Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Freida Pinto/archive3

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:55, 11 June 2016 [1].

Freida Pinto

edit
Nominator(s): —Vensatry (Talk) 19:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a one-hit wonder. The article has had two peer reviews and as many (unsuccessful) FACs. The issues raised during the previous nomination have been addressed. I believe the article now meets the criteria. Look forward to comments and suggestions. —Vensatry (Talk) 19:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update – Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography, Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Maharashtra, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mumbai, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women. —Vensatry (Talk) 17:11, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. Nicely done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 12:05, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dank: Thanks for the copyedits. I've made one minor change though. —Vensatry (Talk) 14:22, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, that works. Happy to help. - Dank (push to talk) 15:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jim

edit

Support: Dank leaves little for other commentators on style! Happy to support, just some minor nitpicks for your consideration Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:54, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • decided to become an actress at a young age— perhaps decided when young she would become an actress?
  • garnered critical acclaim—"garnered" is a showbiz cliché, "received"
  • assignments until the completion of her graduation in 2005—don't need the completion of
  • highest-grossing film to date. —to April 2016
  • relatively lesser-known—sounds a bit odd to me, perhaps relatively little-known?

I'm a little concerned about the second claim in this statement: "The Indian media has criticised her "fluctuating" accent and dark complexion". Not sure why someone would be criticised for their complexion? Other than this, I think the article is very well-written, and has my support for its promotion. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 07:57, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Krimuk90: Good catch, rephrased the bit. Thanks for the review. —Vensatry (Talk) 08:44, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TonyTheTiger

edit
@TonyTheTiger: Would you mind revisiting the page? —Vensatry (talk) 07:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be by this afternoon.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:22, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Now that you bring this to my attention, I should point out that the article incorrectly uses tense per WP:MOSTENSE. Commentary by critics when summarized or quoted should generally use the present tense.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:35, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC, we use present tense for films and literary stuff. The guideline says: Generally, do not use past tense except for deceased subjects, past events, and subjects that no longer meaningfully exist as such. – critical reviews of films become past events over a period of time. —Vensatry (talk) 18:39, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Emily Ratajkowski was copyedited by WP:GOCE in this regard. Here is how I explained it at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kalki Koechlin/archive3 for Numerounovedant Please ignore that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS that is inconsistent with this advice. It is confusing to me. Here is my interpretation. Write in past tense about things from to past. E.g., she made a movie, filmed a pilot. Write in present tense about things that are not in the past. A movie, although made in the past, lives for a long time if not forever (like a building). The movie is in the present like a building is. Thus, an opinion about a thing that is present is written about in the present. A critical commentary about a building or a movie would say. Critic X says the building is tall or the movie is good. We do not say critic X said the building was tall or the movie was good. Hope that helps.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:23, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyTheTiger: Nowhere did I quote WP:OSE. We cannot use present tense while quoting somebody like Roger Ebert. Hope you're satisfied with Twofingered Typist's explanation at your nom. —Vensatry (talk) 04:43, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See ongoing at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kalki Koechlin/archive3.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:08, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Convinced? —Vensatry (talk) 06:01, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Checkingfax – . Hi, Vensatry. I have performed several edits on Frida's article to help it qualify for a Featured Article promotion. Ping me back soon and I will !vote on it. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 11:17, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Checkingfax: Thanks for polishing the article. —Vensatry (talk) 16:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

edit

Yashthepunisher (talk) 11:14, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. —Vensatry (talk) 12:25, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review, Yash. —Vensatry (talk) 12:50, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- I didn't notice image or source reviews above so have listed requests at the top of WT:FAC, unless one of the reviewers above would like to do the honours... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK

edit
  • All images are licensed under Creative Commons with sufficient source and author information.
  • Derivatives are clearly labelled with attribution of the originals.
  • Originals of Flickr-based derivatives show no signs of problems on Flickr. GermanJoe (talk) 00:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, GermanJoe! —Vensatry (talk) 11:03, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

checking now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:35, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Joshi, Tushar ref used 3 times - material faithful to source
  • Ramachandran, S. ref used 4 times - material faithful to source
  • Daijiworld Media ref used 4 times - material faithful to source
  • The Tribune (Chandigarh). ref used 4 times - material faithful to source

Ok looks in order. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:42, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: Thanks for the review. —Vensatry (talk) 05:54, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Freida_Pinto/archive3&oldid=1136097789"