Talk:Preity Zinta/Archive 5

A new automatic Peer Review
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question. You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  17:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
 * This article has no or few images. Please see if there are any free use images that fall under the Image use policy and fit under one of the Image copyright tags that can be uploaded. To upload images on Wikipedia, go to Special:Upload; to upload non-fair use images on the Wikimedia Commons, go to commons:special:upload.[?]
 * If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
 * If this article is about a person, please add  along with the required parameters to the article - see Persondata for more information.[?]
 * Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.[?]
 * The script has spotted the following contractions: doesn't, wasn't, wasn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
 * As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
 * Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]


 * I'd also like to add that theres no need to name every single ref tag that is used in the article. Only refs that are used more than once need a name, not all of them. Regards, xC | ☎  06:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

GA Review
This article is in excellent shape. It's well written, well sourced, and quite an interesting read. I made a few minor grammatical and manual of style changes, but overall, the article meets the Good Article criteria, and will be listed. As an additional note, it might be a good idea to move 'personal life' up before 'career', since that is generally information that began before her film career took off. I'd also recommend 'career' to 'film career', since it deals with that aspect of her career, and to avoid any confusion with the 'commitments' section. It might also be a good idea to rename 'commitments' to something more descriptive, like 'present work', or something similar, to be a bit more descriptive (the term "commitments" could have a pretty wide range of meaning).

Overall, though, the article is excellent. Good work! Dr. Cash 05:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Updated Automated peer review
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question. You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  21:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Per Wikipedia:Context and Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
 * This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, then an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.[?]
 * Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honor (A) (British: honour), honour (B) (American: honor), organise (B) (American: organize), recognize (A) (British: recognise), realise (B) (American: realize), criticise (B) (American: criticize), ization (A) (British: isation), modeling (A) (British: modelling).
 * The script has spotted the following contractions: would've, doesn't, wasn't, Don't, didn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
 * Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

Best friend and social life
Just skimming through and saw this sentence: By the time she was 17 she began partying and dating. Though I think its a good idea to show some continuation from her education etc, I don't think the sentence is appropriate because she probably did many things during that time. But on the plus side, if anyone can define the "partying" aspect of her life such as go to clubs etc then maybe that would be a good idea.

After reading some of her interviews, her best friend Shagun seems to be an important part of her life but she's not an important person or in the acting field. For example, Leonardo DiCaprio's best mate is Toby Maguire and in his opening paragraph this is mentioned but Shagun is someone who is literally unknown so should it be included? -- Pa7 22:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi! Leonardo DiCaprio is not a good source right now. You can change the word "partying". If you see FA articles like Jolie you will see that there everything is mentioned, all of the all. We can change it but the idea is important. Her best friend mmm I just think she is so important to Zinta, and she is mentioned ALWAYS in some of the most reputed sources, so we can mention that. Blof removed the quoted part of it and wrote that like this and it is more encyclopedic. Because I think saying "who is mentioned often during interviews" is more encyclpedic than "she is her best friend". Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  21:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I guess that's fine then. I was just skimming and saw the sentence so thought I'd get opinions on it. Yes I agree with your last sentence:  Because I think saying.... I guess "partying" is the best way to put it or "socializing" I guess? Any suggestions? -- Pa7 22:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem, so Shagun is OK. As for partying, agree. We can put socializing, or your previous suggestion "visiting clubs" though it's not directly in the source, so I'm not sure. Do you have any additional suggestions? Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  22:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to note, friends who are actors or members of the industry were mentioned here back in time (Hrithik, Ash, Shahrukh, Abhisheketc), if you remember, but xC and other editors decided that it's unencyclopedic, and today I quite understand. A good example is Rani-Ash who were friends ("Ashuma I love you and we will always be friends") and look what they're today... Cause in fact if they had a tiff how can we guaranty that they still are. On the other hand Shagun, is a friend of a whole lifetime. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  23:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the article is looking very good amigo. I should propose it for an A asap. Regards  ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦       "Talk"? 23:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * So OK, Blof removed the partying stuff. No problem. I would like to add about Zinta's role in Dil Se, that it was quite racy by Indian standarts (i.e "Are you a virgin?" etc.). I'm thinking of a good idea of how to write it there. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  21:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Good article reassessment
All, the article has been listed for good article reassessment. Thanks - KNM Talk 03:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

birthday
Half the refs claim 1974, the others 1975. askmen quotes 74, which I'm inclined to believe. Does anyone else have refs stating otherwise which could prove themselves more reliable? xC | ☎  17:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no direct refs. But she was definitely born in 1975. I saw an interview of her last year in 2006 on her birthday. The reporter asked "You are 31?", she said "Yes, 31". Then she even said, added and repeated, "I'm happy to be 31. I don't wanna be 20 again, today my life is much more beautiful."


 * Sounds stupid but that's it. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  17:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, you're saying it, I believe you. Let me start looking for refs for 75. xC | ☎  17:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This source says it as 1974. - KNM Talk 17:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * And hollywood.com and rediff.com too say it as 1974. - KNM Talk 17:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It was like this initially. Since 2005 onward most references indicated 1975. Will provide refs. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  17:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The Times of India. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  18:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Another one for evidence. Indiatimes. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  18:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Rediff - an article of 2006. Turns 31. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  18:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Another one from Rediff - for evidence. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  18:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The Tribune Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  18:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ - changed to 75 with ref
 * ref given - this - which is from rediff, which User:KNM said would qualify as RS. xC | ☎  16:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

POV in lead
The sentence Following this, she went on to portray a variety of unique characters, credited with bringing a change in the image of Hindi film heroine is definitely tweaking of references to bring in personal point of view. The reference says Is it her degree in Psychology that prompts Preity explore diverse characters or is it just her zest for life that makes her the zaniest before camera?. It just claims that Preity explores diverse characters and that too, indirectly. Tweaking the whole sentence to say Portray a variety if unique characters is bit too much. Gnanapiti 17:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. Will rewrite to the relevant text. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  17:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)