Talk:Priyanka Chopra/GA2

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

Reviewer: Secret of success (talk · contribs) 12:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I will be reviewing this article. It is quite long and has a long way to go, so the review may take some time. Hope I've everyone's patience on my side. Here are some starting comments:

That's it for a start. Hope to get going soon and promote the article at the quickest. Secret of success (talk) 12:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "Her father hails from a family of Punjabi origin, settled in Ambala district in the state of Haryana and her mother, from a Bihari Kayastha family settled in Jamshedpur." - Source does not verify this. Self-identification would be preferable, as per WP:BLP.
 * "John F. Kennedy High School in Cedar Rapids, Iowa." - Source does not mention this.
 * "According to Chopra...toilet" - Uh, what??
 * "raising funds for the destitutes in Boston by participating in the church program" - Not verified by source
 * "She registered for her college studies at Jai Hind College in Mumbai, but left abruptly when she decided to take the plunge into the field of glamour and went on to take part in the Femina Miss India contest." - Unsourced.
 * "the world of beauty pageants" - Encyclopedic wording, perhaps?
 * "when her mother...entered" - I don't understand what this says. Is is that her mother enrolled her without informing her, and when she got selected to participate, she went in with surprise, without objection? Also, is participation chosen from a group of people, or just for everyone who enrolls? Sort of confusing.
 * "She came in second place...Femina Miss India World title." - Unsourced. The source given for the next sentence does not verify this.
 * "She impressed the judges with her effortless speech on behalf of humanity and charity" - Neutral wording, please.
 * "as she expressed admiration of Mother Teresa." - Relevance? Also, there is citekill here.
 * "the fourth Indian woman to win in a span of seven years." - Not verified by source.
 * "and then the film roles started coming in." - Meaning?
 * ✅ - I don't know how the Miss India competition works, but its not really important here BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  00:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The given quote from the NYT for The Hero talks only about the film and nothing about Chopra (personally, I don't think its necessary).
 * On what basis was Chopra awarded "mostly good reviews"? The given source only says that she got noticed because of her performance, is it correct to interpret the source that way?
 * Kismat and Asambhav being failures at the box office is not stated in the given ref.
 * Well, if they don't even show up in that list, and there are flops in the list, isn't it obvious? BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  12:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh right. My apologies. Secret of success (talk) 13:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The section "success" is purely a WP:QUOTEFARM. Quotes have been overused to a great extent, creating a problem. Every film does not need a quotation, unless it adds something meaningful. It could be trimmed down greatly.
 * "Priyanka does well, though her part is restricted to crying." - What is the reader supposed to interpret from this?? Whatever it may be, I'm pretty sure it is not a "good" review.
 * Ha ha. Okay, these two will take some time to get through, but keep giving other comments. BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  15:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ - BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  00:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * "Critics started panning her for choosing the wrong movies and criticising her performances" - Source does not verify this.
 * ✅ - BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  14:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment – One minor comment. The reference formatting should be checked. Many printed works are non-italicized while many non-printed websites are italicized. Also, many of them miss publishers when the work and publisher differ and are not the same company. I guess this is because of using cite web and cite news incorrectly? Nevertheless, they should be corrected I believe. — Indian: BIO  · [ ChitChat  ] 13:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean by publisher different from work. I don't think it is 100% certain which websites are italicized and which ones are not. Anyway, as you mention, it is minor and not needed for GA status. BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  14:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * For eg: A website for a printed media like Hindustan Times, Filmfare etc will always have the work parameter italicized, while something like Bolywood Hungama, being a sole online portal will never be italicized. This is not the case here. I strongly suggest you go through the references, or if you want, I can help you. — Indian: BIO  · [ ChitChat  ] 09:11, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Please help then. I often don't know which sources are web only. BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  12:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Filmfare nomination for Kaminey is unsourced.
 * "a second consecutive Apsara Award for Best Actress in a Leading Role." - When did she get the first?
 * "The film itself was a financial and critical failure" (for Whats your Rashee) - This is not given in the source.
 * "a college beauty who eventually falls in love with a geek" - Unencyclopedic tone
 * "Her performance in the film was appreciated by most critics...male-centric movie." - Excessive citekill
 * "chemistry with co-star Shahid Kapoor" - Definitely not queen's English. It should be quoted at the very least.

That's about it for her acting career section. Once these are done, just ping me and I'll review them and proceed. Secret of success (talk) 16:10, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ - BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  17:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * "After winning the pageant...eventually decided to become an actress." - Still not verified by source.
 * Where is the source to say that The Hero was a critical failure??
 * ✅ - I don't understand why you wont allow the part about her being bullied. Give a valid reason; just saying "yeah right" is rude. BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  15:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Come on, she got bullied in school, she had to write a 1000 lines for cheating in exams, she had to stand out of the class for laughing at the teacher, these things are an integral part of school life. We might as well mention all if we mention one. The point here is these stuff aren't encyclopedic.
 * I thought it was relevant since she was studying in a foreign country, but I see your point. Thanks for the answer.  BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  16:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Bullied in the sense, if she was really bullied, to an illegal extent where she sustained injuries, and was admitted to a hospital, and her dad went after the crooks, then all right, maybe worth it. Secret of success (talk) 17:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd bet that some people, especially young girls, would be interested to know that a Miss World winner was ridiculed for her looks in her not so distant past. Its okay though, let's move on. BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  16:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment - There are so many statements which are not verified by the given source. Isn't it better if the article is quick-failed and a check done, and then it is re-nominated? Secret of success (talk) 07:37, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "As part of this global deal...Island Records UK...Universal Music India" - Appears to be copy-pasted from the source (even the next sentence, to some extent). See WP:COPY-PASTE.
 * "By 2012, Chopra began...producer RedOne" - Not stated in source.
 * "debuted on 13 September" - Ditto
 * Maybe you are being too picky. Check Good article criteria number 2. According to the policy, every statement does not need to be sourced, only those that are likely to be challenged, and direct quotes. Plus, it seems a bit late for a "quick" fail after all this time. I am committed to finishing it if you are. BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  01:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * There are no statements, as far as I can see, which are not subjective, related to the comment I mentioned above. But if you want, I can finish the review. Secret of success (talk) 06:04, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The debut album comes out on New Year's eve, the source says, and that is not exactly December 2012.
 * Really, then what year is it? BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  01:13, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Now, now, don't try to be funny. Secret of success (talk) 06:04, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * "It was released in India 12 hours before" - A comma is needed (I'm too lazy to add it myself)
 * Not needed.


 * Why are SRK, PZ and AR not linked in Temptations 2004? Kapoor is not linked in the next sentence. Sallu and Bebo are not linked in the following ones.
 * Many of those were linked previously in the article, so not needed, but I linked them all here now too.


 * "the 5th edition of IPL – Indian Premier League" - A dash is missing.
 * "Priety Zinta".
 * "including Bipasha Basu and Priety Zinta." - Some more beauties are mentioned in the source. Why don't you just add them? (Sorry, my mood's not ok today)
 * "a celeb and the city column" - What does it mean?
 * "She ended her column in December 2010" - Not sourced.
 * Cites 121 and 122 are same.
 * Title is same, contents not.


 * "The tour extends across..every year." - Copy-pasting.
 * The entire "other ventures" section has too many quotes (8 in all). But don't judge by numbers, some don't add anything at all. As a suggestion, I would say it is better to keep this problem in line till all others have been reviewed. Finishing the review with this would be ideal and impart a great amount of satisfaction. Secret of success (talk) 07:37, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't understand this last sentence at all. Please explain what you are asking for. The rest is done.  BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  01:13, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Quotes have been used without pertinence in the section. It must be trimmed down, and some converted to indirect speech.
 * Some have already been trimmed, but this is not part of the Good article criteria. Am I going to have to start barking about this like a certain person did in a certain review not long ago? BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  02:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Quote farm is certainly a part of the GA criteria i.e. "it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail" and "respects copyright laws". As I suggested, you can focus on the other issues for now and take care of this in the last. Secret of success (talk) 07:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * "she visited the historic Tenga, an important location for the 1960 Indo-China war to boost the morale of the jawan troops" - Where is Tenga located? There was no related Indo-China war in 1960. Are you referring to the Sino-Indian war? That took place in 1962. Is there a link for Jawan troops?
 * Believe it or not, I did not write every word of this article. Apparently I did not check every word before nominating it either. Be patient and we will get it right. BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  13:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * "She also drew attention...in this part of the world." - Blatant copy-paste
 * "in realizing their mission, one of which is to set up schools." - Not given in source
 * "Chopra started her collaboration...promote child rights." - Copy-paste again
 * "Chopra and Priya Dutt pledged their dedication towards the cause of curing addiction" - Neutral wording required. What exactly does the word "addiction" refer to? Smoking, drinking, gizmo addiction, drugs, sex or something else? A bit more clarity would be appreciated.
 * I don't know, the sources seem to be in Hindi only. The rest is done. BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  12:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * "kick start" - Usage here is slang
 * "Model-actor Milind Soman...took about an hour" - Again, copy-paste.
 * "Chopra is known for her simple yet stylish fashion statements." - Unsourced POV
 * "set of the film Bluffmaster!" - Something known as a full stop
 * "She also has a reputation as one of the most desirable women in India" - Desirable by whom? And what does desirable refer to here (I know what it means, but nevertheless, ambiguity must be applied correctly)?
 * I really think people can figure it out if they read the whole section. Even the reference for the most desirable award does not say specifically why. BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  14:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * "hourglass figure and bee stung lips" - Need to be in quotes, as they are subjective descriptions. Also try to add "coffee-colored eyes" as given in source.
 * "named by Rediff as" - Named or ranked?
 * "People Magazine India as the "Best Dressed Woman of the year"" - A better and clearer way to say it would be "People Magazine as the "Best Dressed Indian Woman of the Year".
 * "she became the first Indian actress...Drew Berrymore." - Copy-paste problem
 * "outstanding contributions in their respective fields." - Neutral wording needed
 * What the... - Do they give honors for ordinary contributions? You are too much. BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  14:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, so now you've started differentiating between ordinary and outstanding contributions. Anyway, that is original research and cannot find a place here. Just remove the word "outstanding" and you're done. Secret of success (talk) 11:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * What I am saying is that of course they give awards for outstanding contributions, we shouldn't have to hide that, and it's in the source anyway. The source says "sterling contribution". I paraphrased this as "outstanding contributions", and you call that OR?!? I am sure that if it had said "sterling contribution", then you would have cried copy-paste. This is really ridiculous. I will remove it though. Yes boss, I 'll do whatever you say boss. BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  12:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This is exhausting. Why do you people make reviewers so frustrated at times? It is hard to get anyone to take up the job, and even if they do, chances are high that they only mean business. Ah well, I'm expecting too much, ain't I? Secret of success (talk) 13:46, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "You people"? You should have been in my shoes when I reviewed an article for "someone" who resisted every single comment that was made. I guess we see things differently depending on which side of the review fence we are on. This is getting too personal now, so let's stop. I have made all the requested changes at this point, unless you still have more.  BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  15:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, my apologies if it got personal. I struck it out for that reason. Secret of success (talk) 16:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * What exactly is the purpose of the "personal life" section?? Much of it reads like a news article and it has no encyclopedic content in it. If I had an option, I would just delete it.
 * It establishes that she was not brought into the industry by a 'godfather', that she is single, and that anything you hear in the gossip mags not coming from her can be disregarded. The section is needed for comprehensiveness. BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  14:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * May be so, but the section is more like a promotional magazine published by her parents who appear to be over-protective over their baby. It needs to be re-written with emphasis on neutrality and reduction of quotations. Secret of success (talk) 11:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

✅ - BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  14:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "Chopra does not come...family has sacrificed for her." - Quite a few issues here. First, is not coming from a film background something unusual? How is it related to her personal life and not to "public image"? Second, saying that Chopra is "proud" is POV. Rather, "Chopra has announced herself as a "self-made" woman", would be more encyclopedic. Third, "extremely close"? Is it subject to gradation? Just say, "Chopra is close to her family". Fourth, "is grateful for what her family has sacrificed for her" is just what I said, like its being written by her parents. This must be attributed to her, "Chopra has believed that her family sacrificed a lot for her". Secret of success (talk) 16:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Lead does not summarize adequately. The first two paras of early life need to be mentioned.
 * Comment – One minor comment. I think the public image and personal life sections should me merged. Having separate sections with so little info does not make any sense. Just a suggestion. (See Rani Mukerji) GleekVampire (talk) 17:08, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You are probably right. These sections, along with others like awards, have been split and merged and split again leading up to the present situation. BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  17:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Final analysis
Based on the review above, one can conclude that the article is : : 
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

: 
 * (a) ;
 * (b) ; and
 * (c).

: 
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

.  .  : 
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

