Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Shah Rukh Khan/archive2

< Wikipedia:Peer review

Shah Rukh Khan

edit
Previous peer review
Toolbox
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 the last peer review did not generate much interest, and then the FAC nomination turned into a discussion about the article's length. It has now been trimmed significantly and some information was moved into a sub-article courtesy of Dr. Blofeld. I still want the article to achieve FA, but the moderator suggested another peer review first. Please see if there is anything stopping this from reaching FA now. Thanks, BollyJeff | talk 13:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley

edit

The length is much more manageable: 6,200 words of readable prose compared with about 8,000 last time I looked at a version of the article. Only a couple of minor points:

  • The caption for the image of Dmitry Medvedev is wrong: in 2010 he was President, not Prime Minister, of Russia.
It does say that, but I fixed it in the sub-article. I have a question about that below.
  • Captions: The anti-hero, "The romantic hero" – The MoS bids us avoid definite articles like these in headings.
Fixed, thanks.

The article seems to me suitable for FAC now. The prose is fine and the proportions of the article are clear and sensible. Tim riley talk 18:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Bollyjeff

edit

This article and the sub-article Shah Rukh Khan in the media both include a duplicate 'Humanitarian causes' section. Do you think that I should remove it from here or there? If I remove it from here, perhaps I could swap the commerce section (IPL cricket team and/or endorsement sub-sections) from there, into Other work section here, as it seems less about media to me. Any opinions on that, or anything else related to the sub-article? Obviously, I cannot add much overall length at this point. BollyJeff | talk 00:48, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering the same thing. I would probably wait and see what the others have to say about this. Personally, I would summarise the humanitarian work under his "other works" section in the main article. And given the length it saves, I would go on and add a bit about his IPL team and endorsement activities in the main article. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 01:56, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, I think "Humanitarian Causes" should be removed from "SRK in the media" and, like Krimuk90 said, be a sub-section of "Other works". Again, as Krimuk90 said, you can add a "little bit" about the IPL, which I see you have already done. — Ssven2 speak 2 me 04:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be best to preserve all of the humanitarian information in the media article and summarize it in the main, because that stuff is more about media than actual 'work', and I was told by another reviewer that it makes him look too pious in the main. I would rather move the IPL stuff to the main in total under other works. See what you think now. BollyJeff | talk

Comments from Krimuk90

edit
  • The "early life and background" section mentions a 2013 event as well. I suggest changing the name to something else.
What? 'Early life and family'
  • In 1993, Khan starred in Maya Memsaab in which he had a highly controversial nude scene. He's actually the only Bollywood star to have done such a scene. Why has this information not been included?
You got a source? I found one that says there have been five others, but it's still probably worth adding, thanks.
Even if not the only one, he's one of the very few to have a complete nude shot. The other four mentioned above weren't exactly fully nude. Anyway, the information is surely important. I have read Chopra's book on him and there are several paragraphs dedicated to the explicit sex-scenes in the film and the controversy that it generated. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 10:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, you'd think I would have noticed that when I read the book. This goes against what she said on page 112, that he never kissed a co-star on-screen, and the other source that said his first on-screen kiss was in 2012. Are you sure that this scene was released in theatres, or perhaps it was censored out before release? Can you provide me with the appropriate quote from the book? BollyJeff | talk 13:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have the book with me anymore. I had borrowed it while working on his filmography page. Btw, the scene is available for viewing on youtube. Several results turn up on google books too. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 01:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
According to the above source, and here and here, all but a split second was censored, and then the rest came out on the internet in 2008. Chopra describes a slanderous article that SRK reacted to, not about controversy of the film itself. I may add a sentence, but cannot add what you said without definitive sources. BollyJeff | talk 00:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so we can mention about him filming a controversial sex scene in the film, in which he performed a nude scene. I can see the sources are contradictory on the topic. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 03:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the other works section, the sub-sections are quite short. I believe they can be merged.
  • This is a personal preference, but the images in his career section take up a large amount of space. How about reducing the size? -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 03:20, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no mention of Karan Arjun. It was his biggest success before DDLJ.
Take a look at the last FA review. I removed a lot of stuff, and even then some of the reviewers said it was too big and refused to read it. I hate to say it, but some stuff has to be left out if there is any chance of passing FA. BollyJeff | talk 03:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have the book now, but I would have put some reviews if it did. The rest is done. Anything else? BollyJeff | talk 01:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS

edit

This article has improved over time. Here's a prose review.....

  • In the lead, his net worth is listed as $400 million in American dollars, but later in the article is said to be between $400 million and $600 million. Be consistent.
  • Are genres really needed for the lead?
  • Best to use Rupees rather than American dollars when available as Khan is Indian and not American
  • I'm not sure if "dark roles" is appropriate tone
  • Add a comma after "2010" in "As of 2010 Khan's paternal family"
  • "However, production delays meant that his second film Deewana, in which he starred alongside Divya Bharti as the second male lead behind Rishi Kapoor, was released first in June 1992"..... quite a mouthful, and it would help to specify what delayed production
  • I understand what "negative roles" is trying to say, but I'm not sure if it's really encyclopedic
  • When mentioning in prose nominations that Khan lost, include who won them. For example, see how the Robert Downey, Jr. article mentions how he lost his Academy Award nomination for Chaplin to Al Pacino.
  • I don't see the need for including books published about Khan
  • "Sukanya Verma of Rediff.com referred to it as Khan's best performance"..... include some detail on what Verma particularly enjoyed
  • Is "risky" in "was considered risky" the best word choice?

You've done well, Bollyjeff, and I commend your efforts for this article. I'll leave reference concerns to other users. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, SNUGGUMS. I have used Rupees where available. I don't think there is a template to convert from Dollars to Rupees. If not dark or negative, what about villainous or antagonistic? Risky is from the sources; meaning that it could be detrimental to one's career.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Shah_Rukh_Khan/archive2&oldid=1138565430"