan's known for. NumerounovedantTalk 04:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• "He further established himself with performances" - "established himself in Bollywood"?

I think it is better this way as KNPH established him as a promising newcomer and the other two increased in his popularity.

Alright.

The rest looks neat.

Early life and background

• " Quite often I feel that there is no God. War, natural calamities, handicaps, suffering. When I see all this, I fear there’s no God. And the thought scares me shitless" - Not sure if this part is of any use here.

I think it can stay as it reflects on his views on God and religion but I can't say that I am jumping up and down with excitement about its usage

The first half of the world does the job IMO.

• "as nobody would play with him" - Not sure if that's the best choice of words.

I can't think of any other way to phrase it. Any suggestion from you?

You could simply say "as he felt isolated as a child"

Yeah, I guess that is better.- FrB.TG (talk) 10:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• "At a certain age" - Do we know when?

No we don't. Perhaps when he was in his 20s.

• "concentrate instead on film" - film making is it?
• You may need to talk about the scoliosis a bit here. The section leaves it with an abrupt end.

Will go through the article section wise, owing to its considerable length. NumerounovedantTalk 17:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Look forward. - FrB.TG (talk) 20:06, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

2000–2003: Debut, success and setback

• Does the Kaho Na... Pyaar Hai role have a reference?
• "Rediff.com reported" - "A writer/critic/reviewer" needs to be mentioned. Also, "remarked" with be better suited here.
• Not sure of the qualitative value of the quote that follows.

Hmm, I am not sure either. I don't even know what he is trying to say.

You might want to trim it. Again, the first half suffices.

I have removed that quote altogether. I am not sure what does it add to the article. - FrB.TG (talk) 10:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• "the film addressed the topic of terrorism and crime and emerged an economic success" - do you think we should say "the film too addressed" considering there orchids from had the same theme.
• "Despite being a much anticipated film, was reviled by critics; " - Do we have a source for it?

The website i.e. The Hindu that has reviewed the film is the source. "Yaadein, which opened amid high hopes and higher hype at cinema halls across the country this past week, is not quite the nostalgia trip it promised"

• "finished as India's second" - emerged?

I think it is perfectly acceptable. Besides, emerge has been already used more than once in the article.

Fair enough.

2003–2008: Turning point and awards success

• "A 2003 article by India Today published that Roshan's starring role" - published? do we have a better word for it?

What is wrong with publish? Newspapers publish articles, don't they?

Again, I will go back to the fact that the reports should be attributed to the writer of the article, not the website/publisher. That said this in this case this would work fine I guess.

• "Rediff.com opined" - "A writer/critic"
• "Roshan denied that his character was inspired" - Roshan denied reports suggesting?
• Maybe a tiny contemporary review on his performance?
• "The following year, Roshan collaborated with Amitabh Bachchan and Preity Zinta on Farhan Akhtar's" - "for Farhan"?

I don't think one collaborates for but on a project.

Alright, thanks for clarifying.

• "follow-up to his family's production Koi... Mil Gaya, it saw him play tripple roles—the title superhero, his alter ego Krishna Mehra and his father Rohit." Not sure of the "alter ego" bit.

But he is his alter ego. Krrish is Krishna's other personality. Even this highly regarded review aggregator shares my opinion. - FrB.TG (talk) 17:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• "credited him as" the heart, the soul, and the spirit of the film"." spacing issue.
• "The reviewer Raja Sen of Rediff.com" - why not say "Film critic Raja Sen"

Will look at the rest too. NumerounovedantTalk 16:34, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

2009–2012: Commercial fluctuations

• "starred in and sang for the multi-national" - How's "starred in and recorded n number of songs for"?

Yeah, it is better to be specific. Included the song.

• The role description is missing a reference here as well.

That is because cast and plot points are not usually referenced in film articles (I think it should apply to BLPs as well). Since the summary doesn't provide any additional analysis, the contents are easily verifiable.

• "praised Roshan's looks"? I don't know if that's really necessary.
• Role reference for Guzaarish
• "The channel Zee News" - Again, "A reviewer..."

Well, the name of author is not known here. - FrB.TG (talk) 15:49, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• Plot and cast reference for ZNMD.
• "Zindagi Na Milegi Dobara released to positive reviews" - Source.
• Is the accident the reason behind Roshan's "the hardest [project] I've ever worked in my life" claim?

Is there an explanation as to why there are no refs for the plots and cast of the film's included? NumerounovedantTalk 14:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

2013–present: Recent work

• You may want to mention the timeline of Mohenjo-Daro. NumerounovedantTalk 15:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry it might be another couple of days I am really caught up in RL. NumerounovedantTalk 05:16, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• @FrB.TG: There are some unresolved comments, will put up the next batch after they are addressed to avoid piling up. NumerounovedantTalk 11:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

What unresolved cmts? I think I've got them all and replied where necessary. – FrB.TG (talk) 12:17, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Never mind, there were just a couple of minor issues. NumerounovedantTalk 15:41, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Moving on:

• "Roshan injured himself badly after he fell down" - awkward phrasing, do we know how or where did he fall?
• "it was not widely seen" not widely seen?

Yeah, not widely seen as in it did not draw much of an audience. It is quite common to say that, isn't it?

It is, however it somehow gave me the impression that it was not released on a wider scale/had a limited release. Do you thinking saying that it "failed to attract a large audience" would work better? Anyway it's your call here. NumerounovedantTalk`~

Other works

• "Roshan has performed on stage and appeared on television." - you might want to add "Apart from acting in films" here.
• "At the end of that year, he performed with" - performed what? a song, dance performance?
• The last sentence of the first paragraph doesn't really belong here.
• "In 2008, he donated ₹2 million (US$30,000) to the Nanavati Hospital for the treatment of children struggling with stuttering." - This should go right after the opening sentence, and the best sentence should begin as: "He also actively supports Dilkhush Special"
• "Later that year, Roshan became the Indian brand ambassador for UNICEF and the Global Goals campaign's World's Largest Lesson that aims to educate children in over 100 countries about the Sustainable Development Goals." - ref?

Personal life

• "People threatened to "bury [him] alive""- what people, you may want to be specific here.
• "Star Plus, however, stated that Roshan" - A representative?

Well, the source only says Star Plus.

• "The actress Manisha Koirala distributed it to newspapers and a local television station." - Why?

To clear people's misunderstanding obviously. Should I add that in the article? - FrB.TG (talk) 16:59, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Maybe it's just that there isn't really an established relationship between the two personalities that makes it's a little less obvious. But, I think it works just fine anyway. NumerounovedantTalk 17:32, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Will go through the last section soon. NumerounovedantTalk 16:05, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Refs

• Ref 49 had the publisher mentioned twice.
• Publisher missing in one of the references in Ref 156.
• Is OneIndia a RS?

It is not exactly the best source but I have seen it being used in such FLs as Tabu filmography. - FrB.TG (talk) 18:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Rest looks good. NumerounovedantTalk 17:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

In the media

• Please check for addressing the writer?editor/critic for every journal/newspaper/channel.

I think it is quite normal to only state "The NY Times stated" without the "a writer". It makes it quite repetitive to add that everywhere.

• This section is a little mismanaged IMO:

• The opening sentence of paragraphs in sections like these should summarise the content that is to follow.
• ""Zoya Akhtar (who directed him in Zindagi Na Milegi Dobara) remarks on Roshan's ability to demonstrate emotion on screen." - Doesn't really belong here. Moreover, it breaks the flow as the next line that follows the opening sentence in a more natural way.
• "His look and figure have" - looks?

Look is better IMO.

• "He insists on learning any necessary skills and performing stunts himself.[140][141] Analysing his career highlights, the newspaper India Today published that after making a successful debut, Roshan appeared in a series of romantic films that hindered his career," - This is a rater odd transition. Also, nothing poitive is said about his career in the "highlights".

On second thoughts that career analysis added nothing new as that has already been discussed in detail in career section.

• Why do we need 2 separate Rediff lists here? They are repetitive and add little new information.

They are both honorable lists. I don't think including two lists from the same publisher makes it repetitive.

You may want to rearrange the section a little, maybe more thematically? NumerounovedantTalk 13:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Done, I think and tks for such a thorough review. - FrB.TG (talk) 13:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Final Comments It was great working with you, thanks for the prompt replies. Good work on the article. Pass. NumerounovedantTalk 15:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)