Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Sonam Kapoor/archive2

Comment

Comment – With respect to this largely unnoticed discussion, which was initiated by Giants2008 a while ago, I'd like to bring to the attention of FAC folks about the actions of the nominator, who has been indulging in QPQ system to attract votes. I see that Johanna was requested on his talk page by the nominator to do a source review for this candidate. While it may not look like a serious case of 'mutually benefiting from each other', his earlier request for the same (previous) nomination is clearly a blatant misuse of 'requesting for reviews': [1]. Now, look at FrB.TG's review at Johanna's first FAC. Had he conducted a real source review (as a return favour for Johanna's), there would be no problem at all. But there is no clue that a source review was done by him. Besides, he went on to support the candidate based on almost every parameter – quality, research, and comprehensiveness – without leaving a single comment but an open disclaimer at the beginning: ' I am feeling a little bit lazy to check the article.' Hence, I request the delegates that extra scrutiny in some form shall be made for this candidate. —Vensatry _(Talk) 09:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing wrong with QPQ system as unlike some users we don't get comments unless we invite some users. And I don't invite users to "attract votes", as it seems to you, but to "attract comments" (you can read my invites on talk pages). And if you think that my Boys Don't Cry review was invalid or whatever you name it, that's not my problem as I took time to scrutinize and analyse the article (just because I supported without comments, it does not make it an "unreal" review). I said I had checked the article a few days ago and am "feeling lazy to check the article" again, and as you can see even in the support "without a single comment" I had pointed out some minor concerns which required fixes (which means I did check the article). Sometimes even experienced users directly support an article without leaving comments as they don't find anything wrong in certain nomination they review, which was exactly the case in the FAC I reviewed. If you are going to quote me, please don't cut it out. I never comment in an article without leaving comments or for some silly "benefit" (you could check my contributions-reviews- instead of accusing me of this). Also, the source review (without a declaration of a support) was properly done in its previous nomination by Johanna. And this review is also based on the previous review as nothing (of sources) has changed since its previous nomination. -- Frankie _talk 14:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

The article has three supports all of which are based on prior comments, so there is no way they should be considered invalid. -- Frankie _talk 14:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

That's left to the delegates. —Vensatry _(Talk) 17:12, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@Vensatry: If you would like to check my sources for Boys Don't Cry (film) I would be perfectly happy to hear any comments you may have, but I am fairly certain that there should not be any major problems. With regards to QPQ systems, is the required QPQ system at DYK canvassing in the system? I don't think requesting or granting a quid pro quo is inherently bad unless there is a controversial aspect of the article that the nominator requests to be reviewed by someone who agrees with them. (PS, I'm sure it was an honest mistake, but if you could refer to me with "she" pronouns, that would be great.) Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 15:28, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@Johanna: Please understand that I'm not accusing you. I have not even questioned your source review of this article. To answer your question about QPQ in DYKs, the rule was laid upon to eliminate backlog of articles. No, reviewing DYKs and FAs are not one and the same. Unlike a DYK, FAS//FLs requires WP:Consensus. In DYKs, the closing admin make sure that all criterion are met before promoting the nomination. Apologies for mistaking your gender! —Vensatry _(Talk) 16:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Clearly that wasn't my first review. I had done some reviews before (1, 2, 3 and 4) so I knew what I was doing. Vensatry, I would appreciate it if you do an actual review instead of accusing others. -- Frankie _talk 18:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I said first FAC, not review! Just to recollect, I said 'I'm not worried about your past contributions as they seem fine to me.' My real concern is the unfair QPQ system that is being carried out. I understand we are in dearth of reviewers, but at no cost shall the quality of articles be compromised. I suggest you carefully read the discussion here (points raised by Giants2008 and me). Actually, except for the discussion here, I never brought your name anywhere. —Vensatry _(Talk) 18:23, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

There is absolutely no way I can convince that I did look at the article I supported. And how many times do I have tell that I have nowhere asked users "Hey, could you agree with all of my points and support on my nomination so that it can pass". Instead I ask them to leave comments on my nominations so that I can further improve them. Also, that was not the first time I did a QPQ (or asked for it); it's something I always do, such as here and here. The only difference is that my review there was without comments, as I could not (un)fortunately find flaws in it. -- Frankie _talk 18:28, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not concerned about your past reviews. Just because a reviewer is believed to be usually good, it doesn't mean we should assume that all their reviews would be conducted fairly (assuming that they are good). —Vensatry _(Talk) 15:48, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

If you do not have a problem with Johanna's review or someone else's but my review on Boys Don't Cry this is not the place for that. And can we over this discussion please? -- Frankie _talk 16:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Given that the unfair QPQ system was carried out when this article was up for FAC last time, it very much makes sense to have the discussion here. —Vensatry _(Talk) 17:13, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

@Vensatry: I'm not quite certain what your problem is here, but I don't view what's occurred above as unfair or a "blatant misuse" of anything. Please tone down the hyperbole. Lots of FAC nominators engage in informal QPQ arrangements and I don't see a problem with it unless they are specifically asking for support, which would be inappropriate obviously. From what I can see, FrB.TG and Johanna have simply asked for neutral reviews or comments. When assessing a nomination for possible promotion, we weigh each review on its own merit and determine if it was thorough enough to be considered part of the developing consensus. I see that you were told the same thing at FLC when you brought this up. I hope this helps. --Laser brain (talk) 18:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

@Laser brain: I'm not going to explain things from the beginning. All that I wanted to say is, most of the first time nominees (at FLC and FAC) don't understand how WP:CONSENSUS works. For them, three supports would mean that the promotion of their candidates are ensured. —Vensatry _(Talk) 09:19, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

If you are including me among "most of the first time nominees", I have never asked anyone for supports. Like Laser brian said above, I have posted neutrally worded requests on talk pages to review my nomination. Besides, I am 100% aware of how FAC/FLC works. I didn't have 22 FLs for no reason. -- Frankie _talk 09:47, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Then what is this?. Do you mean to say that you were new to TFAs because you had at least 15 FLs to that point (barely five months ago)? Laser brain, is canvassing allowed in TFAs? —Vensatry _(Talk) 10:38, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

That article was already well-written and was not written by me. Asking for support in TFA is not canvassing (even if it is go and report me there, not here) and this is not the place for bringing my record here. The FAC coordinator has already replied to your exaggeration and I don't think this discussion needs to be continued. -- Frankie _talk 10:54, 23 January 2016 (UTC)}}

Addressed comments by

Krish!

• Comments:
• Remove Strdust Awards from the lead.
• Remove Sooraj Barjatya's name from the lead.
• Add info in the lead about her fashion choices, she is more notable for being fashionable star than an actress. But you dont need to make her look bad. Just add a line about her being one of the fashionable stars in Bollywood.Krish | Talk 14:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Krish! Thanks very much for the comments, much appreciated. I have taken care of them in its entirety. -- Frankie _talk 15:06, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• "Despite being a box-office failure, Saawariya earned Kapoor" and "Nevertheless, she received her third nomination for Best Actress at the Filmfare Awards." The text should be exchanged with each other because one can get a nomination despite failure, and it's not wierd; But, getting a nomination for a panned performance is. The latter projects the reviewers in bad light.
• Information about her personality (outsopken), and few quotes for her style should be added in her Media image section. That's all.Krish | Talk 16:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I knew this would come up. There were quite a lot of information about her "outspoken" personality and style in this revision but they were the main reason for the failure of its previous nomination as a few reviewers thought they border WP:PUFFERY. -- Frankie _talk 17:47, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Just saw that. It's sad that so many important information were removed. However, you can re-add them (minus fluff). Let me look at it.Krish | Talk 19:13, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Pavanjandhyala

• "She also had a minor role in the successful biographical sports film Bhaag Milkha Bhaag (2013)." Can "had" be replaced with "played"?
• Coming to the genres romantic drama and comedy-drama, why a endash was placed between comedy and drama?

Comedy-drama!

So what? Either link all the genres or remove the endash. And i find the former more beneficial after coming to know that article's spelling. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 08:18, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't quite find linking them helpful as they are pretty much WP:OVERLINKING.

• In the sentence "In 2015 Kapoor was praised for her performance in the melodrama...", add a comma after 2015.
• Mention the year of release of Black in the "Debut and career fluctuations" section.
• "During the production of Black, Kapoor became interested in acting"—"developed interest" is a better choice.
• "Saanwariya proved to be a major critical and commercial failure."—Saanwariya? I thought we were reading aboiut Saawariya, aren't we?
• Jaspreet Pandohar called a "misfire on a massive scale". But whom? Kapoor's performance or the film? Please mention it.
• Please add a comma after the word role in the sentence, "To prepare for the role Kapoor interacted..."
• Add a comma after 2015 in the sentence "As of November 2015 Kapoor was filming Ram Madhvani's ....".
• Space required after "In the media" and "Philanthropy" and "Filmography" sections.
• An image in the "Philanthropy" section is suggested to be placed. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 07:11, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Pavanjandhyala Thanks very much for the comments. Hopefully I have addressed them with the exception of the last one as I can't find an image of her attending a charitable event. -- Frankie _talk 07:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

So what? Filming of "Dheere Dheere" or any pic from Mijwan Welfare Society ramp walk etc. can be used and mention the charity intended in the caption. What say? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 08:18, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I could but the philanthropy section is not too big and adding an image creates an unnecessary space between it and filmography. -- Frankie _talk 08:28, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Krimuk90

Oppose: I'm sorry to say but this article fails 1(a) of the FA criteria. Take this paragraph for instance:

"Born into a family of popular actors, Kapoor has appeared in the media since an early age. Kapoor is praised for her dress sense and style by the Indian media but has often been criticised for her traditional Indian dresses. Known as outspoken by the Indian media, Kapoor has been the subject of controversy. Her remarks about contemporaries and others in the Indian film industry have attracted media attention and occasional criticism. In a 2015 interview, she explained that her honest opinions "often get [her] into trouble ... But I believe it pays to be honest in the longer run."

It's quite obvious that this hasn't been written by a native English speaker—unfortunately, the entire prose needs a complete rewrite from an editor who has a better command of the language. In addition, the article reads like a random collection of opinions which don't mesh well together. The "in the media" section in particular jumps from one aspect of her personality to another with little coherence. The second sentence of the first paragraph talks about her "dress sense" and suddenly jumps to an opinion about her loquaciousness. Then suddenly, in the third paragraph there is another mention of her dressing. I highly recommend a thorough peer-review before bringing this back here. All the very best! Krimuk|90 (talk) 07:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for showing interest in the article but I don't think it needs to be copy-edited by any more "native" English speaker (already ce'd by four veteran and "native" English users). Besides, I don't think that three different facts presented in one paragraph are a random listing of facts. It has already been peer-reviewed and does not need that one more time. Thanks. -- Frankie _talk 07:30, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to say, but there is always room for improvement, and in this case, there is a major need for that. I must also add that the entire "career" section (minus the PRDP part) was written by me in early 2015, and I can see several ways in which I can improve on it. In addition,

• Providing two positive reviews doesn't mean that her performance was praised.

I think that you are failing to see that the source 89 explicitly claims that she was praised for her role in the film.

And what does the article cite to make said claim? Two reviews by Taran Adarsh and Komal Nahta. Fairly certain that the article is yet another of those paid journalism crap that TOI regularly churns out. Unless we have a review roundup where several critics speak of her performance, or have a separate review roundup done in the talk page, the claim will be considered dubious. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 09:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I had no idea about those paid review. Anyway, I am not a Kapoor fan to write all the appreciations for her. I just wrote what I got from the sources. Claim removed. -- Frankie _talk 09:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

• Also, abc news point is in no way affiliated to the ABC News you seem to be citing, so yes, it does not qualify as a reliable source. (Hint: they say this about themselves, "Abcnewspoint is a plate form to deliver you healthy, complete and brief stories about latest all over the world" ==> "plate form"). --Krimuk|90 (talk) 08:37, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

What about The Times of India source that you removed for no reason? Also, there is now the Hindustan Times source that supports the claim. -- Frankie _talk 09:00, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

You provided the Hindustan Times link after I said that the links you cited weren't good enough. And I have no issues with the new source. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 09:07, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I wonder if the more established editors such as Graham Beards, Cirt, Dr. Blofeld, who took part in the previous FAC, would be kind enough to take a look at this? --Krimuk|90 (talk) 08:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

This is so much better after Dr. Blofeld's edits. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 12:43, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld

Not a FA coordinator but I'm sure Ian Rose would agree with me that this would benefit from a more vigorous spot check from somebody like Nikkimaria.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Taran Adarsh is something of a joke critic, it's blatantly obvious that he is paid by film producers to say what he says. Personally I think he should be blacklisted from here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

"assisted director Sanjay Leela Bhansali with his 2005 drama film, Black" -not clear if this was as a director or what?

• "

Saawariya, which released in 2007, told the story of a tramp who falls in love with a woman awaiting the return of her lover and also starred Mukerji and Ranbir Kapoor." -what was her role in all this?

• "It tells the story of an engaged woman who develops a one-sided attraction to her commitment-phobic co-worker. " -again, it's unclear if that was her role or not.
• "Raanjhanaa tells the story of Zoya Haider, a young Muslim student from Varanasi who is drawn into politics after the murder of her Sikh lover. " -again. You really need to be assertive in describing what she actually played as the reader is expected to try to guess that it was her.

Done, thanks. -- Frankie _talk 10:19, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

an IP

I'm afraid, the article hasn't benefited much from the recent copy-edits. The writing is still short of professional standards. The prose is dull and confusing in many places. There's a lot of sentences that makes excessive use of commas, besides a few comma-splice errors. A few random ones:

• "The daughter of actor Anil Kapoor, she is one of the highest-paid actresses and most fashionable celebrities in India". I don't understand how the second part of the sentence follows from the first one.
• "reminding myself that I need to be thankful for so much". What is the quote trying to convey?

I personally don't see a problem with including it. "Kapoor, who practices Hinduism, states that she is "quite religious", and that it is a way of "reminding myself that I need to be thankful for so much"." is fine IMO. I can think of numerous quotes from actresses in other featured articles about this sort of thing. I think it says a lot about their mentality. It's more informative than if you just said "Kapoor is a practising Hindu".♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:43, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

• "Kapoor stated that her first job was as a waitress at age 15, although it lasted only a week." To whom?
• "Kapoor enrolled at the United World College of South East Asia in Singapore for her pre-university education, where she studied theatre and arts,[11] before studying economics and political science through University of Mumbai correspondence". Breathless
• What exactly was Rani Mukherji's role in launching her career?

I don't see how clearer it can be: "The actress Rani Mukerji, a family friend, visited her family..." It states how after Mukerji's visit to Kapoor's family made her interested to be an assistant director of the film.

• "Kapoor has cited actresses Waheeda Rehman and Nutan as influences, admiring their "path-breaking films ... [and] quality of doing different things".". This one seems out of place.
• "In 2009, Kapoor played an aspiring singer in the Rakeysh Omprakash Mehra-directed drama Delhi-6 with Waheeda Rehman and Abhishek Bachchan". This one is awkwardly phrased.
• "In 2015, Kapoor next starred as a runaway bride in Dolly Ki Doli (2015)". Nuff said (about precision).
• "In 2014, Kapoor portayed the banker Mayera ..." There's a typo. You can't use the word portray here. AFAIK, Mayera isn't a part of any literature nor a character of historic significance.
• The lead does not wholly summarize the article. Further, it says she is one of the highest-paid actresses in India, but the body says Bollywood. (IP)

As stated below by the Doctor, all of the points were already addressed so I didn't need to reply. But just for the convenience of the coordinators: all of the comments by the IP are already resolved. Thanks. -- Frankie _talk 21:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Eh, it has certainly benefited from the recent copyedits, and a number of your points no longer exist and were addressed in my copyedit this morning. I suggest you give the article another look and revise. You're right though that the prose could still use polishing up in places and the lede does need the most work.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)