Talk:Priyanka Chopra/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

This page is an Archive of the discussions from Priyanka Chopra talk page (Discussion page). (March 2006 - December 2010) - Please Do not edit!

The picture of Priyanka Chopra and Salman Khan is Not from the movie "Salaam E Ishq: A tribute to love." It is in fact a still from "Mujhse Shaadi Karogi". So I have corrected it. The website where it was found from is wrong in saying this is a still from that movie. This is a link to prove it. http://www.radiosargam.com/downloads/moviestills/m/mujhseshaadikarogi/index.html?album=11(Shakirfan 22:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC))

Picture

Ok...can we please agree on a picture? This is really becoming irritating! The tug of war needs to stop immediately! So to the person, or persons, that keep changing the picture every other day, please choose one and let it be...Thanks!

I want to change the profile picture, I think the picture should be more recent, but would like to agree on which one it should be so it doesn't result in an edit war. Does anyone have any suggestions, or any particular favorite picture of Priyanka Chopra? Sinbihaeyo 01:34, 08 October 2006 (UTC)

Changed again?????--Victor D ^PARLE 23:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll always replace this hazy picture (Image:PriyankaChops.jpg) with a better version (Image:Pc19.jpg) from Commons. --Victor D ^PARLE 18:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Controversies

• Few years back a leading Indian magazine alleged that Priyanka's father Dr. Ashok Chopra behaved inapproprately with a 12 years old girl.

I have moved this here until we can find a verifiable source for this. -- Mayuresh 14:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• "This African looking handicapped actress is the daughter of Dr. Ashok Chopra, who had a drinking problem and more seriously allegedly viciouslyraped a 12 year old girl. The news item was revealed was Mumbai magazine "Savvy". This news item suddenly went underground, allegedly due to Priyanka being "kept woman" of lecherous Zee TV owner Subhash Chandra!"

Removed the above unsourced and potentially libelous material. Drake 19:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

She's real hot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.226.4 (talk • contribs)

in the bio they where saying shes 5f 3... thts NOT true..I changed it to 5f 8... Sunnybondsinghjalwehra 20:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I reverted your change, as the one source we have says 1.63 meters, not 1.83. That's not a very good source -- do you have a better one? I thought your change was vandalism, sorry. Zora 20:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Replaced model infobox

I replaced the model infobox with the actor infobox -- since none of the measurements are sourced, and since using a model infobox suggests that she's not a REAL actress. Zora 23:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, aren't we going overboard with the references by placing them in the infobox? This is unnecessary and such references can be moved into the article itself. Ekantik ^talk 04:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I placed those references in the infobox because someone deliberately tries to manipulate the figures always. --Victor D ^PARLE 00:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Deliberate vandalism and spamming

Vandals try to deliberately change the facts and figures like date of birth, etc. Also there has been repeated spamming by addition of fan sites e.g. http://priyanka-forever.com and http://www.priyankachopra.org. I've added hidden text in in the infobox and external links section mentioning Wiki guidelines. Is protection or semi-protection of the article or part of it the solution? --Victor D ^PARLE 18:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Views on marriage etc.?

Need a section on Priyanka's views on relationships and marriage. Has she been romantically linked with her co-stars? It says here that she has a strong opinion on live-in relationships. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sarkar2 (talk • contribs) 04:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

Regarding a photo

People like us are scared to upload pictures anymore. These tags of picture (GFDL, screenshots and all) sometimes makes no sense to attach with. Whenever u upload a picture, someone will mark it as 'Violation of wiki image upload policy' and the pic will be deleted within 2 weeks. So, these days people are refraining from uploading any pictures and so am i. --Jayanta 14:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 19:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment to Priyanka Chopra's name in Hindi

Looking into Hindi Wikipedia as well as to Google it seems that the correct orthography is using short a after ya, see e.g. story at josh18.com, about Priyanka at bhaskar.com, story at indianpad.com. Another orthography, namely प्रियंका चौपडा, is used at oneindia.in. I have therefore changed the Hindi version to प्रियंका. Long a after ya is used in the Marathi and Bengali Wikipedias. Moreover, the surname in Marathi Wikipedia is चोप्रा. As Marathi Wikipedian Mahitgar (see my talk page) wrote me a short time ago, Marathi does not use Devanagari characters with nuktas, therefore they probably transliterate ड़ as र and join it in order to form a common conjunct with preceding प. --Zdeněk Wagner (talk) 17:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

hin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.12.217.136 (talk) 08:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Other name , Petname or Nick Name

hey IP: 124.7.112.197 whats the problem with her other name Piggy Chops which is true and the name is given by her co-workers (Bollywood industry people) . its just like Shah Rukh Khan called as SRK or King Khan or Sanjay Dutt called Sanju Baba . some wikipedia editor may not like it personally .but wikipedia is not here for peosonal like or dislike . its here for fact and ref only . my request dont propagate ur personal like dislike in wikipedia --Blogsd^Contact —Preceding comment was added at 14:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Relationship

Didn't Priyanka and Harman Baweja split? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.64.81 (talk) 00:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

HER PARENTS

HER EARLY LIFE MENTIONED HAS AN ERROR,IN THE ARTICLE IT IS MENTIONED THAT HER MOTHER IS BIHARI, BUT INFACT HER MOTHER IS A MALAYALEE(from KERALA) SETTLED IN JAMSHEDPUR[http://community.cinecurry.com/_Priyanka-is-a-half-Malayali/video/724753/57999.html?b=] I TRIED TO EDIT BUT COULD'NT. 117.206.33.183 (talk) 07:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

This is not a reliable source; however, I have removed the reference to her mother being a Bihari Kayastha as there's no reliable source that supports that (only Wikipedia mirrors have it that way). -SpacemanSpiff 14:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the change.I didn't that anyone would bother to do it. well the altered info has error again,u missed to mention MALAYALEE FAMIL (missed out the malayalee bit n left wid family). I did read about it long time ago too..that is a genuine info..thanx once again!!!cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.206.38.203 (talk) 16:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

It hasn't been added because the source you've provided is not a reliable source per Wikipedia standards. I have also not been able to find any reliable sources for either Malayali or Bihari origin, so neither should be in the article. -SpacemanSpiff 18:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

now now....that was a tv show and do u think the info would be wrong?though u couldn't find a source to prove that mother was from bihari family,u didnt have any prob in mentioning that without a reliable source to meet the so called standards.why is it that now when i provided a source(just followin the rules mentioned) u seem to be asking for genuine proof,don't u think it is a bit biased?? http://www.zimbio.com/Bollywood+Movies/articles/-lGgON0mn2R/Priyanka+Chopra+Indian+film+actress —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.206.35.112 (talk) 05:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

What are on earth you going on about? "though u couldn't find a source to prove that mother was from bihari family,u didnt have any prob in mentioning that without a reliable source"? Anyone can edit Wikipedia; that person who you were responding isn't the one who put Bihari in the article. He/she REMOVED it. And if you actually read the rules, it says we can't use viral videos. And that Zimbio page is an user posted article copied and pasted from Wiki. I believe you, but we need a REAL article saying so. AyanP (talk) 08:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)Ayan

Priyanka's films in 2011

Priyanka chopra is doing a lot of movies in 2011, why aint you ppl adding those movies in her wikipedia????!!?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.229.82.35 (talk) 13:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Soniameloveyou, 8 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

Soniameloveyou (talk) 12:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC) 2011-Saat khoon maaf 2011-Race 2011-Don 2-Chase begins again 2011-Silence 2011-Dostana 2 (special apperance)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. & please provide a reliable source. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 12:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Would this be considered a reliable source? http://popcorn.oneindia.in/artist-upcoming-movies/3/2/priyanka-chopra.html BollyJeff || talk 13:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Or this one? http://in.movies.yahoo.com/artists/Priyanka-Chopra/filmography-10724.html

Don 2 was pretty well documented so I added it already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bollyjeff (talk • contribs) 13:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

From a cursory look, the former seems reliable enough; I've some qualms about the latter, because I'm not sure it has editorial oversight. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 13:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I added a couple more that info available on IMDB, WP, etc; but not all of them. BollyJeff || talk 14:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh well, I tried, but User:BOLLYWOOD DREAMZ says that "the other films are either delayed or indefinitely postponed". BollyJeff || talk 19:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

advertisements

I think it wasn't stated in the article that she appeared in many lux advertisments and number of advertisments she performed. Could someone make a list of them and state more detailed information about them? THANK YOU —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.235.201.176 (talk) 03:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Soniameloveyou, 8 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

Soniameloveyou (talk) 12:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC) 2011-Saat khoon maaf 2011-Race 2011-Don 2-Chase begins again 2011-Silence 2011-Dostana 2 (special apperance)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. & please provide a reliable source. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 12:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Would this be considered a reliable source? http://popcorn.oneindia.in/artist-upcoming-movies/3/2/priyanka-chopra.html BollyJeff || talk 13:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Or this one? http://in.movies.yahoo.com/artists/Priyanka-Chopra/filmography-10724.html

Don 2 was pretty well documented so I added it already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bollyjeff (talk • contribs) 13:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

From a cursory look, the former seems reliable enough; I've some qualms about the latter, because I'm not sure it has editorial oversight. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 13:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I added a couple more that info available on IMDB, WP, etc; but not all of them. BollyJeff || talk 14:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh well, I tried, but User:BOLLYWOOD DREAMZ says that "the other films are either delayed or indefinitely postponed". BollyJeff || talk 19:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

advertisements

I think it wasn't stated in the article that she appeared in many lux advertisments and number of advertisments she performed. Could someone make a list of them and state more detailed information about them? THANK YOU —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.235.201.176 (talk) 03:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

filmography

is Alibaba Aur 41 Chor still happening? and kunal kohli announced priyanka will be the lead in his upcoming film. any qualms if kunal kohli's next is added to her filmography? thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.60.16 (talk) 16:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

can tweets be considered a source? kunal kohli tweeted about his next film with priyanka chopra and shahid kapoor so can this be added to her filmography? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.15.73.241 (talk) 06:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately no. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Reviews

I highly doubt the article's neutrality. The article tries very hard to show Priyanka as a superlative actress. Many reviews are actually by the same critics, and many of them do not reflect the majority view. I challenge the editor who added these reviews to come up with evidence that this is really respresentative. Also, words like "highly" are thrown without consideration. Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Moreover, her performance in Saat Khoon Maaf was not universally praised:

• NYT say, "She’s more conceit than character, and Ms. Chopra, though charming as always, can’t make her cohere."
• Khalid Mohamed says, "As for Priyanka Chopra, she lacks range. Once again after What’s Your Raashee, she can’t multi-task or shade her part at all. If there’s anything to show her alterations of attitude and age, it’s merely in her changes of wigs and cosmetics."
• Anupama Chopra says, "But beyond a point, even she can’t prop up the sagging plot."
• Raja Sen says, "Priyanka tries her best, but is simply not a good enough actress to justify being in a role this nuanced and demanding... she never comes close to being convincing. She turns hints into signals, happiness into hysterics, her every movement an act... she's an actress unworthy of this season."
• The Hindu says, "Priyanka Chopra churns out a rather uneven, inconsistent performance that's further botched up by bad make-up."
• Express India says, "Priyanka Chopra fills out Susanna to the best of her ability, which isn’t spectacular, but is never standard-procedure"

I don't say you have to cite everything criticising her and I know many critics praised her for her turn, but you must somehow reflect it in a quote that is not as gushing or at least by presenting both sides. It's not one or two negative reviews, it's more. And I'm sur there are more such reviews for this film and for others as well. Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

In regard to my previous point, I have a clear disagreement with this chain of edits made by User:Ranbirk. Some of the prose was really badly written and contained several grammatical errors. In addition, the user added many reviews by Taran Adarsh and it was quite puzzling to me. Another gushing quote of much praise without much substance was added and considering my above message, it's not what should reflect the majority view. I do appreciate Ranbirk for trying to make the article neutral by adding some slight negativity, but altogether the article does not really chronicle her career effectively, according to me. I do agree that the article needs expansion, but certainly not in this way. Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The English grammar was very bad. A space should come after a period for instance. I also agree that you cannot have so many reviews from one person, or it stops being neutral point of view (NPOV). The article does not need to be expanded at all, so any expansions must be done in a good manner, similar to other GA articles of living persons/actors. There is a list of Indian cinema GAs and FAs here to model it after. BollyJeff || talk 18:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we should add some of those bad reviews to make it more balanced. I also agree that a section for 1 1/2 years in the middle of the career is silly. Hopefully she has a long way to go yet, and now is still the beginning phase for her. :-) BollyJeff || talk 16:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Definitely. It's quite surprising that despite the fact that she is not considered that great an actress (although she did have some good achievements), there isn't a single negative review. She has appeared in many films and most of them were poorly received, and she had a tough time trying to prove her capability. There is some critical commentary, but I feel it was just added because it was a must, and the article lacks balance. I actually quite like Priyanka, I think she has grown as an actor and she is very pretty and attractive, but I have growing expactations, and the article gives the feeling as if there isn't any higher note to reach for her. That's frustrating. Instead, even for films considered to be her worst (e.g Drona), we see additions of some forced words of praise which add nothing really - like the one which says she has impressive "action heroine skills". Well... it's totally out of context, if you read the entire paragraph. Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Piggy chops

There lacks an explanation of why the above namespace redirects here. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done BollyJeff || talk 12:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Singing

Priyanka Chopra, not only is a Actress and model, but also a singer. She has sung a few lines of 'Right Here Right Now' from the film Bluffmaster and also does a few jingles. She also sang the song 'Tinka Tinka Zara Zara' on Rendezvous with Simi Garewal. Please insert this piece of information into the article as she is very multi-talented. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.194.231.189 (talk) 22:23, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I added something in the 'other work' section, but its hard to find reliable third-party sources for this sort of thing. BollyJeff || talk 00:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Signature

I have changed the signature of Priyanka Chopra from this file provided by Prajwal21 to provided by me, as the signature provided by me is an svg file and has a better resolution among many other criterias. GaneshBhakt (talk) 08:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

You have duplicated the already used signature, which was uploaded by me. Its of same resolution, you have just changed the format and uploaded the same. Stop doing this, it wont be acceptable. Prajwal ^talk 12:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Who says it hasn't changed? I have not only changed the format but also enhanced the image quality, reduced the image size from 28 KB to 10 KB, made it at par with other signatures, and also increased the image size from 140px to a possible 2000px. GaneshBhakt (talk) 13:52, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Guys, stop this useless fight, the images look the exact same. Let it be as it was - it's no big deal. Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The original one looks better on my PC. BollyJeff || talk 15:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Full protected

This page has been fully protected. A fully protected page can be edited only by administrators. The protection has been currently placed till Septembe 8, 2011, but could be removed/downgraded to semi-protection in case consensus on the current signature issue is reached. The "Edit" tab for a protected page is replaced by a "View source" tab, where users can view and copy, but not edit, the wikitext of that page.

Any modification to this page should be proposed here. After consensus has been established for the change, or if the change is uncontroversial, any administrator including I may make the necessary edits to the protected page. To draw administrators' attention to a request for an edit to a protected page, place the {{editprotected}} template on the talk page.

All requests to unprotect this page may be submitted at the page meant for such requests. Please get in touch directly with me on my talk page for any clarifications. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 10:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• • The page has been unprotected as of right now. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 07:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Move towards downgrading full-protection to semi-protection

This BLP was full-protected due to an edit war over the signature file. After two editors have communicated to me that they should wish the full-protect to be lifted, I am initiating a discussion whose sole aim is to see whether a consensus exists on the signature issue. If I find reasonable discussions (irrespective of the stand being taken) and am convinced that such discussions will continue on this signature issue rather than a repeat edit war, I shall immediately lift the full protection and downgrade it to a semi protection within two days of such discussions taking place. In any case, there is an alternate method for editors to request that protection be lifted on this article or to request edits to this page while it is protected. The same has been described in the section above detailing the full-protection. Moving forward, editors are encouraged to kindly comment/support/oppose on the following options that they would prefer with respect to the signature. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 09:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Option 1: Delete the signature file as this is a BLP and there is no reliable source provided that verifies that this signature is of the individual

• Comment I have placed this option because unless there is a reliable source provided, this signature linking will be deleted subsequently - if not by me, then by any other editor/administrator. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 09:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment What kinds of reliable sources can be used for signatures? BollyJeff || talk 18:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, any source that qualifies on RS. Even primary sources could do, provided they are directly from the actress' website or similar validated sites that are directly controlled by her.

It appears that this is not going to happen, so can we just delete the signature and unlock the page? BollyJeff || talk 15:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

• •  Done Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 07:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Option 2: Keep the previous jpg file

• (Leave your comments/supports/opposes here)

Option 3: Retain the current svg file

• (Leave your comments/supports/opposes here)

Priyanka chopra

Hi, imnew here... how do u edit a priyanka chopra page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bollybitz (talk • contribs) 02:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

No one can edit it right now; an admin has locked the page due to some dispute. BollyJeff || talk 14:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Extra info

♥ I think we should add more sexy pics of Priyanka, because based on what we have here, it doesn't show much- beside the text to foreignors Also, we should give a bit more info about where she lives... personal life, but not too personal.

check this out- we can add info about this... --Bollybitz (talk) 02:39, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

No, WP is not the place for sexy pictures. Please get familiar with WP policies before you start adding a bunch of stuff on here. BollyJeff || talk 14:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Ranbirk

Resolved

 – User blocked. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message}

I cannot stand it any longer. This guy's edits have become truly impossible to deal with: full of mistakes, grammar errors, POV, unsourced stuff, lack of spaces, unnecessary capitals, glorification, and now, abusive language in the edit summary as well. This is the last straw. The user has been reported after several warnings. Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Priyanka chopra's article need to be more suitable and it should be expanded

(Bollybuzz (talk) 14:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)) I Really Feel So because She is a Big Star And a big actress.her personal life is not present in details.She had been voted sexiest women in 2006 and she was goddess of atlantis.and other infos are missing.so.i beg all you amazing article wikipedians please expand it because other bollywood actress articles are larger than requirement.stop partiality other wise you should be blocked.

A lot of extra information, including the sexiest woman title that you mention, is listed in the sub article List of awards and nominations received by Priyanka Chopra. Perhaps I will add a few key items back to the main page, but your attitude is very bad. Seems like you have been here before under another name. BollyJeff || talk 15:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Honours like "sexiest woman" can be mentioned in the main article. As per the article's name only awards and nominations has to be presented in the sub-article . --Commander _{(Ping Me)} 02:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks you lovely people for giving light to my ideas (i have some more suggestions)

well,thanks as you have added my written infos to the article.

Priya Chopra is also has done humanitarian works.she is brand ambassador of ndtv greenathon which has raises more than Rs 100,000,000 in 3rd edition which were used to light a billion lives campaign by presenting solar lanterns to poor villages.she also spent a whole day with those villagers.

Some sections are misssing as they are present in other articles like Stage performance,In the media,personal life also her critical acclaim from her performance from anjaana anjaani and 7 khoon maaf is missing.Her love life,link-ups are missing.please add them.

It is a true work of an wikipedian to make all articles a great pleasure to read.(Bollybuzz (talk) 15:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC))

Edit profile picture

Please put up a different picture because Priyanka Chopra isn't that white. The picture is highlighted and lightened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.195.196 (talk) 02:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Priyanka's Personal Life

Why is there no mention of Priyanka Chopra's relationships? Ms. Bachan Rai's relationships have been discussed on Wikipedia, and i do not understand why my posts on Priyanka Chopra keep getting deleted. They are facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.116.19 (talk) 01:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Having verifiable sources is more important on Wikipedia than what you say are facts. See Help:Introduction to policies and guidelines/Content. No source = no personal information. BollyJeff || talk 01:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Even so, rumors of affairs and relationships by tabloids can not be added because they are mere rumors. Unless she herself confirmed those information in some (preferably written) interview, it simply can not be added. --Meryam90 (talk) 02:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Miss World section

Let's stop the edit war and discuss the issue. I don't see anything wrong with a separate section on her beauty pageant wins. It is a big accomplishment that deserves to be highlighted. Comparing other of Indian cinema's past beauty queens: Aishwarya_Rai has a section called "Modelling career"; Sushmita Sen has a "Miss Universe" section; Lara Dutta has a "Pageantry" section; Dia Mirza has "Miss Asia Pacific"; etc. No one is complaining about that, and don't come back with OSE. The section can be expanded a bit and renamed, but should not be deleted, IMO. Other opinions? BollyJeff || talk 19:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I dont think stuff like "When she got called to participate, she was surprised and did it mainly to take a break from studying" belongs in an encyclopedia or anywhere outside of a celebrity gossip mag. "In the same year, Lara Dutta and Dia Mirza, both also from India, won the Miss Universe and Miss Asia Pacific crowns respectively, in a rare triple victory for one country" is interesting, but one of the "sources" is not a source at all and the other source simply lists the winners it does not actually make the commentary. "When Chopra won the Miss World crown, she became the fifth Indian woman to win the title, and the fourth Indian woman to win in a span of seven years." is completely unsourced. If there was actual content for the section, sure keep it. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Better now? I am not sure you need a source for Indian Miss Worlds; it's easy enough to figure out on the Miss World article. Lets not get too carried away with SYN. BollyJeff || talk 02:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Nope, anything challenged needs a source. And someone is challenging the lack of sources. Wifione ^Message 05:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I added several sources, the only one lacking is for the fact there there were several Indian Miss Worlds in succession. That can be proven by looking at the Miss World article. So if I come and challenge that there needs to be a source for every film role she has ever done, then we need to add them too? You cannot look in the film articles and find out from there? BollyJeff || talk 13:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I completely disagree. Has anyone ever gone through WP:UNDUE? Highlighting a "miss world" achievement in a single section undoubtedly gives too much weight to it. "No one is complaining about that, and don't come back with OSE." If you cite other articles, WP:OSE has to be brought in, it cannot be an excuse to violate it. Secret of success (talk) 06:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I have beefed up the section a little with more recent involvment. By comparison, there is a section on her Music Career, which has not even started yet; for Modelling and Endorsements, etc. How are these more important than Miss India / Miss World, especially when she herself said this is where it all started for her? I don't see how this is undue weight. Will you go and remove the pageant sections from those other articles or are you only targeting this one and why? BollyJeff || talk 13:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I, as a volunteer editor on Wikipedia, fall under zero responsibility to edit a page under anyone's request/order. That is precisely why I asked you to not involve WP:OSE here. Regarding the issue, yes, music career should be a sub-section under "Other works", just like modelling, and beauty pageants too. Having a separate section is certainly ridiculous and gives undue weight. Secret of success (talk) 15:37, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

So your objection is sections vs sub-sections? I am okay with moving both of those under the Other work section, as long as they can stay as sub-sections. A reader should not have to read and search the entire article to find details her pageant work. Let's see what others say. BollyJeff || talk 15:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Mentioning her win in pageants is required. It being a seperate section is also required and it certainly is not overdue given the fact that thats how she came in the film industry and mainly she also acknowledges it. The section can be a sub-section somewhere in the article. But the current position above the Acting Career is suitable as it has a chronological flow. Making it a subsection in the Acting career sounds stupid. I, hence, see no need to change it.
And why do TheRedPenOfDoom and Wifione require sources for those statements? Sources should be provided for stuff that has been challeneged reasonably. If i go to the article Miss World i will find out that since she won in 2000 no other Indian has won that crown. And i can write this in her article. Why do i have to dumbly wait for some newsreporter to notice this and include it in his article and then use it here? -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 16:12, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Bollyjeff, yes. That was precisely my point too. Moving it into "Other works" will be better. And Animesh, the same source used in the other articles, if reliable, must be transferred here too, to follow WP:V. The reader cannot be expected to drop in to another page. This chronological thing is quite absurd, considering the fact that info is grouped according to its type and further by chronology, but only after the first is followed. Secret of success (talk) 16:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I moved the two sections to sub-sections under Other work. Now all non-film work has equal weight. BollyJeff || talk 16:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts. Regards, Secret of success (talk) 17:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Lets read the article. Lead says she is actress, singer,...Miss World. WOW! Lets read about that. Aaaa....wait a minute! Where is it? Its half way down. Anyways... lets continue futher. She was born, blah blah... educated... Made a debut in film. Good for her! Did Aitraaz, Fashion, 7 Khoon, gooooood. She became Miss World! In 2000! Wait a min... let me scroll up & see when she got her 1st film. Oh! That was after being crowned. Weird! I wonder why the article is upside-down like a suspense film.
Chronology matters! Especially here. She is notable for being Miss World. You cant club that in miscellaneous stuff. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 18:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The second sentence of the lead makes it clear that Miss World came before acting, doesn't it? Plus, the expanded sub-section covers things happening in 2007-2009, and the other sub-sections cover out-of-order ongoing stuff so it would not be chronological anyway. BollyJeff || talk 18:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Animeshkulkarni. The Miss World article should have it's own section. Adding it to "Other Works" doesn't make any sense. Oh and I hope her Music Career will have a separate section once the album releases. -MrSalvatore (talk) 15:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Animesh, please stop putting up a drama here. If you can provide specific reasons for giving it so much of importance, do so. But otherwise, it seems to be a waste of time for you as well as for others. Secret of success (talk) 05:05, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

File:IPL 5 pohoto(11).jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:IPL 5 pohoto(11).jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:IPL 5 pohoto(11).jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:53, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Priyanka Chopra at India's Glam Divas12121.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Priyanka Chopra at India's Glam Divas12121.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Priyanka Chopra at India's Glam Divas12121.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Priyanka Chopra

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Priyanka Chopra's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "NDTV":

• From 2012 Indian Premier League: "IPL 5: Awards and honours". NDTV. Retrieved 29 May 2012. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
• From Ra.One (soundtrack): Indo-Asian News Service (2011-09-16). "Music Review: SRK's Ra.One". NDTV. Prannoy Roy Publications. Retrieved 2011-09-16.
• From Sukhbir (musician): Sukhbir - NDTV Music Profile

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 11:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done BollyJeff | talk 12:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Queen of the atlantis

some section should be added she was declared queen of atlantis on opening ceremony of atlantis dubai,(223.176.136.45 (talk) 02:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC))

No, are you joking? That would be like the last straw of our policy on Neutral Point of View. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 16:52, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Flow of the article

I have a little worry about the flow of the article from the Early life and pageantry to the Bollywood debut. It's just too random and does not bridge the transition at all. I was wondering if any one has any ideas to tie up the loose ends, or I can find some stuff. Like what lead to her enrolling for film roles, was her modelling career on the fall, was she already decided about a life as an actress etc. I think I have an old Femina magazine where the 2000 Femina Miss India winners were interviewed. She might have said something in there. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I will give it another read, to see how she came to be in movies. Problem is I cannot find any info about her early modelling jobs. Sure she walks the ramp and poses for magazine covers now, but so do many actresses. Because I could not find any reliable info on her early work, it was left out. It would be helpful if you could find a way to fill this in. BollyJeff | talk 12:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Especially the last part of the Early life section, where it suddenly talks about Chopra returning to judge Miss India in 2007, that simply is random and breaks the chronology of the whole article. Personally as per my understanding, those stuff should go into a section where it would talk about her acting styles and influences etc. How the beauty pageantry shaped her into who she is, stuff like that. As to your other question, I have a trick. You know, fan sites dedicated to a certain artist always has all the trivial most news about the artist, along with the most important ones. The brands for which Chopra modelled before Bollywood, they would all be listed in such a fan website. Now what we can do is that after we get a list of the brands, we can search for reliable sources in Google as to see the notability of the work done. Then based on our assertions we can add the info and smooth out the transition. Voila! —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 10:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, but for now I am still busy verifying and cleaning the existing sources. Can you help with the new stuff? BollyJeff | talk 20:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Priyanka Chopra/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Secret of success (talk · contribs) 12:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC) Hi, I will be reviewing this article. It is quite long and has a long way to go, so the review may take some time. Hope I've everyone's patience on my side. Here are some starting comments:

• "Her father hails from a family of Punjabi origin, settled in Ambala district in the state of Haryana and her mother, from a Bihari Kayastha family settled in Jamshedpur." - Source does not verify this. Self-identification would be preferable, as per WP:BLP.
• "John F. Kennedy High School in Cedar Rapids, Iowa." - Source does not mention this.
• "According to Chopra...toilet" - Uh, what??
• "raising funds for the destitutes in Boston by participating in the church program" - Not verified by source
• "She registered for her college studies at Jai Hind College in Mumbai, but left abruptly when she decided to take the plunge into the field of glamour and went on to take part in the Femina Miss India contest." - Unsourced.
• "the world of beauty pageants" - Encyclopedic wording, perhaps?
• "when her mother...entered" - I don't understand what this says. Is is that her mother enrolled her without informing her, and when she got selected to participate, she went in with surprise, without objection? Also, is participation chosen from a group of people, or just for everyone who enrolls? Sort of confusing.
• "She came in second place...Femina Miss India World title." - Unsourced. The source given for the next sentence does not verify this.
• "She impressed the judges with her effortless speech on behalf of humanity and charity" - Neutral wording, please.
• "as she expressed admiration of Mother Teresa." - Relevance? Also, there is citekill here.
• "the fourth Indian woman to win in a span of seven years." - Not verified by source.
• "and then the film roles started coming in." - Meaning?

That's it for a start. Hope to get going soon and promote the article at the quickest. Secret of success (talk) 12:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done - I don't know how the Miss India competition works, but its not really important here BollyJeff | talk 00:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• The given quote from the NYT for The Hero talks only about the film and nothing about Chopra (personally, I don't think its necessary).
• On what basis was Chopra awarded "mostly good reviews"? The given source only says that she got noticed because of her performance, is it correct to interpret the source that way?
• Kismat and Asambhav being failures at the box office is not stated in the given ref.

Well, if they don't even show up in that list, and there are flops in the list, isn't it obvious? BollyJeff | talk 12:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh right. My apologies. Secret of success (talk) 13:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• The section "success" is purely a WP:QUOTEFARM. Quotes have been overused to a great extent, creating a problem. Every film does not need a quotation, unless it adds something meaningful. It could be trimmed down greatly.
• "Priyanka does well, though her part is restricted to crying." - What is the reader supposed to interpret from this?? Whatever it may be, I'm pretty sure it is not a "good" review.

Ha ha. Okay, these two will take some time to get through, but keep giving other comments. BollyJeff | talk 15:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done - BollyJeff | talk 00:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• "Critics started panning her for choosing the wrong movies and criticising her performances" - Source does not verify this.

 Done - BollyJeff | talk 14:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment – One minor comment. The reference formatting should be checked. Many printed works are non-italicized while many non-printed websites are italicized. Also, many of them miss publishers when the work and publisher differ and are not the same company. I guess this is because of using {{cite web}} and {{cite news}} incorrectly? Nevertheless, they should be corrected I believe. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 13:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by publisher different from work. I don't think it is 100% certain which websites are italicized and which ones are not. Anyway, as you mention, it is minor and not needed for GA status. BollyJeff | talk 14:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

For eg: A website for a printed media like Hindustan Times, Filmfare etc will always have the work parameter italicized, while something like Bolywood Hungama, being a sole online portal will never be italicized. This is not the case here. I strongly suggest you go through the references, or if you want, I can help you. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 09:11, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Please help then. I often don't know which sources are web only. BollyJeff | talk 12:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• Filmfare nomination for Kaminey is unsourced.
• "a second consecutive Apsara Award for Best Actress in a Leading Role." - When did she get the first?
• "The film itself was a financial and critical failure" (for Whats your Rashee) - This is not given in the source.
• "a college beauty who eventually falls in love with a geek" - Unencyclopedic tone
• "Her performance in the film was appreciated by most critics...male-centric movie." - Excessive citekill
• "chemistry with co-star Shahid Kapoor" - Definitely not queen's English. It should be quoted at the very least.

That's about it for her acting career section. Once these are done, just ping me and I'll review them and proceed. Secret of success (talk) 16:10, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done - BollyJeff | talk 17:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• "After winning the pageant...eventually decided to become an actress." - Still not verified by source.
• Where is the source to say that The Hero was a critical failure??

 Done - I don't understand why you wont allow the part about her being bullied. Give a valid reason; just saying "yeah right" is rude. BollyJeff | talk 15:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Come on, she got bullied in school, she had to write a 1000 lines for cheating in exams, she had to stand out of the class for laughing at the teacher, these things are an integral part of school life. We might as well mention all if we mention one. The point here is these stuff aren't encyclopedic.

I thought it was relevant since she was studying in a foreign country, but I see your point. Thanks for the answer. BollyJeff | talk 16:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Bullied in the sense, if she was really bullied, to an illegal extent where she sustained injuries, and was admitted to a hospital, and her dad went after the crooks, then all right, maybe worth it. Secret of success (talk) 17:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd bet that some people, especially young girls, would be interested to know that a Miss World winner was ridiculed for her looks in her not so distant past. Its okay though, let's move on. BollyJeff | talk 16:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

• "As part of this global deal...Island Records UK...Universal Music India" - Appears to be copy-pasted from the source (even the next sentence, to some extent). See WP:COPY-PASTE.
• "By 2012, Chopra began...producer RedOne" - Not stated in source.
• "debuted on 13 September" - Ditto

Comment - There are so many statements which are not verified by the given source. Isn't it better if the article is quick-failed and a check done, and then it is re-nominated? Secret of success (talk) 07:37, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you are being too picky. Check Wikipedia:Good article criteria number 2. According to the policy, every statement does not need to be sourced, only those that are likely to be challenged, and direct quotes. Plus, it seems a bit late for a "quick" fail after all this time. I am committed to finishing it if you are. BollyJeff | talk 01:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

There are no statements, as far as I can see, which are not subjective, related to the comment I mentioned above. But if you want, I can finish the review. Secret of success (talk) 06:04, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

• The debut album comes out on New Year's eve, the source says, and that is not exactly December 2012.

Really, then what year is it? BollyJeff | talk 01:13, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Now, now, don't try to be funny. Secret of success (talk) 06:04, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

• "It was released in India 12 hours before" - A comma is needed (I'm too lazy to add it myself)

Not needed.

• Why are SRK, PZ and AR not linked in Temptations 2004? Kapoor is not linked in the next sentence. Sallu and Bebo are not linked in the following ones.

Many of those were linked previously in the article, so not needed, but I linked them all here now too.

• "the 5th edition of IPL – Indian Premier League" - A dash is missing.
• "Priety Zinta".
• "including Bipasha Basu and Priety Zinta." - Some more beauties are mentioned in the source. Why don't you just add them? (Sorry, my mood's not ok today)
• "a celeb and the city column" - What does it mean?
• "She ended her column in December 2010" - Not sourced.
• Cites 121 and 122 are same.

Title is same, contents not.

• "The tour extends across..every year." - Copy-pasting.
• The entire "other ventures" section has too many quotes (8 in all). But don't judge by numbers, some don't add anything at all. As a suggestion, I would say it is better to keep this problem in line till all others have been reviewed. Finishing the review with this would be ideal and impart a great amount of satisfaction. Secret of success (talk) 07:37, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand this last sentence at all. Please explain what you are asking for. The rest is done. BollyJeff | talk 01:13, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Quotes have been used without pertinence in the section. It must be trimmed down, and some converted to indirect speech.

Some have already been trimmed, but this is not part of the Wikipedia:Good article criteria. Am I going to have to start barking about this like a certain person did in a certain review not long ago? BollyJeff | talk 02:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Quote farm is certainly a part of the GA criteria i.e. "it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail" and "respects copyright laws". As I suggested, you can focus on the other issues for now and take care of this in the last. Secret of success (talk) 07:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

• "she visited the historic Tenga, an important location for the 1960 Indo-China war to boost the morale of the jawan troops" - Where is Tenga located? There was no related Indo-China war in 1960. Are you referring to the Sino-Indian war? That took place in 1962. Is there a link for Jawan troops?

Believe it or not, I did not write every word of this article. Apparently I did not check every word before nominating it either. Be patient and we will get it right. BollyJeff | talk 13:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

• "She also drew attention...in this part of the world." - Blatant copy-paste
• "in realizing their mission, one of which is to set up schools." - Not given in source
• "Chopra started her collaboration...promote child rights." - Copy-paste again
• "Chopra and Priya Dutt pledged their dedication towards the cause of curing addiction" - Neutral wording required. What exactly does the word "addiction" refer to? Smoking, drinking, gizmo addiction, drugs, sex or something else? A bit more clarity would be appreciated.

I don't know, the sources seem to be in Hindi only. The rest is done. BollyJeff | talk 12:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

• "kick start" - Usage here is slang
• "Model-actor Milind Soman...took about an hour" - Again, copy-paste.
• "Chopra is known for her simple yet stylish fashion statements." - Unsourced POV
• "set of the film Bluffmaster!" - Something known as a full stop
• "She also has a reputation as one of the most desirable women in India" - Desirable by whom? And what does desirable refer to here (I know what it means, but nevertheless, ambiguity must be applied correctly)?

I really think people can figure it out if they read the whole section. Even the reference for the most desirable award does not say specifically why. BollyJeff | talk 14:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

• "hourglass figure and bee stung lips" - Need to be in quotes, as they are subjective descriptions. Also try to add "coffee-colored eyes" as given in source.
• "named by Rediff as" - Named or ranked?
• "People Magazine India as the "Best Dressed Woman of the year"" - A better and clearer way to say it would be "People Magazine as the "Best Dressed Indian Woman of the Year".
• "she became the first Indian actress...Drew Berrymore." - Copy-paste problem
• "outstanding contributions in their respective fields." - Neutral wording needed

What the... - Do they give honors for ordinary contributions? You are too much. BollyJeff | talk 14:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, so now you've started differentiating between ordinary and outstanding contributions. Anyway, that is original research and cannot find a place here. Just remove the word "outstanding" and you're done. Secret of success (talk) 11:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

What I am saying is that of course they give awards for outstanding contributions, we shouldn't have to hide that, and it's in the source anyway. The source says "sterling contribution". I paraphrased this as "outstanding contributions", and you call that OR?!? I am sure that if it had said "sterling contribution", then you would have cried copy-paste. This is really ridiculous. I will remove it though. Yes boss, I 'll do whatever you say boss. BollyJeff | talk 12:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

This is exhausting. Why do you people make reviewers so frustrated at times? It is hard to get anyone to take up the job, and even if they do, chances are high that they only mean business. Ah well, I'm expecting too much, ain't I? Secret of success (talk) 13:46, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

"You people"? You should have been in my shoes when I reviewed an article for "someone" who resisted every single comment that was made. I guess we see things differently depending on which side of the review fence we are on. This is getting too personal now, so let's stop. I have made all the requested changes at this point, unless you still have more. BollyJeff | talk 15:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, my apologies if it got personal. I struck it out for that reason. Secret of success (talk) 16:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

• What exactly is the purpose of the "personal life" section?? Much of it reads like a news article and it has no encyclopedic content in it. If I had an option, I would just delete it.

It establishes that she was not brought into the industry by a 'godfather', that she is single, and that anything you hear in the gossip mags not coming from her can be disregarded. The section is needed for comprehensiveness. BollyJeff | talk 14:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

May be so, but the section is more like a promotional magazine published by her parents who appear to be over-protective over their baby. It needs to be re-written with emphasis on neutrality and reduction of quotations. Secret of success (talk) 11:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

• "Chopra does not come...family has sacrificed for her." - Quite a few issues here. First, is not coming from a film background something unusual? How is it related to her personal life and not to "public image"? Second, saying that Chopra is "proud" is POV. Rather, "Chopra has announced herself as a "self-made" woman", would be more encyclopedic. Third, "extremely close"? Is it subject to gradation? Just say, "Chopra is close to her family". Fourth, "is grateful for what her family has sacrificed for her" is just what I said, like its being written by her parents. This must be attributed to her, "Chopra has believed that her family sacrificed a lot for her". Secret of success (talk) 16:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
• Lead does not summarize adequately. The first two paras of early life need to be mentioned.

 Done - BollyJeff | talk 14:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment – One minor comment. I think the public image and personal life sections should me merged. Having separate sections with so little info does not make any sense. Just a suggestion. (See Rani Mukerji) GleekVampire (talk) 17:08, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

You are probably right. These sections, along with others like awards, have been split and merged and split again leading up to the present situation. BollyJeff | talk 17:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Final analysis

Based on the review above, one can conclude that the article is :

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); and

(c) it contains no original research.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

This article is a completa disaster

Yes you guessed and heard it right,this article is DISASTER,without knowledge.i can prove it......ALL are sources are of 2011-12 ,if this was an article from long time it must have old sources,but most of the sources are new.WHAT writers were doing from 2000.a complete letdown.good article nominee ARE YOU JOKING? this among WORST ARTICLE ON INTERNET.too short,lack pictures,lack of writing style,lack of old sources,lack of information about music career.it doesn't decribe much.Too short as compared to other Bollywood actress.(Pks1142 (talk) 17:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)).A DISASTER,IT SHOULD GET WORST ARTICLE AWARD.

It has older sources. Maybe you are confusing date with access date. Wikipedia is not a place for lots of pictures. The music career is just starting, so there is correct amount of information for that. I could go on, but I don't how to make a superfan understand what it is to be restrained. BollyJeff | talk 17:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments

I know this article is currently going through GAN and I would like to offer a few inputs. To begin with, I've noticed that almost all of her films, if not all, post 2008 have listed multiple reviews from critics. If you take a look: Fashion, Kaminey, 7KM, Don 2, TMK and Barfi! all have 2 reviews and they are along the same lines. If one single review can convey the same information as two reivews, I really don't see the need of providing two. Lastly, the sub-section "success" is listed from 2008-11; you cannot really call that a success period for her as her only two successful films were Kaminey and Don 2 - the rest were either moderately successful or failures. Something like this would be better suitable: "Debut and breakthrough" from 2002-03, "Initial success and professional setbacks" from 2004–08 and finally "Fashion and recent work" from 2008–present. Regards -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 16:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

They were successful years for her, since she received two Filmfare (plus two noms) and her only National award during that time. The section 2008-present was too large at that time. Maybe if we remove some reviews it will be smaller, but I still think it will be too large. What is wrong with a recent work section? BollyJeff | talk 16:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I removed some excessive reviews, but there is still a lot of info from 2008 to present, that I believe warrants more than one section. I do not mean to imply that she has no success after 2011, but rather that her major success started in 2008. BollyJeff | talk 17:42, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say that it was "wrong" to have a recent work section. I just stated that the word "success" couldn't be really used for that section as it can be interpreted in two ways. Whenever I think of success, I think of 'commercial' success and if you take a look at the articles of Preity Zinta and Rani Mukerji, you will know what I'm talking about. Well, Chopra's achievements, ("two Filmfare (plus two noms) and her only National award") more specifically the latter, can be seen as a form of success though I just gave you my opinion. -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 18:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks. I think that for an actor, success is defined more in terms of critical acclaim than box office take, which is maybe more appropriate for producers or directors. I wouldn't mind even to remove these subjective titles and go with the years alone, letting the reader determine by the text how the person fared during each period. BollyJeff | talk 19:19, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I would slightly digress here Bollyjeff, I think Bollywood being a revenue based industry, commercial success is what comes on everyone's mind when someone reads "success". So in a way User:BD is correct that success in a section name can be interpreted in two ways also. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 10:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I concur with Bollyjeff. There is no de facto definition that "Bollywood is a revenue based industry"; does it mean that critical acclaim and commercial success aren't given balanced importance? Moreover, we emphasize on the fact that verifiability is more important than the truth. If you take a brief look at the web, all you can pass by is "Chopra is one of the most successful actresses in the industry" or "Chopra is one of the most popular actresses". An actress plays no importance in a film's commercial view, unlike the producer or director. Secret of success (talk) 17:28, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I updated the section title to "Critical success". I hope this helps. BollyJeff | talk 17:40, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

SOS, Bollywood is indeed mostly a revenue based industry. An I find this line of yours "An actress plays no importance in a film's commercial view, unlike the producer or director" to be kinda baffling, since most actresses are taken for their commercial draws only, and their capability as an actor. So no, the actress/actor plays an equally important role. Look at films like Ready, Bodyguard etc. Crap film, but mass hysteria and money. Ask the general public, Chopra being the most successful, tehy will bounce back that her films have raked in millions, not that she was listed in Time magazines so and so list. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:40, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you appear to be unfamiliar with our policy of verifiability. "Crap film, but mass hysteria and money" is blatantly your original research, and plus, even though the films failed to receive acclaim, in most of the cases, the lead cast has been applauded to an extent. Most of the sources portray that she is a successful actress, even if you take a look at one from 2005 or 2007, and if they say so otherwise, then all right, maybe it could be justified. Secret of success (talk) 12:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Lol, SOS you completely got me wrong. I was not talking about the Wiki articles for Ready etc which are abided by the five pillars of WP, and I am well aware of WP:V and WP:NOR thank you very much. I was having a general discussion on it, which I can see now that this is not the place for it. I would very well like to continue this discussion on our talk pages. You are a very informative person it seems as I could see from your review of the Piggy Chops GA. :) —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 12:19, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Er..do I perceive a tinge of sarcasm rising (just a doubt). Secret of success (talk) 12:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Eh? Where? —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 12:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, never mind. Secret of success (talk) 12:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/Priyanka_Chopra/583252

Someone has posted this feedback. I can not understand which last statement they are talking about! Any guesses? --Tito Dutta (talk) 13:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Could it be "Priyanka Chopra alone clicks with the audience, thanks to her skimpy outfits."?? Doesn't seem too bad and its a direct quote from a respected source. Maybe they were just being silly. BollyJeff | talk 13:19, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Seems like the usual conservative IP posters of Wikipedia. Since its a direct quote has every right to stay, pay no attention. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:04, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Categories

hello, i mean to say ,categories according to wikipedia is that An article which come under certain category so' she was signed as INTERSCOP/ISLAND Records and thus she belongs to these categories.It doesn't have anything to do with An established singer.As wikipedia has all these Ctegories about above records so it should be added like other small artists that have not made any mark their articles too has been included in this categories.According to wikipedia project songs these has to be included.It doesn't show any thing about known singer or unknown.(106.218.133.74 (talk) 07:11, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Next featured article could be this.....!

Hello everyone,I feel it has potential to be the featured article on Wikipedia but from my point of view its need to expanded little more.I can give input about the article

• She had also endorsed SPICE MOBILE.
• She appeared on various reality shows like Dus ka Dum,Indian Idol,Saregamapa,JDJ,Just dance.
• After miss world she first appeared on ZEE TV'S ANTRAKSHAI hosted by Anu Kapoor with her father and also won that evening.
• IIFA Award controversy: She was questioned by ashutosh gowarikar as how PC won Ash should have won,if you say this not need to be included read MTV MUSIC VIDEO AWARDS 2011 ,this was as same as Taylor swift's controversy.
• She performed at Atlantis,Dubai in 2008 as GODESS OF ATLANTIS.
• Chopra stepped on live wire during waqt shooting and hospitalized,she was again hospitalized during WYR? Shooting due to overwork.
• If you see Preity Zinta article ,there are minor to minor details regarding every small/big films,this should be adapted here.
• Her acting career needs to be expanded little more as when I saw the humanitarian and others section were more written than her acting career.
• She got positive reviews for yakeen and Drona which are not given priorities here.
• Barsaat was not flop,see box-office India report of 2005 it is credited "Average" also anjaana anjaani was average.

if you need more help I can give.thank you.(Pks1142 (talk) 12:06, 10 November 2012 (UTC))

Putting aside the WP:NPOV issues, and WP:UNDUE, how about providing third party, reliable sources for all the points that you are making? —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 12:30, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

It's interesting how less than a month ago you said horrible things about this article and now you are talking FA? BollyJeff | talk 13:13, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

That's how the cookie crumbles Bolly, I think. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 13:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Lol. One can never predict what's going to happen in today's world. :) Secret of success · talk 13:51, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

What does it mean guys???

Rated GA for theater,but C on other wikipeoject.I don't understand.Please help(Pks1142 (talk) 12:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC))

Information which should be added...

Why important infos are not included??? I m giving every needed info with reference....

Chopra topped times most desirable women list in 2008

• http://www.liveindia.com/priyanka/red_top_50.html
  • WP:UNDUE. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 12:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Priyanka Chopra was chosen as godess of Atlantis

• http://www.indianexpress.com/news/%22priyanka-chosen-to-be-the-goddess-of-atlantis%22/389291/
• http://www.glamsham.com/movies/scoops/08/nov/22-priyanka-chopra-the-goddess-of-atlantis-110803.asp
  • WP:PUFF —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 12:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Chopra attended grand prix in 2007 with dicaprio and Spielberg

• http://www.bollywoodmantra.com/news/priyanka-chopra-at-grand-prix-with-leonardo-dicaprio-and-steven-spielberg/1543/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pks1142 (talk • contribs) 12:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

more info

• http://www.liveindia.com/priyanka/profile.html
  • WP:TRIV

So yeah, none of them are really needed. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 12:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

FAC preparation

User:Bollyjeff and I have been having a conversation on my talk page about preparing this article for FAC. I told him I would review the sources used and give my input as to how they could be improved prior to a future nomination. Following are my comments. Please don't be discouraged by their length: there is a high bar for sourcing in WP:BLPs and in WP:FACs, but I think all of these issues will be relatively simple to address, and the article will be all the stronger for it.

WP:RS issues:

1. ApunKaChoice - This website doesn't say where its content comes from or whether there is any editorial oversight, so it's hard to understand how it could meet WP:RS.
2. Indicine.com - Same as ApunKaChoice.
3. Oneindia.in and Zee News - These seem to be reputable sources for news (especially as much of it is reprinted from news services), but their Chopra biographies are completely unsourced and unattributed. Even interviews would be better sources for personal info.

Citations that do not support the assertion cited to them:

1. Economic Times - Does not support "first actress in cinema history to portray 12 distinct characters in one film", only that she applied to the Guinness Book with this assertion.
2. Film Journal - Does not support "while Indian critics gave positive to mixed reviews, overseas film critics praised it" as the source is merely one American review.
3. Rajeevmasand.com - Does not support "major turning point in her career" as it says "turns in a respectable performance, one that will inevitably go down as her best".
4. PublicSchoolReview.com - Does not support the assertion that she attended these schools.
5. Screen Daily - Can not support "one of the highest grossing films of the year" as the source was published when barely half the year had passed.
6. Bollywood Life - Does not support "Her first single, "In My City", debuted on 13 September on the NFL Network's Thursday Night Football" as it does not even appear to describe the same event.

Cite the best sources:

1. Her awards (Miss India, Miss World, Filmfare awards, Apsara award, Hottest Girl of the Year) are cited to a mishmash of sources, only some of which appear to be reliable. Why not cite them to the actual organizations that give out the awards? This is one of the rare cases in which citing a primary source in a BLP is acceptable, and they always publish press releases for these sorts of things.
2. feedfury.com - This site is a news aggregator; cite the actual article.

Dead links that need to be replaced:

1. The Asian Age
2. RedOne Productions
3. Sunfoundation.org

Formatting issues:

1. The cite to The Sunday Indian needs to indicate that the source is a video.
2. The cite about the Blenders Pride Fashion Tour needs to use {{cite press release}} rather than cite news, and needs a publisher name.

I will watchlist this page in case anyone has a question for me. Congrats on the good work done thus far, and good luck! Maralia (talk) 00:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I somewhat disagree to Maralia bcoz Zee News and Oneindia are as reliable as Time magazine. Rest you are talking about her awards you should checkout Miss world and filmfare awards articles on Wikipedia and also, must checkout highest grossing Indian movies article.

I agree to some of your points including your dead links section.Green Parakeet (talk) 04:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I think Bollywood Hungama must have the required info about awards.Green Parakeet (talk) 07:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I am already working on this. The toughest one to replace is probably gonna be the Zee News biography. Its been hard to find a RS that tells which schools she went to in USA. The problem with the Oneindia bio is that it appeared to be copied from Wikipedia itself. I have gotten rid of it already. The Zee News bio may be the similar. I just noticed that it mentions a different school than that in the article. I need help finding other sources for her early life stuff. We may have to just trim that section. BollyJeff | talk 13:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Bollyjeff well I'm trying to collect some sources....wait for sometime.I'll do that.Green Parakeet (talk) 15:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I got some of good sources maybe helpful for us guys

1. http://www.koimoi.com/actress/priyanka-chopra/
2. http://www.liveindia.com/priyanka/profile.html
3. http://www.santabanta.com/wallpapers/biography.asp?catid=434
4. http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/celebritymicro/index/id/5396
5. http://www.starboxoffice.com/stars/Default.aspx?bid=actress_Priyanka_Chopra
6. http://www.screenindia.com/fullcoverage/priyanka-chopra/101/
7. http://www.itimes.com/public/priyanka.chopra/bio
8. http://movies.yahoo.com/person/priyanka-chopra/

howzz these.Green Parakeet (talk) 15:59, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Heh, heh - If it was that easy it would have been done a long while ago. We can ask Maralia, but I am pretty sure that none of these will do either. They do not have authors, dates, etc. attached to them, and many are considered to be not WP:RS around here. We need reliable newspaper articles or video interviews of her talking about herself, not collections of data from who knows where. BollyJeff | talk 17:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid Bollyjeff is right. With no attribution or sourcing or evidence of editorial oversight, they would not meet WP:RS. The informal and excessively flowery language used in many of those sources just reeks of gossip rags, too. Maralia (talk) 19:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, then it's going to be too hard to find one.Let's wait and watch.Green Parakeet (talk) 01:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

can this help #http://www.spin.com/articles/priyanka-chopra-actress-singer-album-williamGreen Parakeet (talk) 02:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Haha, I just added that before I read this! BollyJeff | talk 03:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

look here

1. http://www.rediff.co.in/news/2000/nov/30world.htm

1. http://www.rediff.in/entertai/2002/feb/08chopra.htm
2. http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/fr/2001/12/14/stories/2001121400720200.htm
3. http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/keyword/priyanka-chopraGreen Parakeet (talk) 03:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that I have covered all of the points above. Can you check, and recommend anything else while we wait for a copy-editor from the guild? BollyJeff | talk 17:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like you've removed the sources to which I objected. I did not check each replacement source, but in general the ones I saw looked good. Let me know if there are any specific ones you think I should check. A few very small things:

• When you were improving the sources for her awards, you missed replacing cites to awardsandshows.com, which is not an RS.
• In citations, please reduce all caps to sentence case - we do not have to retain any ugly shouting from press article titles.
• There is a template at the bottom showing she won the IIFA Award for Best Actress in 2009, but this is not mentioned in the article. Why?
• Please fix the month in cites 93 and 96 (all others are spelled out).

I can't think of anything else that needs attention, aside from the prose work. Great job on the source improvement. Maralia (talk) 19:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, done. Believe it or not, although Filmfare Awards is a pretty big deal, they do not have a comprehensive website listing the past awards. The one used earlier in the article stopped updating after about 2004. Thanks for your help. BollyJeff | talk 20:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Wikipedians how you all doing, any new suggestions to meGreen Parakeet (talk) 04:41, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

what about the preparation to FA. When we are nominating the article to FA.Green Parakeet (talk) 04:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Good going User:Bollyjeff, I think the article is ready for FA and tell what's your thoughts on it.Green Parakeet (talk) 04:53, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

What about the peer reviews guys because ,it's higly important for an article which is going FAGreen Parakeet (talk) 04:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

There are some minor formatting issues with the references, I will take a look and correct them as I go. Plus if I feel like any reference which can be questionable at FAC, I will list them here. We can decide on them too. What say? —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

First is the Glam-sham.com links. Are they reliable? It might be asked by Nikkimaria.

Next is the ReviewGang review, the website does not hold any journalistic credibility. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I have a request in at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors/Requests to have the article copy edited before nomination. Glamsham would normally be bad, but they are just displaying a review by a critic who is reliable. If you can find the same review on a better site, please replace that one. Reviewgang is there to show consensus on the mixed reviews statement; same as Metacritic. How else can we show that? Try to find an article that specifically says it got mixed reviews, or remove the text and just talk about her reviews. One last thing is to try and control the fanboys adding everything under the sun, and with unreliable / unformatted sources. BollyJeff | talk 14:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification Bolly, I would see if I can find other reliable sources to replace the above quoted. I will also copy-edit the prose as I go and remove trivial stuff. I already remove a chunk of them from those pile-load of "hottest" lists she's been from any damn website and source you can find. Wonder who added them. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 04:04, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted back the removals by Pks1142, probably the user couldn't comprehend why the trivial stuff was removed from the article. Its ok, I have explained him/her. Just hope he won't go on doing silly edits like before because he is improving. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 04:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

FAC continuation

Bolly can you help me with this sentence "Chopra has said that she is very close to her family and is grateful for what her family has sacrificed for her". What kinda sacrifices are we talking about here? That should be briefly mentioned, otherwise the sentence ends in an abrupt tone making the readers wonder what exactly is she talking about. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 04:29, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

She was talking about her parent's career. Her mother was having a good career and was earning good bucks, more than that her mother was a well known physician in the previous city.But, when Chopra decided to settle in Mumbai then her mother agreed without thinking about her own career.Hope you understand this detail.Green Parakeet (talk) 10:16, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh ok ok, I got it. What I want this that this to be put in context. Now the sentence ends in a vague note. Maybe something like "Chopra has said that she is very close to her family and is grateful for what her family has sacrificed for her, referring to her mother's career as a physician prior to her own." → something along those lines to end it, rather than make it go adrift. You get the point? —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 11:06, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I got that what you are thinking and I totally agree to you and you have a thinking to end that line in an impressive note right. true, go for it good job. That will provide good effect on the reader I guess.Green Parakeet (talk) 08:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

We need a source for the statement. BollyJeff | talk 13:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I do have a source for this, which claims chopra's mother sacrificed her career for Chopra. This is the source

1. http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-08-28/news-interviews/33426158_1_amitabh-bachchan-cosmetic-surgery-miss-world

Give me a pat on my back guys.COME ON.Green Parakeet (talk) 17:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Haha you are really funny! And yeahh for the source. Shall I add it and put it in context? —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 18:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think we have a winner! Please do. BollyJeff | talk 18:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you are right Bollyjeff and go for it IndianBio, if you need some more sources or have any concerns, well you know whom you have to call.Green Parakeet (talk) 18:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey, these are few more sources, which I think can help in personal life section

• These sources talks about her brother

1. http://www.dnaindia.com/entertainment/report_priyanka-chopra-talks-about-her-relationship-with-younger-brother_1575492
2. http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-08-13/news-interviews/29880963_1_raksha-bandhan-tie-rakhis-brother

Hope thse can help you.Green Parakeet (talk) 19:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Okies, lemme go through the references and then I will sort and add the content from them. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 03:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Guys, I added and expanded the section a little with this edit. Just take a look. Another thing came to my mind for betterment of the article. Can we have an Artistry section which will talk about Chopra's acting style and influences and journalistic and scholarly analysis of her progress? I saw teh article of Janet Jackson, who is a musician, has it and this cropped on my mind seeing all the sources above that we can indeed develop a section like that. Vidya Balan did not have such content and that would only be a plus point for the Chopra article. What say you? —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Another thing I noticed was the absence of quotations from the artist herself bar that for 7 Khoon Maaf. I think it gives a different perspective to have them because the reader would get engrossed in what Priyanka says about her roles. We have the critical overview, but Chopra's viewpoint should be mentioned briefly, and only for her important roles. This can also be covered in the artistry and influences section as I mentioned above. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

First things first, I saw your addition in chopra's article and was good inclusion to the whole section. Secondly, I think you are right as you can see in almost all the famous FA whether it is Reese Witherspoon or Preity Zinta, all of them has quotations talking about their difficult roles, filming problems, important roles etc. This is where Chopra's article takes a backseat and there's nothing about her quotations of her difficult roles and others. I think we need to adopt that method here and by the end of the day, it will give new dimension to the article. As far as new section is concern, I think that section should contain her quotations about her prominent roles which she played, what her directors-critics has to say about her, statements said by chopra herself etc. Yes, I do agree with you IndianBio and I think this section will be different and more exciting as we can see, in her acting career section , nothing had been written about her quotations, on her roles, critics thought of her acting, mediapersons.Green Parakeet (talk) 12:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I got dinged during the GA review for having excessive quotes, and I had to remove a lot of them. You do not need quotes for every film, and generally do not need more than 1 or 2, even for the important roles. Therefore I don't know where you will fit in all these extra quotes. BollyJeff | talk 13:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Hey ,Hey relax!, IndianBio is just representing his thought and so I'm. He is talking about a new section, so if we have to remove it during FA, then it'll be easy then and why we need to tone down the article, look at Janet Jackson, even Rihanna and Witherspoon, their article were so huge and so they are today as well, we will then see about those conditions. Ok and what's the condition of FA proposal.?Green Parakeet (talk) 13:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

As I stated above, it is waiting at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors/Requests for someone to clean up the prose. Another editor who has done FAs thought it should go there first. After that, I will put up the nomination. Hopefully, you guys will stop making so many changes by then, or it may be deemed as not stable. It does not have to be as big as Jackson,etc. to pass FA. Vidya Balan was not even as large as this one is now. BollyJeff | talk 13:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Bolly, I think you tad misunderstood me. I was not, and never will, talking about random quotations for every film she has ever released. I was only talking about her most important film roles, in this case the list becomes drastically short I guess.. including Aitraaz, Fashion, 7 Khoon Maaf and Barfi—the most critically acclaimed. So very short quotes about them would suffice in the main biography part, which at present has a very prose-line effect, especially whenever the critics are concerned. Regarding the artistry part, Green Parakeet kinda got what I was saying. An artistry section includes all your commentary about the acting style of Chopra, her influences, her endeavors in different media, like writing, stage performing etc. The section deals with scholarly and journalistic analysis. As far as FA is concerned, I'm willing to bet my socks off that no reviewer would ever say no to a section which deals with third party analysis of a subject and media-journalistic cohesion. Maybe when the person who undertakes the article at GOCE, starts work on this, we can take his/her opinion regarding such a section and how to best blend it in. I already have a fair idea about it. Maybe I can draft it and show it to you guys? —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 14:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Good idea, let's see it. BollyJeff | talk 15:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, off course you can show us plus it is a good idea to check it before adding it to the article's body. I also agree to IndianBio and I think he'll do justice to the section. All the best.Green Parakeet (talk) 15:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)