Template:Did you know nominations/Abhishek Bachchan filmography


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:54, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Abhishek Bachchan filmography

 * ... that in the film Paa ("Father"), actor Abhishek Bachchan portrays a father, while his real-life father, actor Amitabh Bachchan, plays the role of his 13-year-old son?
 * Reviewed: 2011 Helmand Province incident

5x expanded by Jim Carter (talk). Nominated by MelanieN (talk) at 16:58, 12 December 2014 (UTC).


 * Not only the prose 5x, but also the list (not counted in size) improved and increased greatly with references. Redtigerxyz Talk 13:59, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg Firstly, thanks for updating this article in terms of references and formatting the main table correctly. However my concern is that the lead is not WP:LEAD compliant. I appreciate that the 5x prose expansion limit is frustrating but the lead currently has 11 paragraphs and has 1304 words which is overly long. A conventional lead would have no more than 4 paragraphs and should act as a summary so would be much shorter. It also suffers from quotefarming WP:QUOTEFARM. Refs need work as well for example: dnnworld, syvum, rani-mukherji.com, India Glitz, Bollyspice, Pardaphash don't sound like WP:RS. After the lead is cut however I'm sorry to say that it will probably no longer be eligible for DYK as it's unlikely to be 5x expansion as the article was 1168 characters and 191 words before. Cowlibob (talk) 14:42, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. However, I think you may be misapplying WP:LEAD. WP:LEAD is for regular prose articles, where the lead is for summarizing and the body of the material is in the text. But this is a list-type article, so the standard is WP:Manual of Style/Lists. A list has a prose introduction, rather than a lead section, and there does not appear to be a limit to the size of that introduction. In featured lists, which are supposed to be examples of the very best lists we have, the introduction is often as long or longer as in this submission. See for example the featured lists Aamir Khan filmography and Shah Rukh Khan filmography. This article was modeled on featured lists like those. See also Featured list criteria. --MelanieN (talk) 15:28, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, Cowlibob, I think you are involved in FL creations. But this is not FLC. And I think the article passes the basic criterias. According to WP:DYK "Articles must meet the basic criteria set out on this page but do not have to be of very high quality. It is fine for articles to be incomplete (though not unfinished), to have red links, to be capable of being expanded or improved further, and so on. " DYK is not FL. Please don't judge the article with your personal criteria. Yes, I will go ahead and improve it further so that it can meet FL standards but right now it doesn't need to be perfect.   Jim Carter (from public cyber)  17:17, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I did look at those as well. Aamir Khan clocks in at 801 words, Shah Rukh Khan's one is 597 words. To my knowledge, none of the filmography FLs or other regular lists have as high word count as this lead and non have more than four paragraphs. They both have led more extensive careers than Abhishek Bachchan so it isn't unreasonable for his film career to be summarised with a shorter lead. The lead is my main concern as the prose shouldn't be overly expanded just to fulfil an arbitrary DYK requirement. (I'm sorry that the previous version had so much prose leading to this difficulty which I've met as well). Very high quality is not what is being asked and the above is not a FLC review. Cowlibob (talk) 17:50, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I will repeat: Please don't judge the article by your personal opinion. You have to judge the article on the basis of the criteria mentioned here. Not by your personal opinion about how the article should look. If you think that you can review this nomination based on the criteria created by the community then you are welcome. If you can't then I'm afraid I have to ask someone else to review it based on the original standards. And BTW Shahrukh Khan filmography and Aamir Khan filmography are better than this article, they are FL. So, it is reasonable that they are good. But DYK ≠ FLC so I don't think that prose size and things you have asked is related to this particular process. Thank you for understanding   Jim Carter (from public cyber)  18:20, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

where do we stand on this nomination? You have raised questions, but it's not clear what the author is supposed to do to meet your objections. Are you denying this nomination - and if so, which DYK criteria does it fail? I'm familiar with the standard DYK criteria as well as the supplementary DYK criteria, and I don't see where this article falls short. Or are you neither denying nor approving but simply unhappy with the article, so that we should seek another reviewer for a definitive decision? Thanks! --MelanieN (talk) 17:22, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New review requested. I raised an issue about the lead being overly long at 1,300 words and 11 paragraphs (as an attempt to fulfil the 5x expanded criteria) and the overuse of quotes however shortening this to a reasonable lead it would likely fail the DYK criteria of 5x. A new reviewer would probably be best at this stage. Cowlibob (talk) 17:34, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your prompt reply - and for your attention to this article! --MelanieN (talk) 17:41, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg As Cowlibob pointed out, the text does appear quite long for a filmography. However, the text is basically a summary of Bachchan's roles in the films, which is relatively focused, and I don't see much superfluous information that can be easily removed. I agree with MelanieN that there's no DYK rule (or WP Film, for that matter) against a long text summary for a filmography. My main suggestion to the author is to use some of the text and references to improve the career section of the Abhishek Bachchan article, which is largely unreferenced, but that's not a requirement for DYK. As for the DYK criteria, the article is long enough (5x expansion after discounting the quotes), new enough, neutral, and well referenced. Hook is verified with inline reference. No copyvio detected. QPQ is done. Good to go. -Zanhe (talk) 08:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)