Talk:Rani Mukerji/GA1

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

Reviewer: Cryptic C62 (talk · contribs) 03:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * I'm concerned with the tone of the article. Much of the phrasing is informal, and would be better suited for a magazine article or a documentary. There are also some clarity issues. I will point out specific examples of these and other issues below:
 * "Mukerji never harbored any ambitions to become an actress" Informal tone. More importantly, this is not a verifiable fact. She may have claimed to have never desired to become an actress; that would certainly be verifiable.
 * "before re-inventing herself" The meaning of this highly informal phrase is ambiguous.
 * "but in 2002 she tasted success" Informal tone.
 * "After doing a short cameo appearance for the first time in her father's Bengali film Biyer Phool (1996), Mukerji made her acting debut the following year, as the protagonist of Raja Ki Aayegi Baraat" This sentence is self-contradictory. How could she have made her acting debut in Raja Ki if she had already acted in Biyer Phool?
 * "However, upon seeing her cousin Kajol's success, she decided to try films again." Success with what? Was it a particular movie that inspired Rani? This phrase raised more questions than it answers.
 * "while the song "Aati Kya Khandala" made her popular among the masses" Informal tone.
 * "Karan Johar's directorial debut ... followed for her that year." Was this sentence written by someone who learned English as a second language? The reason I ask is that I have never encountered this "X followed for Y" construction in my entire life as a native speaker.
 * "She played the supporting role of Tina Malhotra, a sophisticated girl in love with Khan." In love with Khan, or in love with Khan's character?
 * What is an "adjusted worldwide gross"? We cannot assume that the reader will be familiar with terms like this. A wikilink should be added.
 * "She later played lead roles in films like Mehndi (1998) and Hello Brother (1999), alongside Salman Khan." Were these both alongside Salman Khan, or just Hello Brother?
 * "She then essayed a brief role in Kamal Haasan's Hey Ram as Hassan's first wife, Aparna Ram" This is a confusing sentence. Are "Hassan" and "Hasaan" the same person, or is "Hassan" a character in the movie?
 * Mukerji followed with a leading role in Bichhoo" Another instance of "followed" being used in a way that is completely unfamiliar to me. It's certainly possible that I'm just an idiot, or that my years of reclusivity have left me completely out of touch with the way the English language is used, but it seems far more likely that this is just not well-written.
 * "Mukerji followed with a leading role in Bichhoo, inspired by Luc Besson's Leon, opposite Bobby Deol, as the..." The two appositives in this sentence severely interrupt the flow of the sentence without adding any crucial details. I suggest deleting one.
 * "a stereotypical sacrificing bhartiya nari" Translation?
 * "she won a Filmfare Critics Award for Best Actress, and among several other nominations, received her first Best Actress nomination at the Filmfare." Erm... what?
 * The change doesn't help the problem. "she won a Filmfare Critics Award for Best Actress, and received her first Best Actress nomination at the same ceremony." Wouldn't it be easier to simply say this: "she won her first Filmfare Critics Award for Best Actress" ? Why would you bother mentioning the nomination after already stating that she had won?
 * If you click on the provided links, you will see that they are two separate award categories. BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  18:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Critics award for Best Actress and the Best Actress award are two separate categories. Smarojit (talk) 05:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "While Khalid Mohamed described her performance as..." The use of "while" in this manner will most likely be interpreted as an attempt to set up a contrast. However, the rest of the sentence does not actually provide any contrasts, as all of the critiques presented are positive.
 * Done - The grammatical mistakes and wordings have been corrected. Smarojit (talk) 13:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "Mukerji also feels strongly for causes that affect women" This is another non-verifiable statement. We can only report how she has said to have felt, not how she actually felt. Also, can you give an example of such a cause that she has been involved with?
 * The third paragraph of Philanthropy and stage performances doesn't explain what kind of stage performances she was involved with. I'm particularly confused by Magnificent Five and Temptations 2004. Are these concerts? Musical theater? Reenactments of scenes from their films?
 * Done - Changed. Included her participation in a charity auction for a women-related cause. Smarojit (talk) 05:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * All of the prose is covered by inline citations, and the references used appear to sufficiently reliable. However, the Filmography section does not have references of any kind.
 * "...the first actress to win two major awards in the same year" This phrase, taken from the lead, is not the same as this phrase, taken from the body: "She eventually became the first actor to have received both the Filmfare awards for Best Actress and Best Supporting Actress in the same year." The second phrase is much more specific and verifiable, and it does not imply that the first is also true.
 * Done - Removed the first phrase from the lead. Smarojit (talk) 13:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Early life needs to state where and when she was born.
 * I don't see why the following statement is necessary: "As part of a tradition, the Mukherjee family celebrates the festival of Durga Puja at Santacruz, Mumbai every year. Mukerji, being a religious person, takes part in the festivities with her entire family."
 * Did she graduate from Mithibai College? If so, when?
 * Comment - I couldn't find the year in which she graduated, but according to a source she graduated from SNDT Women's University in Home Science. So I included that. Also, I feel that the quote "As part of a tradition, the Mukherjee family celebrates the festival of Durga Puja at Santacruz, Mumbai every year. Mukerji, being a religious person, takes part in the festivities with her entire family." is quite necessary. It shows her religious affiliations as well as the fact that she is close to her family. Smarojit (talk) 13:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "Mukerji has three homes in Mumbai, including her childhood home. She bought a bungalow in Juhu for herself and her parents in mid-2005. The house went through a two year renovation with the interiors done by Twinkle Khanna and Sussanne Roshan." This was taken from the In the media section, where I strongly feel that it does not belong. How does this relate to the media?
 * Comment - Changed the name of the section to "Personal life and media image". Smarojit (talk) 05:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I am of the opinion that work needs to be on the section itself, not its title. It reads like a collection of unrelated tidbits that didn't fit anywhere else, almost like a Trivia section. Look at the material about her voice (starting with "Mukerji's distinctive features include..."). I don't see how this relates to her personal life or her media image. I strongly suggest that you make a firm decision as to what material will be presented in this section; anything that doesn't fit with that decision should be deleted or moved to another section. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Removed the "trivia" information regarding her bungalow. Also, shifted the information about her voice texture to the career section. Smarojit (talk) 04:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * The lead seems to have been written with the intent of convincing the reader that Rani is the best actress in the world. It goes on and on about her accomplishments without explaining much else. "success" appears 3 times in the lead, and "award" appears 8 times. How has her acting style been described? What types of roles is she known for playing? What directors has she worked with? What philanthropic/charitable efforts has she been involved in? The goal of the lead is not to put the subject on a pedestal, but instead to summarize all of the major ideas that are presented.
 * A similar problem exists with the quotes that are used in the article. I see only two quotes which describe Rani's performances negatively, and one of those puts the blame on the script itself rather than the actress. If the article is going to rely on quotations to characterize the subject (which is fine for this sort of article), it needs to do so in a balanced way.
 * Comment - I have changed the lead to make it more neutral. As for the quotes in the prose section, I have added a negative mention of her performance in Dil Bole Hadippa. I must add that none of her performances since 2002 has really been given a "negative review". What was criticized were her choice of films and the characters she played, which I have included in detail. Smarojit (talk) 13:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Some content was recently added by User:Anshulksingh and then reverted by User:Smarojit. If that's the end of it, then it won't be a problem; if the former attempts to add the content again, then it will be a problem.
 * Article is stable.
 * 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):
 * The images used give a clear illustration of the subject. Image licenses look unproblematic. Captions, after some minor editing, are unproblematic.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * As it currently stands, the article does meet the GA criteria. However, the issues are easily fixed, so I will place the nomination on hold for a week.
 * I hereby pass this article.

Comment: Why does the filmography need references, and how many? All of the film articles are linked, and there are reference about many of them in the text sections. I have never seen a filmography loaded with sources for released films. BollyJeff &#124;  talk  12:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * After re-reading the GA criteria, I have decided to strike that comment. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: Nominators should not strike comments written by the reviewer, per WP:TALK: "Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it or someone acting at their explicit request." Instead, please leave a brief summary of what changes have been made to address the issue, or an argument as to why it is not an issue. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)