Talk:Ananya Panday

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 January 2021
Changes to be made in the filmography section Rakesh Mish (talk) 06:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , You did not specify what changes are to be made. Edit request should be of the format "Change X to Y". - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Too many Images
Given the size of the article, this article uses too many similar portrait images from the same time period causing distraction. Can this be improved? defcon5 (talk) 06:15, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , Concur. I removed one that was really distracting, would not object to another one being removed.  Ravensfire  (talk) 18:11, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2023
Height = 1.74m 82.18.186.201 (talk) 13:37, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

❌ unsourced - Arjayay (talk) 13:47, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Editing using poor sources
Some of the user's edits include using this source, which says that "Ananya Panday expressed gratitude as her performance in her newly released film Kho Gaye Hum Kahan garnered good reviews from the viewers" by quoting random social media comments to claim that she received critical acclaim".

Among other problematic edits, they are hell bent on using a Mashable review with atrocious writing and edit-warring for it. Take this for instance: "Talking about performances, Ananya Panday as Ahana will guaranteed to grow on you. The actress played out the nuances of her characters perfectly on the screen." That's two poorly written sentences in as many sentences. The rest of the review isn't any better.

Pinging other editors, , on how to deal with this. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:29, 28 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Mashable isn't listed as a reliable source at WP:ICTF WP:ICTFFAQ. Per WP:MASHABLE, "Mashable tends towards less formal writing and is geared at a particular niche (tech news and pop culture). As such, non-sponsored content should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, especially if the subject matter is outside of Mashable's usual focus. Extra attention needs to be paid when it comes to sponsored content". In this particualr case, the writing is quite tabloid-y. Better not to use it. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:39, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

, please stop adding unsourced analysis such as "the film received mixed-to-positive reviews from critics, with praise for its soundtrack, cinematography, visual style and performances of the cast, but criticism for its story, screenplay and climax" and "the film received positive reviews from critics, with praise for its novel concept, themes and cast performances, with particular praise directed towards Panday's performance" as well as words like "breakthrough" and "acclaim" without high-quality attribution. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:39, 29 December 2023 (UTC)