Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Priyanka Chopra/archive2


 * 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 not promoted by User:GrahamColm 10:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC).

Priyanka Chopra

 * Nominator(s): ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  10:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC), User:Prashant!, User:Bollyjeff

I am nominating this for featured article because it has been thoroughly researched and I believe it is a comprehensive and well-written account of the career of an Indian actress. In my opinion it is far more difficult writing about the career of an Indian actress than somebody in the western world because of the quality of film reviews and sources but I think this does a good job and picks the best sources we have available. The statistics indicate that it is within the top 750 most popular articles on English wikipedia. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  10:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. Extremely important actress in India and increasingly in the rest of the world. The article seems to be well written and up to date.Ipigott (talk) 15:03, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments from SchroCat:

Early life and background
 * "Among the schools she attended are La Martiniere Girls' School in Lucknow[9] and St. Maria Goretti College in Bareilly.[10][11]" Apart from the tense, do we need to know the names of these two schools? I presume she attended a number of others too, but are these particularly notable—either generally, or for Chopra in particular?
 * Yes, these schools are very much notable. Not particularly for Chopra.— Prashant  10:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why the Prakash Jaju information and court case is in this section, when the chronology jumps back to 2002 in the next section.
 * Moved to "In The Media" section.— Prashant  10:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Early success and setbacks
 * "an item girl": I'm struggling to think what this could mean: perhaps a definition or explanation of what an "item girl" is?
 * Linked to the article "Item number".— Prashant  10:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * "signifying a flailing career": two films signal a flailing career? It's a bit of a leap, unless you attribute the phrase—or at least the sentiment—to someone (Joginder Tuteja, for example), or remove that part and beef up the sentiment at the end of the following paragraph, when it's six poor films on the trot?
 * Removed that line.— Prashant  10:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Done down to the end of Recent work: more to follow. - SchroCat (talk) 09:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Further comments

Television and stage performances
 * "in a Durban, South Africa concert celebrating": feels a bit clunky. Perhaps "In 2011 Chopra participated (with Shahid Kapoor and Shahrukh Khan) in a concert in Durban, South Africa celebrating 150 years of India–South Africa friendship"?

Filmography
 * The Notes in the table should be unsortable—sorting has no benefits for open text

Footnotes:
 * FN56, 76 & 119: you can lose the shouty caps for consistency
 * FNs 68 & 74 both show an equals sign after Rediff.com

I'm inclined to agree with Tim riley's comments below, that this is slightly over-detailed, but that is what its readership will be looking for, and if we don't serve the readers (within reason) then there is no point being here. Good work done by all and only a few comments to pick up on here before I move to a support. - SchroCat (talk) 11:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I addressed all of the further comments, although I fail to see the issue with sorting the notes. On the plus side, it can allow one to count up the number of awards, special appearances, etc., and I cannot see any downside BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  14:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Support. Thanks for doing the above. In terms of the notes field, it's because there is no consistency in the information provided; in other words, the fields hold a number of different bits of information: awards, language of film, special appearances etc, all of which have no connection to each other, so its pointless and unnecessary to sort. - SchroCat (talk) 14:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time Schrod and Tim and leaving your comments.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  16:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Mild support – this is a very long article, and contains more incidental detail than I consider ideal (e.g. I don't care what her pet dog is called) but giving due consideration to the article's probable audience I think the length is all right. Film fans seem insatiable in their desire for detail. There is no bias that I could see and the prose is fine give or take a few unfamiliar phrases that I take to be technical terms (e.g. the "item girl" mentioned by SchroCat, above). The referencing is thorough and from a multiplicity of sources, which look authoritative enough, though a check wouldn't go amiss. I make no comment on the images (not my area of expertise). A few small drafting points:
 * In the media
 * "pay him 10 percent" – the article seems on the whole to be written in UK English, in which case (see MoS) you want "per cent" rather than "percent".
 * Fixed.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  12:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Debut and breakthrough
 * "The Hindustran Times" – a publication for cross-dressers or a typo for "The Hindustan Times"?
 * Fixed.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  11:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

That's all from me. – Tim riley (talk) 11:03, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Critical acclaim
 * "The string of poorly received films" – hyphen wanted after "poorly"
 * "the film centers on" – sudden US spelling
 * Recent work
 * "medalist" – ditto
 * In the media
 * "Subhash K. Jha lebelled her" – either "libelled her" or "labelled her", I imagine
 * All points fixed as far as I can see.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  15:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, like the articles on Preity Zinta and Kareena Kapoor the main readers will be young Bollywood fans in India I think so having such details I think it quite necessary. I understand this sort of article isn't to everybody's taste, not mine usually either even though I've been involved in these articles, but articles on Indian actresses are rather different and more "commercial" than even articles on American and British actresses if you know what I mean. My own impression is that Bollywood movie stars are treated more like a product than an actor, but that's my opinion, I'm not sure people would agree with me.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  11:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Jim I'm very busy at present. Generally looks sound, just some remarks on the lead to start with  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  10:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The lead does not fully reflect the body text. It is hagiographic and uncritical, apart from one mention of a "mixed reception", despite it being clear later that she has had other failures and criticism in her career. I have to say that the opening paragraph is the sort of thing that normally has me reaching for the "delete" tab.
 * Not sure exactly what you mean but we've said "subsequently earned wide critical recognition for the role of a seductress in the 2004 thriller Aitraaz" "chain of highly successful films" and "After a period with little acclaim, she was praised for her portrayal of unconventional characters". I think the intro would become too convoluted if we introduce too much criticism and success. Perhaps you could be more specific about what you'd like to be introduced?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  13:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm a little concerned that their are mos and grammar errors even in the lead. Indian Army should be capped, Army Public School should be linked at the first occurrence, and Miss World should only be linked once
 * Thanks for your input Jim. Done.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  10:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 *  into the Femina Miss India contest, in which she finished second and took the Femina Miss India World title. &mdash; I don't understand. Did she come second or first? Or are these two different contests, despite the similar names?
 * In Miss India contest, the contestant who comes first is crowned the Miss India Universe title, and is sent to Miss Universe contest. The person who comes second is titled Miss India World and is sent to Miss World contest. Chopra came second.--Dwaipayan (talk) 12:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * You don't need her name in the captions for the images where she is the only person. It's assumed that images are of the subject of the article unless otherwise stated. For example, the lead image should be just "At the 2012 Marrakech Film Festival". In fact you don't need her name in the other captions either, since it's pretty obvious it's her plus a male.
 * I think the convention on images for actors is to refer to them by surname at something. See other FAs like Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt, in fact most articles on actors do this.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  10:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Cassianto This will be a bit drawn out with a few comments at a time I'm afraid due to real life.
 * Early life and background
 * Why do we need to know of her father's death?
 * Her father was the most important person in her life, it would be like mentioning Reagan's death in Nancy Reagan's article (well, maybe not, but I think you know what I mean).♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  13:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * We are not to know that with the current version. I think the close relationship should be mentioned in that case and then his death date would look a lot less random. --   Cassianto Talk   12:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I moved it next to some contextual information. BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  15:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * "Among the schools she attended are..." -- "were" surely?
 * Well spotted, done!13:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * "Chopra was the only Indian in her class in the United States..." -- Redundency of "United States." We speak of this in the previous sentence.
 * Removed.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  13:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Debut and breakthrough (2002–04)[edit]
 * "...the role went to another actress." -- Do we know who?
 * Amisha Patel I think, Prashant may wish to confirm this.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  13:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that actress was Patel.— Prashant  14:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Did you add this? --  Cassianto Talk   12:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That was added. You can check.— Prashant 12:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Up to here, more to follow. --  Cassianto Talk   12:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, who are Rediff.com? Could we have a brief description of them as I had to click away to find out.
 * Did she just say "biggest" or did she use the whole sentence "biggest learning experience of her career."

Thanks Cass. Yes I know Rediff.com sounds like a lousy non RS. I thought that once, but it is actually one of the leading film websites for Indian film and widely accepted in articles on here as a decent source and the critics are on par with those for major newspapers like The Hindu and Hindustan Times. I'm not sure a summary of them is needed, most Indian readers would know, I've said Indian news and entertainment portal Rediff.com to introduce it for non Indian readers, that should suffice.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  12:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Cheers Doc, yes I didn't see that. --  Cassianto Talk   12:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Cassianto continuing...
 * "... spending a day in the hospital in recovery." -- Repetition of "in" and redundency of "the": suggest -- "spending a day recovering in hospital."
 * "Chopra's performance received mixed reviews, Taran Adarsh describing it as "mechanical". -- "Chopra's performance received mixed reviews, with Taran Adarsh describing it as "mechanical".
 * "Chopra played independent working woman Simran Saxena (Bachchan's love interest) in the film." -- Redundency of "in the film".
 * "After special appearances in three films..." -- Are these the films we have just mentioned, or were there a further three films?
 * I have addressed all the issues. No, those three films are are not mentioned.— Prashant 11:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Then I would say "further three films" just to separate them. --  Cassianto Talk   12:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Critical acclaim (2008–11)
 * "...followed the lives (and career ups and downs) of... ." -- "...followed the lives and careers of... ." I think all lives and careers have ups and downs.
 * "Chopra's performance and appearance in the film were praised." -- performance and appearance are one of the same aren't they?
 * Tweaked.— Prashant 11:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Recent work (2012–present)
 * I would be careful with the last paragraph as per WP:CRYSTAL. Things do change so frequently in the film business, and this would require updating as and when these productions have taken place so to put them into a past tense.

Pit stop, back soon... --  Cassianto Talk   10:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, you would not complain as we keep updating it regularly.— Prashant 11:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, just checking. --  Cassianto Talk   12:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Music career
 * "Her first recording, the song "Ullathai Killadhe" in the Tamil film Thamizhan (2002), was made at the urging of her director and co-star (who had noticed her singing on the set)." -- Who was this?
 * "...based in Los Angeles. Travelling to Los Angeles... . " -- Repetition of "Los Angeles".
 * "...is scheduled for release in 2013. Her first release... ." -- Same here with "release".
 * Fixed.— Prashant 01:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I can't see any issues.
 * Television and stage performances

A bit brief to have as a sub-section IMO, but I can't see any issues with it.
 * Column writing

I can't see any issues.
 * Philanthropy


 * In the media
 * "... and is considered one of the most popular Bollywood celebrities in India." -- Considered by who?
 * "Film critic Subhash K. Jha..." -- Why is "film" capitalised?
 * "...and listed her Barfi!'s character "one of the finest inwardly ravaged characters in Bollywood". -- Firstly, the period should come before the closed invert; secondly I would reword this slightly to say "and listed her character in Barfi! as being "one of the finest inwardly ravaged characters in Bollywood."
 * Why is "biggest advertising campaigns" quoted? Who said this?  Would this not look the same devoid of quote marks?
 * "...even threatened her to expose her private life." -- "...even threatened to expose aspects of her private life." I don't feel you can "expose" a private life seeing as we all have one.

That's yer lot, a good informative read (if a tad too long). I have watch listed it, so no need for templates on my talk. --  Cassianto Talk   00:46, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Adressed all your issues. Also, she is considered as one of the most popular celebrities in India not by just media, public or others but overall. That's why the following things are listed. We can't list that she is considered by the media or public, but different factors are responsible for it be it her roles, her endorsements, her personality, her media rankings.... which are listed below and are sufficient.— Prashant 01:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. To say "is considered to be" is an unsupported attribution and should be followed up with at least one of the names of a person or section of media such as critics etc... --  Cassianto Talk   07:26, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. — Prashant 09:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Support — per resolved comments. Good, important article. --  Cassianto Talk   12:52, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Resolving your comments was my pleasure for the improvement of the article.— Prashant 13:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Cass, appreciate you taking the time and your support.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  13:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments
 * Tagged one dead link. Replace if possible. -- Tito ↂ Dutta 13:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

That link is not dead. It is working properly but, Checlinks always shows India Today links as dead. Prashant  13:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Magazine Pratiyogita Darpan said that Chopra gave a "splendid performance as a small town girl who makes it big in the world of fashion — Pratiyogita Darpan is a GK monthly, mostly used for students preparing for competitive exams. -- Tito ↂ Dutta 13:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Removed.— Prashant  13:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Chopra's recent reaction on Mallika Sherawat's comment "India is a regressive nation for women" fits right after Chopra often speaks out on women's issues: against female infanticide and foeticide Reference here -- Tito ↂ Dutta 13:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so, it's not that necessary. She was not talking about women empowerment or on such issues. She was just slamming Sherawat's comments as According to Chopra, that sends negative overview of India. We don't want to sound like a tabloid.— Prashant  13:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support: All the best. -- Tito ☸ Dutta 13:08, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support Comments - looking pretty good overall. Will take another look. queries below. Overall, I don't think it is too detailed, and the material about each film makes the text more engaging and less listy. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd balance the lead a bit as Jim says - I'd remove the sentence about which school she went to and add one about several early films receiving mixed reviews...

The school names were removed from the lead and I have added a line about her unsuccessful films and mixed reviews.— Prashant 14:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I worked on the referencing and replaced some of the subscription required sources with free notable ones.— Prashant 05:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support with some comments: Bollywood articles have gained much popularity in the internet, and never to forget Wikipedia. The WP Film India task force is, what I understand the active WP groups, working collaboratively to create quality contents, and least focusing on quality. The lead section I feel is bit longer, but can not be scaled down. It outlines the entire article, and meets the "lead requirement". What can be worked on is to improve the referencing by adding locations and authors name to it. Will also try and replace the references wherein subscription is required. Otherwise, the article is well built and stays on the subject. Thanks to all who have worked and are still working. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 06:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 *  Support  Looks very good to me. Excellent Bollywood article.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 17:12, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments –
 * In the lead, the area around Barfi! has double punctuation because of the exclamation point. In this case, it's fine to remove the period afterward.
 * The CNN-IBN quote in the lead could really use a cite. Quotes are among the few things that generally should be referenced in the introduction.
 * Debut and breakthrough: "Chopra had signed Abbas-Mustan's romantic thriller Humraaz". Feels like it needs "for" after "signed".
 * Early success and setbacks: Another bit of double punctuation by Bluffmaster!
 * "staged a protest against release of the film" needs "the" before "release".
 * Recent work: "and" needed before Audrey Hepburn.
 * Music career: Remove the comma in 1 July, 2013".
 * The all caps in reference 113 should be removed. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 01:44, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * All fixed, thanks. BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  02:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support – Now that the fixes above are done, I think the article meets the FA criteria. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 02:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments Giants. It was a great help.— Prashant 05:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Support It's some time since my original comments. Those have been dealt with, and subsequent reviewers' suggestions have imprived this article to the point where I'm happy to support  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  05:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments. It helped in the improvement of the article and it was my pleasure dealing with your comments.— Prashant 05:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Image check - all OK (Bollywood Hungama OTRS, own work). Souces and authors provided.
 * File:Priyanka_Chopra_at_Reliance_Digital.JPG - logos should be OK (de minimis as incidental background wallpaper). GermanJoe (talk) 11:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the image check.— Prashant 17:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

 Oppose from Crisco 1492&mdash;striking oppose, for reasons posted here and at WT:FAC. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I am gravely concerned about what appears to be heavy canvassing regarding this nomination from Prashant. Aside from posting on my talk page as I had recently reviewed some unrelated Indian film nominations, the editor has posted on several editor's talk pages asking them for a review, whereas these editors had no input or interest in the article previously. I seem to recall getting emails as well, but they never left my junk folder and are now deleted. If this is grounds for an early close, so be it. It seems I'm not the only one getting annoyed: here's Brianboulton's response. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * This is bugging me, so I'll add it here anyways. Miss India World - What kind of linking is this? If the pageant's title is Miss India, then why have world? If the title is Miss India World, why is world not linked? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I, too, received several emails as well as the talkpage pestering. It is the demanding tone as much as the persistence which is offensive. Brianboulton (talk) 15:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This may have been explained above, but anyway, there was only one Miss India contest, but three titles given, one of each going on to Miss World, Miss Universe, and Miss Asia Pacifica or something like that. Chopra technically came in second place, which is why it may be not right to say the she won Miss India, without specifying the world part.  As for Prashant, he seems to be a very immature person, that does not learn from his mistakes and does not take advice well. Myself and other editors who worked hard on this article had warned him in the past about canvassing and I am shocked to see this happening again.  I hope that you would not hold these actions against the others who have poured much effort into this article.  BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  15:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * In a third FAC without Prashant's involvement, I would let bygones be bygones. However, the extent of canvassing (both what I've linked above and possibly other stuff I haven't looked for) may put the validity of some of the above supports in doubt. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:47, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * With due respect Crisco, I think what you just said is very insulting to most of those who've taken the time to review this and imply that they're not capable of making a fair decision. Some of us frequently review each other's articles and are aware of what FA projects each of us are working on. And if we see serious issues with articles each of us would most certainly object.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  16:24, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not saying that it did, nor do I mean any disrespect to them. I know most of the reviewers myself, have reviewed articles written by them, they've reviewed articles written by me, and highly doubt they would have been swayed by such canvassing. However, a tainted process is not one to build an FA on. In an election in which the winning candidate was caught giving cash incentives to voters (for an extreme example), even a sincere and well-earned vote would be looked upon with suspicion. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, no worries, but I think most of us here are aware that FAC is not a vote and most of those who've taken the time to comment here are regulars at FAC and I'm sure we're all fully aware that they're fair and capable reviewers.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  16:38, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've posted at WT:FAC and asked a delegate to drop by and, essentially, check if I'm being overly cautious with the possibility of a tainted process and indicate if they consider any possible tainting enough to derail this nomination. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * FYI Crisco, I only asked you, Brain and Wehwalt but none of you all reflected at the fac. Ask each and everyone. You can't deny that the article is well-written and meets FA criteria. So please, respect that.— Prashant 16:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * My deepest most profound apologies to Crisco and Brian. I told Prashant to not go pestering people over this FAC. He has completely betrayed me to the point I will no longer have anything to do with him or respond to him again; he's let me down tremendously by not taking my word for it. Please ignore this Brian.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  15:54, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The biggest shame is that this article otherwise had (has?) enough supports to pass once it had had a source review, unless the delegates had other issues they noticed — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I told him this and I told him at least 5 times to not go pestering people over the FAC. I don't believe his asking you and Brian to review this should affect the outcome, please ignore Prashant's pushiness delegates, he's inexperienced with FAC and I think what tempted him was an over eagerness to pass the article, being the first FAC he has been involved fully in. I don't think he really truly understood that it isn't a vote or was even aware of our guideline against Canvassing.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  16:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Delegate's comment - I am tempted to archive this nomination on the grounds that it has been compromised by canvassing. Had Prashant directly asked for support, I would have no hesitation in doing so. But, I accept Dr Blofeld's apology and explanation. Now I would like to see a formal apology from Prashant. I am especially concerned over the use (and possible abuse) of our email facility and Prashant's lack of remorse. Graham Colm (talk) 20:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks Graham for understanding. Prashant has apologized to Brian but that's about it. He can be a very constructive editor, as evidenced by this and several film articles which are GAs and possible future FA candidates, but above all he lacks maturity and patience. I think he (wrongly) thought that by asking Brian and other people to review the article it would result in it passing quicker, at least he didn't beg for support as you say Graham which would have been an immediate fail. I'm sure we can all remember the excitement and eagerness of achieving our first FA on wikipedia which is what I'm sure motivated him. Anyway, I think it's about time he formally apologised here as you say, looking at Brian's talk page I don't think he was aware of the canvassing guidelines even though he was warned not to hound editors over the FAC. Let's move forward anyway, some constructive comments below to be answered.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  21:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I haven't time now to investigate fully but on what I've seen here, I'm loathe to penalise Blofeld and BollyJeff for the actions of an inexperienced associate whose actions they both repudiate. As has been noted, the requests to Crisco, Brian and Wehwalt were indeed pushy but not outright requests for support. Those three editors are highly experienced FAC people whose reviews are always valued and who can be relied upon not to be swayed unduly. It's for that very reason, however, that I regret they've been hassled. I should note here that I've also had experience of Prashant's too-eager use of WP email. Like Graham, I really need him to understand the inappropriateness of his actions. That's it for now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I want to apologise to Brain and Crisco, as I'm very sorry for that. But, I haven't asked any of the supporters by email. The people I asked didn't even reflected to the fac page. I was not knowing about Canvassing in particular but Dr. Blofeld had told me not to ask anyone regarding the review. I thought if I directly ask them, then It would be helpful for the improvement of the article. No one can deny that it meets all FA criteria. Also, I don't think that anyone will support only seeing my email. If you see the supporters, they are very established and experienced. There is no question that they would listen to me. If I would have sent them email, they would have. reacted in the same way as Cisco reacted. Please, don't accuse the supporters and respect our hard work.— Prashant 02:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

-- Comment from : I noticed this at FAC talk and so took a look, at a single paragraph here, comments below:


 * Footnote 68 = deadlink
 * Replaced ref.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  22:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "fails to inspire either affection or sympathy" > jarring to have present tense in a para full of past tense
 * artice says shared no chemistry > source says share no chemistry
 * I've reworded both the above into a context which fits.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  21:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "The film was generally seen as a cast-off of the Hollywood comedy Bruce Almighty" > not sure what this means
 * It means that most people believed the plot was badly plagiarised from Bruce Almighty, I thought this was clear? I think it's relevant to mention this for our western readers. I've reworded anyway for clarification.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  21:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "and in the eyes of the critics" > could probably be tightened a bit
 * Reworded.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  21:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "Sukanya Verma of Rediff.com praised her performance, believing that she displayed convincing action heroine skills." > a bit tough to parse. Something like: :*"Sukanya Verma considers she was convincing as an action heroine"?
 * Reworded.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  21:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Critics generally began to write her career off.[62]] > "write her career off" doesn't seem encyclopedic. BUT - I did spot-check this kudos for paraphrasing a difficult bit. Nonetheless imo it still needs rewriting.
 * Reworded, OK?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  21:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * So, a bit of a mixed bag here, but maybe another look is worthwhile, fwiw. Victoria (talk) 20:38, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Mixed bag is good Victoria, thanks for taking the time to review this. I believe I've addressed all of your points.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  21:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, not always sure mixed bag is good! Anyway, I think you mean knock-off instead of cast-off but if it's an Engvar issue, should probably reword to avoid confusion. Here's another random paragraph where I found some issues:


 * Her life can't be a chapter in the curriculum; try trimming down and recasting
 * Her life is discussed in the first chapter of Environmental Science book.— Prashant 15:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, understood and I've rewritten. It's an issue of prose: her life isn't a chapter in a curriculum. The book has a chapter about her, and the book is taught at a school. Victoria (talk) 16:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Friendly attitude & reticent doesn't seem to relate to the previous sentences re the textbook; if it does, tie it together somehow
 * Moved where it fits better.— Prashant 13:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Again w/ Twitter acct: how does this relate to textbook?
 * Moved where it fits better.— Prashant 13:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Jarring jump to Jaju > but there are a number of sentences in a row about him (the text messages might be too much detail) & the court case could probably be presented more succinctly
 * Are you saying that we should have a whole section for this controversy? I think it has enough information about that incident and it gives full information about it. — Prashant 13:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No, fine as you've fixed it. Victoria (talk) 16:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Selected referencing issues
 * Current footnote 210 doesn't go the article cited
 * Cited another source.— Prashant 13:41, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If you mean the Hindustan Times, there is a big ad, but the source is there. If you mean The Tribune, that link has many articles; hers is about 3/4 of the way down the page.  BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  14:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I meant the one with the ad; the numbering has changed since. If there's a permalink w/out the ad, that would be good to have. Victoria (talk) 15:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Current footnote 211 has this text in the source: Priyanka's father Ashok Chopra had lodged a complaint with a police station in Mumbai alleging that Jaju was threatening him and her daughter. ... but ... our article sources to footnote 213 this text: In 2006, her father Ashok Chopra lodged a complaint with the police alleging that Jaju was threatening Chopra and was sending her obscene text messages > it's too close to the source
 * Changed a bit.— Prashant 13:41, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the phrasing "lodged a complaint" is from the original source and thus is an example of WP:Close paraphrasing. Some spotchecks are probably in order. Will begin those now and report below. Victoria (talk) 15:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Done.— Prashant 15:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll do the following: read through carefully, make a few copyedits, and come back. In the meantime you'll need a source review - not able to do those - and you all should check to make sure they match. Sometimes they get moved during a FAC. I have checked images and see lots of yellow OTRS flags, so that's something. Just so you know, this will take a bit of time. Victoria (talk) 11:55, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Additional comments: My sense is that the prose needs more tightening and some restructuring might be required. The following are again examples only from a single para, and I've done some copyediting there:
 * "Chopra is described as a sex symbol and a style icon.[190] She ranks high on lists of the most powerful, popular and attractive Indian celebrities" > the second sentence has already been mentioned in the previous paragraph so somewhat repetitive
 * Moved that sentence, where it fits better.— Prashant 17:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * "She is known as "Piggy Chops", a nickname given her by co-stars on the set of Bluffmaster! in 2005.[194] " > this is jarring. Can it be combined with another sentence? I'm not sure what it refers to
 * Moved it below and combined with another sentence, where it fits appropriately.— Prashant 17:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * "In 2006 and 2012, the UK magazine Eastern Eye placed her first on their "World's Sexiest Asian Women" list,[195][196] and she was featured on Verve's list of most powerful women in 2009 and 2010.[197][198]" > this comes after "piggy chops" and the descriptions of fashions, and it's already (to some extent) been mentioned, so should be moved elsewhere and maybe trimmed.
 * Moved.— Prashant 17:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

More
 * Brand endorsement: interesting, but maybe trim a little?
 * Trimmed few sentences.— Prashant 18:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Linking - I delinked sex symbol but noticed sari not linked, so check linking throughout. Also noticed duplicate links per the duplicate link detector.
 * Removed duplicate links and linked necessary things. Everything is linked only once as per REPEATLINK.— Prashant 17:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Prose - can really use some tightening.
 * Will definitely follow your words.— Prashant 18:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Spotchecks - done a few and not found any other egregious problems but be very careful about adhering too closely to the source.
 * Well, one thing I can guarantee you are the sources and they don't have any problems. Since, you also didn't found further problems.— Prashant 18:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

My sense is that it's close, but not quite there and needs some more work. I haven't read the entire article and unfortunately don't have the time right now for a full review, but will try to revisit in a few days when some of the above have been addressed. Victoria (talk) 16:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * So, you haven't read the article yet, but you are saying it is close but need some more work? Tell me, How can anyone reach a consensus without even looking at the situation? It is unfair. You are insulting the people who have supported above and most importantly our hard work.— Prashant 18:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Graham/Ian and Victoria, please ignore this outburst and see it as another example of his immaturity and lack of experience with FAC. Victoria, I look forward to seeing your further suggestions, I value your input and hope that after you've finished the article will have been further improved and you're ready to support. Prashant, seriously, never refer to constructive criticism at FAC as "unfair" or "insulting" or infer that it is an attack on your hard work. Please refrain from further outbursts here please. All input at FAC is very welcome in order to get the best possible outcome. Above all you've got to learn to be patient, it really doesn't matter if it passes today or next week, more important is that different pairs of eyes give the article a vigorous going over and we ensure that the final product is the best possible article we can produce.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  18:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You misunderstood Blofeld, I'm not against the constructive comments. My only thought was that if you haven't read the whole article then, how could you decide the result? Other than that, I'm happy that Victoria is putting lot of effort in improving the article. I'm grateful to her for her effort and I think that her comments are very essential.— Prashant 19:10, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Delegate's comment: I will be archiving this nomination in a few minutes. I do not want it to be seen as an example of a successful FAC. We are short of reviewers and cannot afford to allow editors who are prepared to contribute reviews to be put off the process by antagonistic responses from a nominator. To Dr Blofeld and Bolljeff, I am sorry for the extra work this will involve and applaud your engagement in our FA process, but I cannot ignore the behavior of the co-nominator. To Prashant, while I understand your enthusiasm and also thank you for engaging in our FA process, your conduct is not acceptable. Consensus is reached by a community of editors, not by individuals. My role is to judge whether a consensus had been achieved and nominators are expected to help the delegates in this regard. Unfortunately, you have done the opposite. I look forward to seeing this nomination back at FAC in two weeks and expect to see full compliance from you to our traditions, which, most importantly, includes respect for other editors. To the reviewers, thanks for your time and hard work in reviewing this nomination, without which this process could not function, I hope you don't feel that your valuable time has been wasted. Graham Colm (talk) 20:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Graham Colm (talk) 20:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.