Talk:Fawad Khan

Fawad Khan should be called Unjabi Pathan given his father's origin is in pre-Partition Punjab and his mother-tongue is Punjabi. So he is not a Pathan by culture, language, and domicile. He is also half Mahajir as well — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:46D2:1A00:968:DA76:53AD:5AF6 (talk) 23:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Untitled

Kindly Remove the external link in which someone quote a link that fawad khan next movie is Kolachi.. he is another actor from karachi not Fawad Afzal Khan.. kindly edit it. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by AhsanKhan0 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

removed the link :) Kazmia92 (talk) 06:28, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I've been recently visiting this page daily to make changes here and there, but every time I come here the previous changes have been undone and a very old version of the page is visible, but history is unchanged. I've heavily edited the page's Filmography table, before there were fewer entries in it and was much smaller and every time I visit the page that table somehow comes back. I don't know if its just me or others see it aswell. Anyhow if this could be sorted or explained by Wikipedia i'd be thankful. Yeeshil (talk) 12:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Can you eloborate his filmy career a bit more. As I have seen Sonam Kapoor's profile has been updated and being added some nice comments by critics. I believe FAwad Afzal Khan has also done a phinominal job and should have highlighted in same way. Further we need to know his upcoming projects. Please put some more info about him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.5.134.68 (talk) 06:56, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

hey! Ive added more stuff about Khoobsurat and his performance, hopefully thats what you were looking for. I'll be adding an upcoming projects section too but later on when there are reliable sources saying that he has actually signed on Kazmia92 (talk) 06:28, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

with mahira khan

can you add that he and mahira khan as a couple became very famous...theycame in an aquafina add and they also came together in umar sayyed collection........and you can check there is a rumor that there new drama is also coming.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.0.4.76 (talk) 20:39, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

mahira khan and fawad khan

heloooo..can you make the changes?????its true....the above section.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.106.81.154 (talk) 13:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide a source for this information? Shariq r82 (talk) 18:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

links.....for the aquafina add and umar sayeed collection

http://www.koolmuzone.pk/2011/12/fawad-khan-mahira-khan-at-pfdc-loreal-paris-bridal-week-pictures/ http://thefriendsfm.com/2011/12/fawad-khan-mahira-khan-at-pfdc-l%E2%80%99oreal-paris-bridal-week-pictures/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCB4e2EE6Zk http://pakmuzone.info/2012/03/09/fawad-khan-mahira-aquafina-advertisement-tvc/ and you check there facebook...there couple is really famous........there is also a facebook page abot them called demand for fawad and mahira in a new show..and there are loads of pages about them on facebook.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.106.81.154 (talk) 07:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

can any1 add some more info of khan regarding his family and siblings etc

formatting

Hey, I was wondering other opinions on how to format and categorize the page - I was looking at the pages of bollywood actors that have been featured articles and they have this kind of similar trend. breaking down career into music and acting and then acting down to the sub categories makes too many sub groups (i.e. 2 -> 2.1 -> 2.1.1 -> 2.1.1.1) thats why i think music could have its own category or have it under some other category (i.e. other works) and then have some of his modelling career info in there too. any thoughts? Thanks!! Kazmia92 (talk) 07:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

featured article

Hey guys! my aim is to make this wiki page a featured article this is why I am using the template of other featured articles for Fawad's page. I also take notice of what has been mentioned in those articles in relation to the actor's career, role, projects, life, etc. and therefore I try to find info about that stuff for Khan's page from reliable sources. If you disagree with something I put or the source can you please just let me know and we can discuss it? I feel bad when all my hard work is deleted for no other reason than that person's logic of what should/shouldnt be included. If we talk about it it will give us more opinions and let us make a better judgment call. P.S. If I make grammatical fixes on the wording its nothing against that person, my first language is English so it comes a little more easy for me Kazmia92 (talk) 02:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• In every edit summary has been mention the wiki rules that you should read before adding content in the article, we do not give the examples of other articles of the wikipedia, we edit per wiki rules say, it will be good if you take a look at that policies, may those help you to improving any article. You are adding the content with poor and unreliable sources. Please don't give and refer the examples of other articles that are not wiki-guide-lines. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and it should be per GNG and notability for actors and notability music. You are welcome to copy edit to improve language as wiki-standard, but not puffery and promotion in any way and style. I edited the article assuming good faith, but you are again and again adding the same as I don't like it. I hope this helps.Justice007 (talk) 12:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• Sources, the sources you cited to support the content, I don't think that are the reliable sources,

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11]. I will more edit per the wiki-rules. If you have concerns, you can take the dispute to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 12:53, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey

Is he working with Dwpaul this year? 182.191.178.25 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Fawad Khan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150426145943/http://www.lhrtimes.com:80/2015/04/22/day-4-pfdc-sunsilk-fashion-week-april-2015-244857/ to http://www.lhrtimes.com/2015/04/22/day-4-pfdc-sunsilk-fashion-week-april-2015-244857/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:29, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Fawad Khan/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Diogatari (talk · contribs) 00:00, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I'll be doing the review of this article.

• According to Wikipedia:Lead section, the lead section "should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article". I suggest you to expand the second paragraph, it should be long.

Expanded it a bit, but since Khan sang only for " Irtiqa" and "Shor Macha", I think its enough.Amirk94391 (talk) 09:47, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

• There is one dead link (Ref no. 91). This needs to be replaced.

 Done Amirk94391 (talk) 09:47, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Other than that, the article looks really good. Regards, Diogatari (talk) 00:00, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Second opinion

This article's not quite ready for a couple of things:

• There are a decent amount of dead refs

 Done Amirk94391 (talk) 11:11, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

• ref 91 must use inline cite

 Done Amirk94391 (talk) 09:47, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

• TV.com (ref 8) emphasizes user-generated content, thus unreliable. Should be changed with a RS.

 Done Beside this one, there were two citations on the page which were reliable and were clearly stating that Khan started career in theatre, So I felt it should be removed.Amirk94391 (talk) 09:47, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

• For an article with a 16k character prose, the lede should be rewritten 2-3 paragraph long and should touch base on main points of the content: this is not really the case for this article.

Can you explain it a bit more? I mean there are 3 paragraphs in lede and they are summarizing well. If you think something is lacking from lede, please suggest it. Amirk94391 (talk) 09:47, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Well I would agree with the reviewer about expanding the second paragraph as it's too short. You're a major contributor to this article so the onus is on you. SLIGHTLY^mad 10:56, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

• There are a couple of paragraphs that should be condensed to make them readable (e.g. third paragraph in "Bollywood; debut and recognition (2014–2016)")

I fixed Bollywood; debut and recognition (2014-2016), I hope you'll like it now. Amirk94391 (talk) 09:47, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

That's it? What about the other paragraphs? Some of them don't look too well! I wish you had this peer reviewed and copyedited by the Guild of Copyeditors before nominating it. This is not quite ready for GA to say the least. SLIGHTLY^mad 10:56, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

The Debut, breakthrough and television success (2000–2013) section was a bit confusing regarding the years in which TV serials were broadcast. So I made a few changes. I also made some changes in In the media, Philanthropy and Personal life. If you still think that there are some problems in the sections, please discuss them in front of the respective section name bellow:

• Lede

Try to expand the second paragraph. Diogatari (talk) 15:03, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

 DoneAmirk94391 (talk) 15:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

• Early life

• Music Career
  • Entity Paradigm (2000–2012)
  • Pepsi Battle of the Bands (2017)

• Acting career
  • Debut, breakthrough and television success (2000–2013)
  • Bollywood; debut and recognition (2014–2016)
  • Upcoming projects; Pakistani films

• In the media

• Philanthropy

• Personal life

• Discography

• Filmography

• Awards and nominations

Amirk94391 (talk) 12:41, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Passed. Good work. Diogatari (talk) 16:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much Diogatari and Slightlymad for your comments and reviews. It was a huge honour for me that an article I nominated was being reviewed by you.

Amirk94391 (talk) 22:35, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment @Diogatari, Amirk94391, and Slightlymad: This BLP contains some non-RS therefore I am surprised to see how this article could become a GA. While this BLP has good potential to become a GA but in my opinion, it not ready yet and satisfies the criteria. It seems the reviewer Diogatari (talk · contribs) is not well informed about the GA criteria. --Saqib (talk) 15:42, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

For now I have removed the clearly non-RS [1] and delisted the BLP. While removing the sources, I found there are few grammatical issues, typos and WP:WTA as well which needs to be fixed before nominating this page for GA status. --Saqib (talk) 16:08, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this was actually my first review. However, you don't have the permission to remove the GA bar from the article without using the Good article reassessment. Fawad Khan is also still one of Media and Drama's good article. Diogatari (talk) 20:03, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

@Diogatari: I suggest you to stop adding GA status to BLP unless you are very much sure that the page meets GA criteria. You have stated yourself that this was your first GA review but unfortunately you done it wrong. You to need to familiarize yourself with the WP:RS first before reviewing the BLP's. I don't need your permission to remove the GA status from the page because I consider your review null and void. reassessment is usually required when the article is passed by a qualified reviewer, in this case it was not. If you re-add the GA symbol without fixing the issues, I will consider it disruptive editing. --Saqib (talk) 22:02, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Note to reviewer

Diogatari, I just noticed that the Fawad Khan article has been added to the Guild of Copy Editors Requests page, and further investigation shows that this has come after the article was nominated for Featured Article status six days after you approved it here, and it was failed by the following day when no fewer than three reviewers pointed out it had significant prose problems and recommended a "thorough copyedit". Any article that needs a thorough copyedit is not one that meets the Good Article "well-written" criteria, including "clear and concise" prose.

This was your first GA review, and unfortunately it does not seem that you have the necessary experience of articles at the GA level, nor yet the ability to determine when prose needs (or does not need) a major copyedit. I would suggest that you hold off doing any further GA reviews until you gain much more experience with the process, perhaps by nominating an article you've written and believe meets the criteria, and then going through the process from the other side—I see that you have nominated Beren Saat.

In the meantime, I would like to suggest that you formally withdraw your listing of this article. Amirk94391 has opened a peer review of the article, and once that has been completed and the Guild of Copy Editors has performed the needed copyedit, it can be renominated to be a Good Article. This will, as far as I can see, be the best course. While a Good Article Reassessment is typically used when articles no longer meet the criteria, and sometimes this happens right after an article is listed, there have been occasions when new reviewers who did not have the necessary skills have had their results reversed out of hand, with no GAR used. At the moment, the article is in an awkward position, with the history showing a listing, but with the visible trappings of the GA removed. It would be very helpful, though I can understand that you wouldn't relish doing so, if you would do that withdrawal. I can help with the process details if you agree. I don't think it would be useful to reopen the review, given the prose issues identified at FAC and the peer review. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:50, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello @BlueMoonset: Thank you for your kind comment! I don't want to be the reviewer anymore cause I'm still not familiar with GA criteria. Diogatari (talk) 15:47, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Closure

Since a GAR had been opened on this article last week but not closed, I have closed it as delisted, and am closing this review as well. See the article talk page for further details. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:23, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Fawad Khan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150318183145/http://global.ptv.com.pk/FawadAfzalKhan.asp to http://global.ptv.com.pk/FawadAfzalKhan.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006105235/http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/entertainment/19-Sep-2014/who-is-sonam-kapoor-s-khoobsurat-co-star-fawad-afzal-khan to http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/entertainment/19-Sep-2014/who-is-sonam-kapoor-s-khoobsurat-co-star-fawad-afzal-khan
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150719084302/http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/entertainment/19-Sep-2014/who-is-sonam-kapoor-s-khoobsurat-co-star-fawad-afzal-khan to http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/entertainment/19-Sep-2014/who-is-sonam-kapoor-s-khoobsurat-co-star-fawad-afzal-khan
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://showbizpak.com/servis-2nd-hum-awards-2014
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hamaridunya.pk/28964-winner-list-of-2nd-hum-tv-awards-2014-exclusive-pictures.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:23, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Fawad Khan/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

@Diogatari, Amirk94391, and Slightlymad: This BLP contained plenty of non-RS but despite it it went on to become a GA. While this BLP has good potential to become a GA but in my opinion, it not ready yet and satisfies the criteria. It seems the reviewer Diogatari (talk · contribs) is not well informed about the GA criteria - xe himself stated on the talk page that it was his first GA review. For now I have removed the clearly non-RS [2] and suggest to delist this asap. While removing the sources, I found there are few grammatical issues, typos and WP:WTA as well which needs to be fixed before nominating this page for GA status. --Saqib (talk) 21:20, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

User Saqib removed the GA bar from the article but it seems like he doesn't know that Fawad Khan is STILL one of Media and drama's good article. (Please see the link) I also think I made a mistake by promoting the article to GA status therefore I support Saqib to delist it. @Amirk94391: Please let us hear your opinion. Diogatari (talk) 23:02, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

@Diogatari: the page entry was added to Wikipedia:Good articles/Media and drama by AmirK. I have removed it. --Saqib (talk) 08:50, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@Saqib and Diogatari:, firstly thanks to Saqib for his review. Secondly, Saqib recently removed many N-R sources, I appreciated that, If you now look into article, Only the Awards and nominations section requires additional verification as I've added many relaible citations yesterday. I'm quite sure that in a few hours, I'll add relaible sources to that section is well and thus article will be alright. Saqib also mentioned that there are some grammatical errors, if so please discuss them bellow in their section.

• Lede

• Early life

• Music Career
  • Entity Paradigm (2000–2012)
  • Pepsi Battle of the Bands (2017)

• Acting career
  • Debut, breakthrough and television success (2000–2013)
  • Bollywood; debut and recognition (2014–2016)
  • Upcoming projects; Pakistani films

• In the media

• Philanthropy

• Personal life

• Discography

• Filmography

• Awards and nominations

Amirk94391 (talk) 02:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@Amirk94391: I am no expert in reviewing the articles therefore I am not going to do it. However this BLP has some flaws and one of the major one is that there is a lot of OR in this BLP. For instance, there is no RS about the DOB. I am sorry but I am not going to comment further on this article. --Saqib (talk) 09:07, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@Saqib: Don't be sorry you did an excellent job by letting me know about those NR sources. But I'd like you mention every single sentence that you think should be rephrased. This will help me a lot in taking it to FAC. Can you explain what do you mean by "OR in Biography of Living person"?. Amirk94391 (talk) 09:24, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:OR. As I said earlier, I won't be able to further comment on it. --Saqib (talk) 09:26, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Closure

Given the issues listed above, the fact that the original reviewer has stated that they do not understand the GA criteria, the prose issues raised during the article's FAC that make it clear that a "thorough copyedit" is needed and the article does not meet the "well-written" GA criteria, and that the person who opened the individual reassessment has declared that they are unable to continue, I am closing this as delisted. The nominator, Amirk94391, has already requested a copyedit from the Guild of Copy Editors and has opened a peer review; when both of these are completed and any issues or recommendations raised during these processes have been addressed, a new GAN can be opened, but should not be done before then. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:15, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Closing out the GA review and reassessment

This has been a very tangled and out-of-process GA review and reassessment, with a GA reviewer who was not familiar with the GA criteria, and an individual reassessment opened by someone who is unwilling to do a full reassessment. Amirk94391, I'm very sorry that the process failed you, and I hope future GANs go better.

In between the GA listing and the reassessment, an FAC was opened and very quickly closed as unsuccessful when several reviewers pointed out that the prose needed a thorough copyedit; this fact should have been enough to sink the initial GA nomination, if the reviewer had been able to judge the criteria properly.

The article is currently undergoing a peer review, and a request has been made of the Guild of Copy Editors for the article to be copy edited.

Since the article has already had its GA status removed by Saqib, I'm going to formalize this by closing the still-opened reassessment, which was never properly added to this talk page per instructions—a GAR template needs to be added up top first, after which the reassessment should be transcluded. The reassessment result will be delisted, because the article does not meet the GA criteria, and has yet to do so.

The peer review should continue (it can't while either a GAN or FAC are in progress), and the article should not be nominated for either process until the formal copy edit has been completed, which probably won't be until sometime in November. (Note that the OR template currently on the article will have to be addressed as well.)

There could be an argument made for reversing the original review out of hand, but I think this is the best, neatest solution. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:19, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Original research?

Saqib, can you please explain why you added the Original Research tag to this article? The Guild of Copy Editors is reluctant to spend time copy-editing an article with this tag on it, since we don't want to polish prose that should really be deleted. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:46, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: see my comments at Talk:Fawad Khan/GA2. --Saqib (talk) 06:43, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I had already read those when I posted. It looks like you want a citation for the date of birth, but other than that, your statement was not specific enough for other editors to take action to resolve the problem to your satisfaction. Can you please provide more details or tag specific parts of the article, or specific sources, with your concerns? Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:41, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I have just finished the c/e requested of the GOCE. Other than the subjects DOB for which I found a reputable citation this article does not appear to contain any original research. Checking the edit history, the article's main author has obviously removed and replaced any dubious sources. All of the citations in the article are reputable and every statement is cited so I removed the now unnecessary OR tag. Twofingered Typist (talk) 21:03, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Personal life

He developed diabetes mellitus type 1 at the age of 17 after he met with an accident that damaged his pancreas.

• He was 16 when they met.
• He was 23 when they married.
• He was 30 when they started a business.
• He was 17 when he got ill.

Hi! I have been trying to raise this point for past many months. Please, either re-order correctly, or keep the 'illness part' separated. Telling about his teenage, after telling about his children and what his wife works, is not fair. Don't make it a dis-ordered time-flow. A timeline continuity should be maintained.

I have seen other articles too, where "Health issues" and "Marriage life" are written separately, both maybe under "Personal life". Please comment, thanks! M. Billoo 20:41, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2020

Please revert this edit as it changed the year of birth in the short description so that it does not match what is cited in the text and infobox.

The editor who made the edit has already been warned on their talk page. – 108.56.139.120 (talk) 12:03, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done NJD-DE (talk) 12:06, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Fawad Khan on Bollywood debut

Fawad Khan made his Bollywood debut on Khoobsurat in 2014. --Alex Lombardini (talk) 00:25, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Have you a reliable source to back that up? Keith D (talk) 20:08, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

J U C

J U C 171.103.21.99 (talk) 15:18, 4 July 2023 (UTC)