Talk:Farhan Akhtar/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Bollyjeff (talk · contribs) 23:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I am going to take this on, since it has been waiting so long. BollyJeff &#124;  talk  23:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I think this one has a ways to go before it's GA ready. I will add more after a thorough read, but here are some preliminary findings:
 * disambiguate links: 3
 * Fixed.


 * dead links: 2
 * Fixed.


 * links requiring login: 8 (oldbh.bollywoodhungama links are all dead)
 * They do not require replacement. The info used has been verified before they went this way.


 * Early life and background section should be in chronological order and should be bigger
 * What is wrong with the current chronology?
 * Was he married before he went to school? When was he married?  When were their children born? It says "Currently married". Was he married before?  BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  13:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have changed the order of it, but the info you are demanding to be added is completely impertinent here. The date of marriage and age of children aren't necessary here.
 * Why do you keep saying that? This is a biography. What is necessary in your opinion? BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  14:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This is why I asked you to understand the GA criteria properly before hurriedly going into reviewing articles. The term "broad" refers to coverage in the basic aspects of the subject and not detailed coverage in the aspects. Get the difference?
 * I added the date of marriage, but could not find any source to tell the year of births of the children.
 * Thank you. This source said in 2012 that his 11 year old Shakya was writing a script for a future film of his. It seems to have come from a interview that is at least partly available on YouTube, so I think it could be considered reliable. No OR, but stating the fact would let the reader infer her birth year.  BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  19:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

We cannot determine which year she was born from her age at a particular instant. We have sources to tell how old Akira and Shakya are, but they are not good enough. It will sound really silly to say that as of 2012, Shakya is 11 and Akira is 8 (as though the site thinks that its readers are muddleheaded people). If we stumble upon better ones, we'll add it. Till then, I would suggest we refrain from dwelling over this trivial issue.
 * Career section should be broken up into some subsections, maybe when acting career started for example
 * If you can suggest suitable titles to the sections, it would be welcome. In most cases where subsections are given, they tend to become biased towards the positive response held by the actor and do not follow NPOV. That is why I have avoided them so far.


 * More is needed about the founding of Excel Entertainment
 * More? The article, as far as I can see, is sufficiently broad in its coverage.


 * Positive is mentioned in text, but not in tables, whereas Breathless is only in the table, and it's not even a film. We need some consistency.
 * There is no question of consistency regarding Breathless. It is not a film, so what? It has been directed by him and does not find any place elsewhere.
 * It is misleading to have the title under the table heading marked "Film". BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  13:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Changed it all to "title". Fits perfectly.


 * For the awards, do "best film" awards go to the director or the producer? Please provide some proof.
 * They usually go to the producer because they own the film. There are no exceptions with regard to this article. See these two links. 1 and 2.
 * The Director/Writer table lists 'National Film Award for Best Feature Film in Hindi' for Dil Chahta Hai, as if Akhtar won it. The other awards won by the film are not in there, so this one should not be either, unless he was the producer.  BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  14:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Where does it say that?
 * Well, this is an article about him, not the films, so why should awards not won by him be here? The same would apply to the accolades table as well.  BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  14:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No, Akhtar owns Excel Entertainment, which produced DCH. So, he can be credited for that.
 * Okay, thanks. BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  15:35, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Definitely needs some copy edit for grammar and encyclopedic style. Examples
 * "roped in"
 * "in careering by him"
 * double quotes ("") is a couple places
 * "commented for the The Hindu"
 * "the soundtrack was scored by A. R. Rahman, along with his sister." Really?
 * "Following LBC, Akhtar acted in a project titled The Fakir of Venice, which was initially scheduled to release before Rock on!! and was supposed to be his acting debut. Due to several delays, it was released in mid-2009." The table says it released in 2010 (IMDB says 2008), and LBC abbreviation is not defined anywhere.
 * "which consisted of Rahul Bose and Mallika Sherawat" ??
 * Fixed.

Maybe you could get someone from the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors to give it a go?
 * It does not appear to be necessary at the moment.


 * Lacks several sections typical in other WP:BLPs such as Off-screen work, public image, awards (text not just table), personal life separate from early life.
 * Akhtar has not been involved in much of off-screen work and whatever he has done is in the article. What more should be there?
 * If he has truly not done anything else, then the article should say that, so that the reader is not left thinking that the editors have not just ignored this. BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  13:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry? Let me get this straight. Are you saying that we should add something like this?: "Akhtar has not done any work other than the ones mentioned above."
 * Well, if you put it that way it sounds silly. You could be a bit more tactful. BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  14:21, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Why do you need to add it in the first place? The essence of it gives you an impression of Wikipedia as a source of comedy.
 * Okay, forget it. BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  15:35, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Sources look pretty good so far; make sure that authors names are listed where available, and not just a repeat of the publisher.
 * They have been crosschecked.


 * When using a single name, it should be his last name Akhtar, not Farhan
 * Done.


 * I think as others have stated, that given his multiple hats, a filmography table like the one used in Karan Johar would be appropriate here, to include producer, director, writer and actor, but not playback singer. Singer should be separate like it is now, to include the song titles; perhaps song writing credits could go into that one too.
 * Really. What is wrong with the present style? The new one will only create further inconsistency due to the singing part.

See what you can do with this, and I will be back with more. BollyJeff &#124;  talk  00:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have fixed whatever is relevant here. You cannot go on demanding extraneous additions and personal preferences to the article (such as "should be bigger"). If you have indeed read through the criteria, you should strike out the irrelevant points and review the article. The article is broad in its coverage, and that requires no dispute whatsoever. Secret of success (talk) 14:36, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Here are some more issues:
 * West side story, Fiddler on the Roof, Grease, and original Don (in director box) should be in italics.
 * The reason being?
 * Um, because they are musicals, they are italicized even in their respective articles. BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  13:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok. Italicized.


 * Himalayputra is a redirect, and it should have the year in, as should all of the above films as well.
 * Done.


 * Why did he start Excel Entertainment Pvt. Ltd? Who is Ritesh Sidhwani to Akhtar? This section leaves me wanting more.
 * If you can find more info, do give the sources or add it to the article. Since this is not related here, there is no obligation to add it.


 * "he assisted his father in writing the English lyrics of a song in Lagaan along with his sister" - maybe clearer to say "he and his sister Zoya Akhtar assisted their father ..."
 * Changed.


 * "described as another turning point in Akhtar's career" By whom?
 * Removed it fully. Its clearly opinionated nonsense which has no actual encyclopedic significance.


 * "a remake of the 1978 Amitabh Bachchan film Don, which starred Shahrukh Khan in the title role..." - clearer to say "starring Shahrukh Khan in the title role, a remake of the 1978 film Don, starring Amitabh Bachchan."
 * Added the new phrasing.


 * BTW, there is an article for the title role that could be linked to "The character of "Don"" ... uh, well there was one; it is now in Don_(character)
 * Link added.


 * "In 2008, Akhtar made his acting and singing debut..." - I think here is the perfect place for a subheading such as 'Adds acting and singing', whereas the beginning of the Career section cold start with 'Directing, writing and producing'
 * Why don't you add it and see how it looks?
 * Done. BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  15:35, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * You still have not reconciled the release dates for The Fakir of Venice in the various places that it appears.
 * Imdb is not a reliable source. What is the need to dispute over that?


 * Karthik Calling Karthik - year?
 * Added.


 * Lead section:
 * Maybe National Award for Rock on!! rates a mention, along with him being the producer
 * Mentioned.


 * Condsider adding at leat some key dates, especially since it says in one place "In the same year"
 * I don't understand. What dates are you referring to?
 * Some would say that you should put release dates in on all of the films, unless you are already mentioning the year in the sentence in which it appears.  BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  16:32, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * So, for 10 films, 10 dates? Secret of success (talk) 16:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Excluding BMB, I added for everything else. Ok?


 * "Off-films, he has appeared in TV shows, beauty pageants and endorsed brands." please re-word this; it sounds weird to say that he appeared in beuaty pageants.
 * Done. Hope its okay.


 * "His parents were termed as his "harshest critics" to his roles in careering by him, who also considered Robert De Niro as a childhood "inspiration" in the film industry." - Can you please re-word this sentence. I have no idea what the first part means, and it's not clear from the second part who was inspired by De Niro, him or his parents. BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  12:36, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Reworded. Secret of success (talk) 14:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I am going to go ahead and pass this now. Although I have concerns that it may not be as good as some other GA articles as defined here (WikiProject_Biography/Assessment), as the nominator has pointed out several times, the Good article criteria is not that strict. I will make a few suggestions however, that I think should be addressed in the future: BollyJeff &#124;  talk  15:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It could use a bit more broadness of coverage, outside of the subject's film career.
 * There are some broken references that should be replaced if they are still needed, or simply removed if not (such as x starred in y film).
 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

This article has some shortcomings with respect to the good article criteria, and is not quite up to par with other GAs under the banner of the Indian Cinema task force.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Reads poorly, some specific comments were made above, but there are other problems.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Some of the sources are dead and must should be replaced.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * It covers his film career, and little else; this is a biography article (BLP).
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * On hold, giving one week to improve the article. Pass
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * On hold, giving one week to improve the article. Pass