User talk:BOLLYWOOD DREAMZ/Archive 14

Kareena FAC
The major thing I noticed was the WP:OVERLINK of publishers and work parameters and that File:Saif-Kareena ramp walk.jpg is missing an OTRS. It will be tagged for deletion soon. Also, to be frank you don't need to add publishers which are pretty well known line The Times Group, HT Media, BBC Online etc. One of the things they frowned at the Madonna FAC. Will look after later, as terribly busy now. Some of the images are missing alternate texts. there are disambiguation links and there are dead link. --Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 05:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I remember that I told you to always add the publishers, but not overlink them. LOL. The publishers like The Times Group, Ananda Publishers, HT Media, Time Inc., BBC Online are quite common and you frankly don't need them. As for the alternate text, lets see when I get time. There is another pic (Randhir Kapoor wala) jisme OTRS chahiye. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 06:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there something wrong with the Saif Kareena image? It appears stretched wrongly. Also, you need to crop the File:Saif-Kareena ramp walk.jpg image as FAC doesnot accept images with watermarks on it. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 06:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I had thought it FA standard long ago. Not sure what I can do with it. The article has been edited so much....!!! Best of luck with the FAC. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 08:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Just give me a few days. I promise you that within a few days I'll leave my comments. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  16:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for your kind words, I appreciate that my work is being recognized. Yeah, I can do a copy-edit, though, don't expect a miracle from my part, I'm not good with them, let me know when I can do it, as I see that you've contacted other users. This is so that I don't clash with someone else while they do the copy-edit. -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  19:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't do it today, I'm not feeling that well, but I can surely do it tomorrow, is that alright? If not, I can do a couple of sections, but that's it, you know. I'm very happy to help out, God knows I'm grateful to those who helped me with my four FAs. -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  19:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

You have certainly put in a great deal of time to the article. I'm not the best expert when it comes to actor FACs but I would say that it reads relatively well. There were a few clunky sentences here and there, odd use of the passive voice, and so forth. I would recommend that you carefully think through the construction of sentences in the introduction - read them outloud if you have to in order to make certain that they are structured the way that you would like them to be. I would also try this technique throughout the article. Otherwise, I think you are ready for FAC. -Classicfilms (talk) 03:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm feeling much better today, I was kinda out of it yesterday, and I'll do the the copy-edit today, like I promised. Now, do I do it in your sandbox or the article? -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  17:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Cool, cool, I was wondering if it was the sandbox or the article, but I needed to know. Yeah, yeah I know, I gotta tell him after I'm done. Alright, I'm gonna start on it. -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  17:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm done. Now, this is what I came across with; there's too much of "Kapoor starred alongside in...", just have this with certain films, not all of them, you know. Now, the lead gives away too much about her career; you need just a summary of the article so that when your reader reads it he/she can get interested in reading ahead. Now, the bit about her relationship with Khan kinda needs to be written in an encyclopedic way. Just say that her relationship with him has garnered media attention, you know. Saying that a supposed wedding between the two might happen is speculation, and not appropriate in the lead, that's my opinion on this. Overall, you did good with the article. Excellent work. :) -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  18:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for my late reply, I'm kinda working on an article. You're welcome for the copy-edit, though, I didn't do much as everything made sense to me and stuff. Yeah, that bit from the lead does make sense, but in Maggie Gyllenhaal's FAC I was told not to give bits away in the lead, but just summarize the article, and that's what I've been doing with all the articles I've contributed on. Like I said, or I didn't, that was one thing that stood to me. You have a better chance listening to others, who are FA experts. Keep the info., and see what others say about that, I don't want to be responsible for messing up your article. -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  01:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I started copyediting. The article is not very ready yet. What about your draft version? Shahid •  Talk 2 me  07:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * What exactly sounded weird? Tell me so that I'll explain. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  07:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

More points on Kareena FAC
Now comes the major problem of the language in the FAC. I must say, now that the nitty gritty of the MOS things are gone, the language seems to be in dire need of copyedit. They will burn this at FAC if nominated. Here are my observations, just looking at the lead. I will look into the other sections later. Another thing that bugs me a lot about this article is that there is no "Influences" section and the amount of information present "In the media" section can easily be broken up to form the said section. There are instances of the commentary being present, like her relationship with her father, sister&mdash;which influenced her. Then there's reading books etc. A major point I found illiogical was the presence of the section "Stage performances" as a separate section. Why? Being an actress is being a performer, and any stage appearances come as a part of her career and her work.
 * 1) "and has been highly regarded for her performances" &mdash; too peacocky.
 * 2) There is too much of Filmfare Award information in the LEAD.
 * 3) "However, she did not make her acting debut until the 2000 film Refugee, which earned her the Filmfare Award for Best Female Debut." &mdash; a fine example of unnecessary information. Can simply be rephrased by joining with previous sentence as "but did not make her acting debut untill the 2000 film Refugee."
 * 4) "Her melodrama Kabhi Khushi Kabhie Gham... &mdash; Again, what?
 * 5) "After receiving negative reviews for a series of repetitive roles between 2002 and 2003, Kapoor accepted more demanding parts in order to avoid being typecast, and was consequently recognized by critics for displaying greater versatility as an actress.[9][10][11] Her portrayal of a sex worker in Chameli (2004) proved to be the turning point in her career and garnered her the Filmfare Special Performance Award.[12] She subsequently received two Critics Awards for Best Actress for her performances in the critically acclaimed Dev (2004) and Omkara (2006)." &mdash; Screams WP:UNDUE. You are taking WP:LEAD to be literally and making a point to point synopsis, rather than an overall synopsis.
 * 6) In 2007.... &mdash; Again, the same thing.
 * 7) "Her off-screen life is subject to wide media coverage in India with frequent press coverage of her and boyfriend, actor Saif Ali Khan" &mdash; Repeatition of coverage so frequently? I saw such instances in the article body also. You can rephrase such sentences like "Her off-screen life is the subject of wide media coverage in India, including her relationship with actor Saif Ali Khan."
 * 8) "she is of Punjabi Khatri descent on her father's side,[15] and on her mother's side she is Sindhi.[16] &mdash; descent from her father's side.
 * 9) "This led to conflict between her parents" &mdash; Possibly a missing a somewhere? I remember Babita leaving the family after a single instance of such conflict.
 * 10) "Following her parents' reconciliation in 2007,[20] Kapoor explained that they "were never officially divorced ... [but] ... liv[ed] separately."[21] Asked about the relationship she shared with her father, Kapoor remarked, "My father is ... an important factor in my life. [Al]though we did not see him often in our initial years, we are a family now."[21]" &mdash; This whole block appears weird, what were the reasons for her parents' reconciliation? Missing points such as will raise questions.
 * 11) "Upon graduating from the boarding school" &mdash; no need to wikilink boarding school, average reader knows what it is.
 * 12) "After completing one year at Churchgate, however, Kapoor realized that she was not inclined towards academics and returned to her initial plan to become an actress" &mdash; wrong construction, rephrase as "But after completing one year at Churchgate, Kapoor realized that she was not inclined towards academics and returned to her initial plan to become an actress."
 * 13) "Her debut performance " &mdash; We already know its her debut performance, unnecessary.
 * 14) IndiaFM, is an online source and should not be italicized, also correct the internal redirect.
 * 15) "fifth-highest-grossing" &mdash; "fifth highest-grossing"
 * 16) "Kapoor's performance earned her the Filmfare Award for Best Female Debut." &mdash; No source
 * 17) In 2001.... &mdash; this section doesnot flow well, its just a list of the films she starred and ends abruptly with Ajnabee. Come to think of it, wasn't there reports of a set squabble between her and Bipasha? There were enough third party notability for it to be included.
 * 18) "While the film received generally positive reviews, Kapoor's performance received mixed reaction from some critics" &mdash; if you say that she is receiving mixed reaction, you need to balance the supporting reviews. Here you have a negative review, but you need to balance it with a positive one too.
 * 19) "Kapoor's performance as "Poo", a good-natured but superficial girl, was described as "one of the main ... highlights of the film",[32] and her portrayal earned her a Filmfare Best Supporting Actress nomination" &mdash; Again, a mixed reaction is ensured here. I distinctly remember many critics condemning her irritating acting in it. Also, the filmfare award is unsourced again.

Also, check MOS:IMAGES, the Saifeena image should be "left". More points to come later. --Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 05:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * FYI, avoid using terminology like "As of July 2010,..." as this gives a WP:RECENTISM like feel, frowned upon by FAC gods. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 12:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Kareena Kapoor copyedit
Hi, I will be working on the Kareena Kapoor's article in your sandbox this weekend. I need a favour. Can you please put in an official request here? I am participating in a copyedit drive and I want my work on this article to be credited. Thanks in advance. - S Masters (talk) 02:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello, just wondering that now the PR has been completed, are you ready to take it to FAC? - S Masters (talk) 06:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Good good good!
That's the right way. I'll make my comments as well. Shahid •  Talk 2 me  21:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Friendly notice.
Before I even start commenting on the article, there's something very important I have to say. The page is 83 kilobytes long (!) - it will never pass FA in this condition. Remove all possible redundancies. 140 references, that's one giant piece. She is all over the media, she's making films every month - too much is there and it will have to be updated and updated. She's been acting for only 10 years. My personal favourite FA is only 69 kilobytes long about an actor who had a career of 60 years. Shahid •  Talk 2 me  17:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Some examples of redundancies are the very unnecessary quotes you see there. Her entry into the industry. Her description of Kurbaan which is extremely self-praising. The last paragraph of "In the media" gave me a great headache. The tac paying is so damn unnecessary! There must be a way to rewrite. There must be a way to remove some unnecessary references. Opinions? Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  18:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't get nervous. Step by step. I already stated that no need to mention both publishers and works in references. To say just The Times of India is more than good. I'm thinking of other ways to do it. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  17:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, please try to find another image of JWM. Show the image you found to me and together which one will better replace the current one, which is not very expressive. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  17:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Buddy, it never harms, but it's just not necessary. It's a headache! Noone forces you to do this. Most FAs don't use this. Use only publisher. If it's a newspaper, italicise it. That's all.
 * As for images, as of now leave the one that's there, but give me net links to the best images you can find for JWM. The more the better. The currect one is useless and uninteresting. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  17:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The third and the fourth look just great. They show the bubbliness we alwats struggle to describe. The third one is particularly good as we see a close shot of her face and she has a very naughty expression of liveliness and joy. I want MORE though. :) Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  17:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What's wrong? Well... It's... just another image. We can't identify her film's character's persona in this image. Her face is not very well seen, we can't identify the nature of the film. We need something that will really explain her role and why this role of hers is so famous and appreciated. I'll look for some more. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  17:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Give me a few hours and I'll tell which one according to me best suits the article. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  17:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This is according to me the best. She is such a cutie in this one! Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  17:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess so, but her face is not very clearly seen. The one I chose still has a very close shot of her face, which has a mix of many emotions. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  09:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

That actually why I asked you to find a better one for JWM. The image must be more expressive. Shahid •  Talk 2 me  18:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Kumar
Hi, oif you lik ethe pending changes protection at the other article do you think it would be beneficial in helping keep rubbish out of the Kumar BLP? Off2riorob (talk) 17:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

((done)) provisionally one month and if it works out, just ask for extension if required. Off2riorob (talk) 18:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Ranbir + Kareena
Hey man, I'm just trying to put in background information of actors according to the rules of wikipedia. I see that all major actors have their backgrounds posted without even sources sometimes. I'm trying to do it within the rules. Wikipedia's rules dictate that any relevant claims with sources are completely allowed. I apologize if I might be frustrating you with my persistence, but please try and understand what I'm trying to do and appreciate that I'm trying to do it within the rules. Thanks rahul, Incognito222 (talk) 19:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC) (UTC)


 * Reply: I just want to show the their origins are 'Hindu' and 'Pathan'. Almost all actors have their origin such as 'punjabi' or 'gujarati' cited; they also have the type of religion their family was born in.

I think it is fair to indicate that kareena and ranbir originate from 'hindu' and 'pathan' backgrounds. How do you propose I add that in? Also, thanks for being friendly, I really appreciate it. Incognito222 (talk) 19:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah kareena does have that cited, however I want to convey that her far background is pathan and that she originates from a hindu family. I want to do the same for ranbir. And since you are don't support how I added that in succinctly, can you please show me how I can alternatively indicate on kareena and ranbir's early life that they are of 'hindu' and 'pathan' background?

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Incognito222 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, I agree you don't need any more ethnical detail to kareena's early life. That is resolved. However, I want to indicate she is from a hindu background then. What do you suggest I do?


 * And as for ranbir, he has no ethnical or religious background cited. I feel that I should add his origin is Hindu and Pathan in there then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Incognito222 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks bollywooddreamz! I request you make additions in the same format as they are to other major actors (Aamir Khan, shahrukh khan, saif ali khan, etc). As in, the first sentence starts off very cleanly with the religion and ethinicity stated of the actors (eg. "Khan was born in 1965 to Muslim[6] parents of Pathan descent in New Delhi, India") Thanks again. Incognito222 (talk) 14:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey bollywooddreamz, it's been a week and I still don't see the 'hindu pathan' background indicated in ranbir or kareena. I think you're probably really busy. Should I just add it in as succinctly as possible, or are you still thinking about doing it? Thanks man.Incognito222 (talk) 01:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Why would you do this? We established mutually that it is appropriate we indicate their backgrounds just as every other actor has theirs indicated on their page. You kept deleting my additions so I was reasonable and polite enough to explain to you why I felt we should add it in, then you agreed with me. Why would you just completely change after agreeing already?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Incognito222 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello
You have an email Mr. Dreamz. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 09:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Responded back Dr. Blofeld :) --  Bollywood Dreamz  talk 04:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

TZP is being developed
Hey there, Taare Zameen Par is being developed (the title was reverted back after a community vote, which was fine with me -- my issue was compliance with WP naming rules) - with the future goal of going for an FAC. Take a look if you have time, or if you can think of other editors who might be interested in working on it, perhaps you can spread the word. -Classicfilms (talk) 17:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look at it when I have the time. :) --  Bollywood Dreamz  talk 04:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks! -Classicfilms (talk) 13:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Not yet
No, not yet Rahul. Please wait with the PR, don't let it be closed until more opinions are given. Secondly, three weeks? You gotta be kidding. 3 weeks is not enough, just not enough. I'll need to explain via e-mail because it's something I haven't told you as of yet. I'll do it tomorrow. Shahid •  Talk 2 me  20:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You've got mail. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  09:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Taare Zameen Par
Hello. Classicfilms and I recently overhauled the article for Taare Zameen Par. He mentioned that you were a friend and were in the Indian Cinema wikiproject, so I was wondering if you wouldn't mind taking a look at the article for any concerns or possibilities of improvement? Thanks. Ω pho  is  04:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Most definitely. I'll take a look at it when I have the time. :) --  Bollywood Dreamz  talk 16:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

best actress awards
Kajol and Ash won awards prior to 2001, ya know. You need to show more than one of those small boxes. BollyJeff ||  talk  17:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

help me
Sir,tell me how can we take permission from Bollywoohungama to use an image on wikipedia article(Ajay Devgn) or help me to upload this image to wikipedia.

Ajaysandy ||  talk 23:31 21 july,2010 (UTC)
 * IMO, the image currently being used in the actor's article is better than the one you want to upload. Do you still want me to upload it though? If so, let me know and I will help you out :) --  Bollywood Dreamz  talk 23:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes
Yes sir,i still. Please upload it as soon as possible.

Ajaysandy ||  talk 08:52 23 july,2010 (UTC)
 * I'm kinda busy at the moment but I'll upload it as soon as I get the time. --  Bollywood Dreamz  talk 17:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

IIFA
There's another problem with IIFa which I was thinking about but I'll let you know later. Good move as of now. Shahid •  Talk 2 me  15:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey pal, I still have not seen it. I didn't really like Stepmom, but I'll see this one for Kajol and Kareena. I am a bit mad because I don't like remakes, and if you already remake something, then why this? But anyway, when are you going to watch it? Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  17:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Definitely, it's taken too long, and we'll have to do it soon, but before that I would like to start a discussion at some noticeboard which will make clear that only these awards could be added (also, say, BFJA). It would be terrible if we had to start reverting everyone who would add some Rediff and Bollywood Hungama award! Do you get the point? Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  18:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Apsara is one of the most confusing and inconsistent functions out there. Very unorganised. They honour actors every two three years and leave us to figure what is what. Zee Cine Awards have probably retired as well but they were at least consistent when active. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  19:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * First of all, hi! Secondly, I plan to do it when you are here so that we all can take part in it. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  21:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Will you be here tomorrow? Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  21:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

STOP IT! STOP YOUR POV!!!. LOL, remember Sarvagnya Mr. Dreamz? Howz uni? Still working at the Big M? What happened to the Kapoor FA?♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I miss speaking to you and Shahid.♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I miss Pa7 too. She was lovely.♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I told you already! :) - I wanna start a discussion about awards. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  15:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Sanam Teri Kasam (2009 film)
You removed Sanam Teri Kasam from Saif's page with a WTH comment. Is it not real? I saw an article on it, and a mention in IMDB here: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0205380/ BollyJeff  ||  talk  12:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey... you are right. Sorry, I will revert my addition :) --  Bollywood Dreamz  talk 03:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)