Wikipedia:Peer review/Priyanka Chopra filmography/archive1

Priyanka Chopra filmography

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like feedback regarding comprehensiveness, grammar and writing. I would like to see constructive comments for its further improvement required for FL.

Thanks, —Prashant 16:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Bollyjeff

The intro seems incredibly long. It is way longer than most filmography articles I have seen, although I have not seen a great deal of them; but some have only a single sentence. Since much of it is repeated from the main article, and this is supposed to be a list, I would say that cuts are needed here. Although now looking at Wikipedia:Featured_lists, some do have a fair amount of text, but they usually do not list the earnings for many individual films. Try to emulate these. BollyJeff | talk 02:25, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done: Removed earnings and trimmed the lead a bit.—Prashant 03:29, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion is to remove budget and gross from the filmography, because it is not really that important for her, is causing sorting problems and is incomplete anyway. You could leave director if you want, but since this is its own article now, I think it would be okay to put back notes/awards and add other awards besides Filmfare and National Awards, which is more important for her than budget etc. If you look at some Hollywood actor filmographies, they are full of other awards. Good sources are still needed though. BollyJeff | talk 14:09, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then you'll say to not include sales of albums/singles in her Discography article (hopefully one day will be created) Right? Because there are no such articles on Indian artists. I think it's fine to have budget and gross and By the way all sources are reputed and notable. For her awards, there is an another article.—Prashant 22:09, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SchroCat

I'll put some thoughts in here over the next day or so. It's in pretty good shape, but needs work in a few key areas. The ones I raised at the previous FLC were:

The sorting on the budgets needs to be done properly. Sorted on budget, Andaaz (at 80 million) comes in as more expensive than Don 2 (at 700 million), while the 1.4 billion of Ra.One is shown as the cheapest. I suspect that this is because you have it in a conversion template. Why not just show the raw figure (no symbol etc) and the US$ conversion alongside?

Done: Changed to Crore now.—Prashant 02:49, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It still doesn't work. 14 and 140 both come before 25, for example. I don't know how to fix it; just saying. BollyJeff | talk 03:27, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a little play around and think you may need to drop the INR template into a sort one. For Bluffmaster box office, you'll need to do: {{sort|310 million|{{INRConvert|31|c|0}}}}. This will allow you to keep the INR symbol, and conversion and still have a sold sort. - SchroCat (talk) 07:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done: Used this for sorting.—Prashant 13:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stop saying done without even checking; it still odes not work. Anyone can see that! BollyJeff | talk 13:38, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake: try {{sort|310000000|{{INRConvert|31|c|0}}}} and break out the figures into the long version. That should be okay. - SchroCat (talk) 22:18, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done: Added and lets hope it works this time.—Prashant 22:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not done, because it doesn't work. You need to test it yourself before saying its done. - SchroCat (talk) 23:13, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced convert template with raw figures.—Prashant 18:13, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Minor sorting issues on the titles. When a film is The Heroes..., it should sort under Heroes. Try using {{sort|Hero: Love Story of a Spy|''[[The Hero: Love Story of a Spy]]''}} for this entry.

Done: Adopted it for sorting this title.—Prashant 02:49, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Use the same sort template for role and director names: these should sort on the surname {{sort|Roy|Mrs. Sonia Roy}}, for example.

More to follow shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 14:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done: Adopted it for sorting the names of her characters and directors.—Prashant 02:49, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is still way too wordy and bloated. I've done four complete career histories of British actors involving their stage, TV, film, radio and record outputs, all for actors who had a literal lifetime of professional work of over 50 years each; all the lists are FLCs. The word count on their leads are:

I've also done David Niven on screen, stage, radio, record and in print (currently an FL candidate) which has a 364 word lead. In comparison, Chopra rolls in at a whopping 724 words for a film career that has only been going twelve years. Have a look at the leads on the five articles I've listed and see how they are structured and what they are describing. The Chopra lead could lose a couple of hundred words and be better for the readers to understand the career to date. - SchroCat (talk) 07:54, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done: Trimmed a bit. But, FYI I have developed the article on the lines of Christian Bale filmography (an FL and has a long prose).—Prashant 14:38, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tables now OK, I think, but I'll give them another going over at FLC In terms of the text:

In IndEng, is it "program" or "programme"?

Done: Corrected.—Prashant 16:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"her performance in Yakeen received rave reviews". This moves over into WP:PEA and I don't think it's supported by the source (which only refers to "a good performance" and not to any other reviews)

Done: Tweaked.—Prashant 16:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope: same as the critic comment below. - SchroCat (talk) 17:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done: Cited a review for it.—Prashant 07:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is a "serial sprouse killer"?

Done: Re-worded.—Prashant 16:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Chopra's portrayal was highly praised by film critics": 1) loose the "highly"—too peacock. 2) You've shown one review, so it was praised by one critic: do you have a source that says it was praised by many?

One review is enough to prove it much like the main article.—Prashant 17:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not really: if that's the case you should say the critic x praised her performance, or use a direct quote, saying "xxx of xxx considered her performance as.....". You're telling us that critics praised her: that gives the impression that most or all of them did, which you have not proven: you've shown us one - what about the rest.

Done: Cited a source which says she received rave reviews.—Prashant 07:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not happy about the lead, but I'm not entirely sure why. I'll have another look later - probably at FLC again. - SchroCat (talk) 05:05, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for those last couple of edits. I think it's pretty good as it stands, but wait for another week or so to see if you get another copy editor passing through who can improve it further. Drop me a line when it comes up for FLC and I'll have another look through again. - SchroCat (talk) 07:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Schrod this was already much improved. I've made a number of edits myself and have condensed it down to a length which I think flows better and covers what needs to be covered. In my opinion this is now just about ready.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 17:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think those edits are very good and the article has improved a lot. Thanks.—Prashant 17:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the recent work on the lead makes it much better; it's tighter, easier to read but still covers everything that needs sorting. I suggest you close the PR and go to FLC. A quick note, Prashant: if you ask people on their talk pages to come to FLC, only ask once and do not chase or remind them, as you did to Cassianto. That will only ever backfire on you and you will lose reviewers. - SchroCat (talk) 23:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I got it. Thanks. —Prashant 02:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You everyone, who participated in the PR and the article has improved significantly.—Prashant 02:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]