Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Aitraaz/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 10:49, 28 January 2017.

Aitraaz

 * Nominator(s): Krish  |  Talk  20:52, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

This article is about a film which features Priyanka Chopra's first brilliant performance. A highly entertaining film, which was noted for its bold subject of Sexual harassment, a first for Bollywood. This is my first solo FAC and I am looking forward to lots of constructive comments. Krish |  Talk  20:52, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Kailash
If I have any comments I'll post here, but I'll take care of any c/e related material. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

* As per WP:LEADCITE, there are no sources and that makes the lead section look clean. The same content in the lead section is sourced in the body of the article. * Any production details worth including in this section?
 * Lede
 * I am not sure what can be added. Krish  |  Talk  19:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

* the film received ten nominations at the 6th IIFA Awards, winning three - what were they? If they were technical categories you need not mention, but major ones (producing, directing, acting and writing) must be mentioned.
 * The film won in three technical categories, so. Krish |  Talk  20:58, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Production
 * I see that Abbas-Mustan are two people. Mention this, otherwise they'll be mistaken for one man with a double-barrelled name.
 * Change "action star" to "action hero".
 * According to Kumar, Raj is realistic and could be described as a "new-age metrosexual" man" - try to maintain one tense (past/present, whatever) throughout the sentence.
 * In an interview with Tribune India, Kapoor remarked that "every Indian woman could identify with her character" of Priya - but the original quote reads, "Indian women will identify with my character". We usually substitute quoted words with parentheses, e.g.: "This is my life" becomes "This is [his] life".
 * She said her character is extremely supportive of her husband; she stands by him, as any Indian woman would - again, try to maintain one tense throughout (preferably past tense).
 * Any info on when filming ended? Or what was the last scene filmed? If I can't find much info on a film's completion, I try to include info on its final length in feet (using info from the CBFC certificate).
 * Not a single source is present about the filming schedule, you know how Indian media works. Krish |  Talk  19:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No information is available about its length in feet or last day filming. Krish |  Talk  20:58, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


 * "steadycam" redirects to "Steadicam" which is a brand name and must be capitalised.

* There is overlinking here which must be dealt with. * The tracklist must be sourced, and the tracks must be arranged as they are in the source.
 * Soundtrack
 * I am not sure about the first note, since there are no sources about the discontinuation of that award. Filmfare doesn't even have its own award site. Krish |  Talk  19:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Although somewhat brief, I find this article very much FAC worthy as all the essential info is covered in detail. The references could be archived to avoid link rotting (using Checklinks, you could replace the links with their archives). Also, both the footnotes may require sources. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Final comments
 * Done. Krish  |  Talk  19:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

A techno-thriller is usually considered science fiction. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:30, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Removed that category and replaced sources with the archived ones. Krish |  Talk  20:58, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Support: Good work Krish. I hope this passes FAC. Kailash29792 (talk)  13:53, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * ...actually, no. After seeing Numerounovedant's comments (most of which I agree with), I see the article can be improved further. Once his comments are addressed, I'll reinstate my support for this FAC. Kailash29792 (talk)  11:32, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Now it is in much better shape, and it has my support. Kailash29792 (talk)  06:28, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Tintor2
The article is in really good shape but there are some minor flaws that kinda bother me: Other than that, I'll support. My concerns are minor. If you have free time could you take a look at my own FAC, Featured article candidates/Tidus/archive1? Good luck.Tintor2 (talk) 00:26, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Is it possible to add sales from the home media release of the film?
 * Same with cast. I know it's okay be unsourced, but did any of the actors said something that might fit there?
 * Well, DVD sales of Indian movies are not reported in the media. If you look at other Indian film FAs, they don't really include this information. Coming to your second point, well, there are few quotes about cast' respective characters in the "Production" section. Thanks for your response. Krish |  Talk  14:07, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Drive-by comment the fact the film resembles the plot of the film Disclosure should be noted in the article. They both feature a woman who, when refused sex, accuses her employee/colleague of sexual harassment. - FrB.TG (talk) 16:02, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing that out. Actually, I was having a discussion with Ssven2 on the same on my talk page. Initially I was apprehensive earlier but thanks, anyway. Krish |  Talk  17:39, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Yashthepunisher
Yashthepunisher (talk) 07:44, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not sure how 'Indiaglitz' is a RS to be used in a FA.
 * Same goes for 'Indya' and 'Planet Bollywood'.
 * Instead of writing "The BBC noted the film's bold theme", you can write its author's name with it.
 * Done: Replaced the first one with a Hindustan Times source. Indya was the official site of Star Network back then and Planet Bollywood source has been used in other FAs like Mother India. Krish  |  Talk  08:34, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Please confirm the point about 'Indya', also you can't rely on WP:OSE in a FAC. Yashthepunisher (talk) 08:14, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * "The film has been noted for its bold subject of sexual harassment, a first in Indian cinema." Any source for this? Yashthepunisher (talk) 08:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Done: Cited the last point, and removed "Indya" source. Krish |  Talk  11:49, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Support. Yashthepunisher (talk) 09:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. After reading the article last night, i found it comprehensive enough for a 2004 Indian film and am of the opinion that it meets the criteria after going through the resolved comments provided above by other reviewers. Regards, Pavanjandhyala (talk) 15:59, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Numerounovedant
Leaning Oppose
 * The prose quality is sub-par :
 * The phrase "According to the director" in close proximity in the first paragraph of the production section.
 * "film was scrrened"
 * "It also praised other aspects of the film, describing it as" - reference made to a person by "it"?
 * "originality in Bollywood" - odd choice of words
 * "and complimenting the directors' opting for "a theme that has been untouched on the Indian screen so far" and the film's "dramatic moments"" - no punctuation
 * "drew the hatred of the audience" - not sure if that's the best choice of words.
 * "Aitraaz made its Indian television premiere 30 October 2005"
 * "directors several hours to remind her she was only playing a character" - odd phrasing, why not simply say "to console her"
 * "found it challenging to play such an "extremely negative character"" - repetition of superlatives
 * "damage her career" - really strong implications considering that they are not in direct quotes, how could a role have damaged an entire career.
 * "About the film's unusual title" - quotes needed for "unusual", there is no other way of justifying the unusual nature other than a direct quote


 * You want me to add this "And what best pleased us is that when we went to register the name, it hadn't ever been used!"? Krish |  Talk  19:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Inconsistent punctuation throughout the article.

These comments aren't exhaustive, and I haven't even been through the plot section, and nit-picking is rather undesirable.
 * Tweaked most of the points. Krish |  Talk  19:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The production section is not at all comprehensive, not a single mention of the crew? The producers? The production and distribution house? (The article seems to mention distribution rights of the televised premiere, so why not here?) No details of the post production work. The filming schedule doesn't find any mention either. To me the whole section is cluttered with quotes, and has little substance.
 * Well the above reviewers have already said about this. It's very hard to find sources for old Indian movies. Indian media is more concerned about the gossip rather than the production news. Krish |  Talk  19:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This sections feels incomplete, even more so after the second time that I went through it. Most of the information in the info-box is not substantiated in the section. The mention of writers, cinematographer, film editors, and the corresponding refs are all missing. You can substantiate all of these using Bollywood Hungama. This would not only work in favour of the unsubstantiated claims, but also add to the weight if the section. Numerounovedant   Talk  05:03, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Added information about writers, cinematographer, film editors, and costume designers. I hope you are fine with it. Krish |  Talk  07:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You can still include the following details: 1. The action director for the film. 2. The Central Film Censor Board trouble that the film had. (Ref: here) 3. Interviews 1, 2, and 3 all talk about filming experiences of the three leads. See if you can find any noteworthy details there 4. Kumar also talks about the completion status of the film towards the end of his interview which would greatly help in putting up some sort of schedule onto the filming and production work. Also, the case of Kobe Bryant is identical to the film's plot, so I am not sure how the director duo explored the "reverse" side. I know that's what the reference says, but it does not make any sense, and should be removed. Numerounovedant   Talk  10:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sadly these sources have nothing regarding the production. I had seen all these sources earlier, infact some of them are used in the article. Thanks for your input though. Krish |  Talk  16:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well that's unfortunate, but you can still include the director of action and the censor board trouble. Aldo, do look into the Kobe Bryant issue. Good luck. Numerounovedant   Talk  06:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well considering this is not an action film, how action director is neccessary here? You should note that in Indian films, action directors are credited even if there is no use of them. Coming back to Bryant, I had already removed that line, in case you didn't saw the updated version of the article. I hope everything is fine. now. Krish |  Talk  10:18, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The reception section has major neutrality concerns. I don't see a single complete mixed/negative review. (I am certain that there are a several, atleast a couple already being used.) The reviews have been moulded rather inconspicuously to make them look more appreciative than they actually are. To cite an example, how does "good timepass" account for a positive review? Also, the rediff review is negative in general, it only acknowledges audience response, not creative quality. Kamanth criticised major parts of the film and not just the second half as is claimed. This section needs a thorough cleaning and check for neutrality issues.
 * Well these are the only notable reviews available. It would have been great if you had read the cited reviews. The "good timepass" review is only a four line review, Kamath's review is more like a gossip report and Reddif's review is, well, read it you will understand what I mean. Krish |  Talk  19:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I would like to offer a minor c.e. for the reception section, if that's alright with you. Numerounovedant   Talk  04:50, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure. Krish |  Talk  08:13, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I stand by the fact that the article is well short of FA standard. Numerounovedant  Talk  12:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Resolved all your points. Thanks. Krish |  Talk  07:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I have offered a copy-edit, but as Kailash rightly pointed out the opening argument remains rather unsubstantiated. Feel free to work around my changes, although I think the article carries more weight now with all the additions, and I can now offer Weak Support. Ping me after the source review, Good luck. Numerounovedant   Talk  11:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Image review from SNUGGUMS

 * File:Aitraaz.jpg has a generally appropriate fair-use rationale, though it would help to have a URL for where you got this image. Was it by any chance this?
 * Yes, but I've added a more credible source to the file.
 * Thank you for that :) Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how File:Aitraaz cast.jpg is free under creative commons. Either way, it would be nice to include a location in its caption.
 * Done: Krish (seemingly) forgot to add to the licensing section of the file, but I've done it.
 * Let me know when it's been reviewed (whether approved or rejected), and its caption still could use detail on where the image took place Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I might come back to review other aspects later on. Snuggums (talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 04:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * File:Priyanka nikon camera.jpg is perfectly fine to use.
 * , did you still want to add something? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Definitely still would like a confirmation whether the File:Aitraaz cast.jpg is properly licensed. As for other aspects, I would like to see a budget figure (it's otherwise hard to determine whether the earnings made it a financial success), and the cast list needs to be sourced (WP:FILMCAST doesn't provide exemptions for such sections). Looking through this, it doesn't support the assertion that "Aitraaz received generally positive reviews from critics, who praised its direction, music and performances, particularly Chopra's." <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 00:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Isn't the "particular praise for Chopra" verified by the the following reviews? Same for "Aitraaz received generally positive reviews from critics, who praised its direction, music and performances." And, in case you don't know the BOI source credits the film as a success and do you think the budget of a 2004 film can be found? The media don't even properly cover the production details now, it was worse back then. Krish  |  Talk  06:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Regarding reviews, see WP:SYNTH; we can't form a conclusion solely based on several samples. I mention budget because it is a major component of films as it shows how much was invested and whether this was a financial loss. In other words, a film is financially successful when it grosses the total of its budget or higher, and is a financial failure when its earnings total up to less than the budget's worth. It might take some searching, but I've definitely seen budget figures before for films that came out prior to the 21st century, so finding something for a 2004 film isn't entirely out of the question. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 06:53, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Added the budget, cited the cast list by the Box Office India source and provided sources for the review conclusion and "particular praise". I hope everything is fine now. Krish |  Talk  08:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

In that case, I support as soon as the image I mentioned before passes its review. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 15:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The image has passed its review. Krish |  Talk  20:51, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Very good :). I can now more officially give my full support. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 21:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The picture has been nominated for deletion so I had to remove from the article. Hope the article is fine now. Krish |  Talk  05:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Ssven2

 * I feel you should remove Taran Adarsh's review of the film as he has been suspected of getting paid for his reviews. —  Ssven2  Looking at you, kid 06:58, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * While I don't deny your point of view, declaring a source unreliable based on your own thoughts and without presenting conclusive evidence is like gaming the system. Even if Adarsh's review were to be removed, I think it could still be used to source the characters to comply with WP:FILMCAST. Kailash29792 (talk)  07:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That's good. —  Ssven2  Looking at you, kid 08:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the review is fine. Plus, there is no evidence of him getting paid. If you ask me I would say majority of Indian publications write paid reviews, so it is impossible to remove every review. Krish |  Talk  16:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

That's about it from me. Otherwise, the article looks good. You have my support. — Ssven2  Looking at you, kid 06:27, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Source review

 * No dead links. That's good.
 * Ref no. 28. — Couldn't you find a better source than "Indian Television"?
 * "Indian Television" is a very reliable source. In case you don't know, Indian Telly Awards is presented by the same publication. Krish |  Talk  12:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, I didn't know that. Thanks for the information. —  Ssven2  Looking at you, kid 12:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Change the references with authors to "first, last" instead of comma — Example: "|author=Tuteja, Joginder" to "|last=Tuteja|first=Joginder".

Other than that, the sources are reliable to use. — Ssven2  Looking at you, kid 09:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. Krish |  Talk  12:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment/copyedit from Ian Rose
I was looking over this with my FAC coord hat on but felt that the prose needed more attention and decided to have a go myself -- given the extent of the resultant ce I think I'd best recuse from closing. As long as the nominator is fine with it I'm fairly happy with it now -- I don't know that I'll go so far as to support outright but prose-wise wouldn't have any serious objection to promotion. One thing though, re. the film's "unusual title", is there nothing that actually explains what the word means; did I miss something there? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the copy-editing. Well there is not much about the film's "unusual title" in the cited source. I think the interviewer was trying to ask the significance of the name. Krish |  Talk  15:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Mmm, bit frustrating because I think it's probably a good idea to say what you can about the title, but it still leaves us hanging as to its actual meaning. Well, you can only go by the sources so, fair enough, just leave as is until/unless a reliable source does explain it... Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:57, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Closing note: I think we have a consensus to promote, even if a few reservations remain here and there. If there are a few remaining prose issues, I would encourage the nominator to work on them after promotion on the article talk page. There is nothing glaring enough to delay promotion, I don't think. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:49, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Sarastro1 (talk) 10:49, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.