Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Priyanka Chopra/archive2


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

The list was not promoted by 20:55, 4 February 2013‎.

List of awards and nominations received by Priyanka Chopra

 * Nominator(s): Prashant   ✉  11:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it meets the FL criteria. It has improved a lot following the Peer Review and GOCE copy-edit. Prashant  ✉  11:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: The page has some major syntax and English-language problems. Uses word "recognise" instead of "recognises" a few times, and other examples like that, throughout the page. Basically could use a major thorough copyedit by several editors with a high level of proficiency in the language at a level of either five (5) with English as a professional language, or English as a native language proficiency. However, in addition to language and grammar issues, there's also choice of wording that is a bit awkward, for example, "During her nine-year career, Chopra has received awards and nominations, mostly in the categories of Best Actress and Best Supporting Actress." Wouldn't it be self-evident that this is where most of the awards and recognition would be, for an actor's awards? I'm sorry but it looks like this page still requires a major amount of work and quality improvement before serious consideration for promotion should be entertained or discussed. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 13:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Done with all points. However, I disagree to you because the list has been copy/efited quite a few times from several editors and GOCE. The points you raised were not even mentioned during the first flc. Your issue over "recognise" is childish. Read that sentence which uses that word and you'll get your answer. Prashant   ✉  14:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You can't really "disagree" with someone who has found instances of poor prose just by saying that the list has been "copy/efited" quite a few times. Mistakes, repetitions, poor prose still remain.  It's worth bearing in mind that we all review here voluntarily, so it's not a good idea to tell someone they're being "childish" because they've pointed out something they consider to be wrong.  Just be polite nd more people may be inclined to help you.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my bad but what can I do. It was peer reviewed two times and was edited by GOCE. It was not in a rude way and I'm polite to everyone. I just meant by that the use of recognise has no issue. Some suggestions? Prashant   ✉  16:13, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Cirt, I agree with Pks – 'recognise' is used correctly in this context; it's the infinitive (base) form of the verb. Perhaps you meant to say, "use active voice instead of passive voice where possible"; however the subjects of those sentences are the awards, not the body which awards them. For example; "The Apsara Film & Television Producers Guild Awards are presented by the Apsara Producers Guild to honour and recognise the professional excellence of their peers." --> "The Apsara Producers Guild presents the Apsara Film & Television Producers Guild Awards to honour and recognise the professional excellence of their peers." – in which case 'recognise' is still used correctly. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * "Following her win at the Miss World, She made her" - I suggest "After winning the Miss World title, Chopra made her...
 * "Chopra received 30 nominations and won several" - suggest "Chopra received 30 nominations of which she won (several is how many?)
 * "winning every prominent Best Actress award in India including at the National Film Awards for Best Actress and the Filmfare Awards for Best Actress .[2]"
 * "Chopra received 30 nominations and won several" - please state explicitely how many
 * "The awards were inaugurated in 1998 and are a mixture of include categories decided on determined (or simply decided, on not needed) by public votes (I would write instead "by the public") and by an industry jury. "
 * "professional excellence" - redundant imho, just "exellence"
 * "The Screen Awards is India's only awards ceremony involved with the Executive Director and the Governor of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. They honour professional excellence in the Hindi language film industry." - how about "India's only (prize, accolade) involved with the Executive Director and the Governor of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, The Screen Awards honour excellence in the Hindi language film industry."
 * I am not sure if an award can "retire"--Tomcat (7) 18:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. Prashant   ✉  04:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Quick comments (as you requested)...
 * "She participated in the Femina Miss India 2000 contest".... and...?
 * Chopra mentioned three times in the first four sentences...
 * "Chopra has received various awards and nominations" we know that, you just told us she was awarded the Miss World crown.
 * " Filmfare Award for Best Female Debut" for is not wikilinked, then "Filmfare Award for Best Performance in a Negative Role" where for is wikilinked... Consistency.
 * Infobox image caption doesn't need a full stop.
 * All tables should be fixed to meet MOS:DTT for row and col scopes for screen readers.
 * I think the tables are alright as I have used the pattern used in other FL. Prashant   ✉  06:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No, that's incorrect, that's why I pointed it out. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * "In 2009–12" maybe "Between 2009 and 2012"...
 * Second para in lead has Chopra three times in three sentences...
 * Check infobox, I see 2 awards from 1 nomination in there....
 * Then check the totals.
 * "for excellence in the Hindi film industry" is this a quote from the website? Then quote it and attribute it.
 * "for Best Actress thrice" archaic word, three times.
 * Are all these awards actually notable? E.g. "Cosmopolitan Fun Fearless Awards"??! "Sabsey Favourite Kaun Awards"??!  They don't have articles in Wikipedia so presumably they're not particularly notable, are they needed here?
 * Yes Those awards are notable and other awards are very much needed because this page consists of all her awards. Secondly, the other awards are notable as they are held every year and are covered by third party .  Prashant   ✉  05:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Please then enlighten me as to why, if they are notable under WIkipedia notability guidelines, they don't have an article? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sabsey favorite kaun awards were present by Star Gold and was supported by third party notability, same for others awards. They are covered by third party notability. Prashant   ✉  16:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 3 February 2013 (UTC) , Indiantelevision is a notable source as Indiantelevision.com is a well known organisation and Pinkvilla is also notable as its a fashion and style website reporting the red carpet activity and is not the fan made sites. Prashant  ✉  05:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "to honour both artistic and technical excellence of professionals in the Hindi language film industry" again, sounds like a quote, and not something we'd write in an encyclopedia. Attribution required.
 * Please check this for the other awards you describe in a similar way.
 * What makes the "other awards" notable?
 * "Won [31]" remove the space.
 * Ref 31 is a bare URL.
 * Removed I think some fans would have added that URL. Prashant   ✉  05:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Ref 24 june -> June.
 * Ref 18 title needs spaces after the commas.
 * What makes pinkvilla.com a reliable source?
 * What makes tellyawards.indiantelevision.com a reliable source?
 * And indya.com?
 * Done and yes the sources are very much notable. Indya.com is a part of Star Organisation.
 * That's not really proving they're reliability against our guidelines on reliable sources, WP:RS, it's just you saying things are "well known" etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Pks invited me to comment here. I'll go through the article and make comments about the prose. This doesn't mean I'm correct or incorrect but reflects changes I'd make if I were copy-editing it. I'll apologise in advance if I'm picking out something that complies to Indian English, or if I'm repeating comments above. I won't be expressing an opinion about the listing of this article at FLC. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 19:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comments from Baffle gab1978 (talk) 18:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * General comments
 * I think this is looking much better now than when I first saw it.
 * Infobox
 * The awards infobox on the right covers the tables in the first two sections; I'm using SeaMonkey 1.1, but I suspect this will cause problems on any Mozilla browser. I don't know what the answer to this is, but it needs fixing. I see it's collapsible; though that doesn't display on my browser! The Javascript for collapsing the table didn't load properly in my browser; I can now see the 'show/hide' link.
 * Header
 * First paragraph
 * "Following her win at the Miss World, She made her..."; don't capitalise mid-sentence pronouns except 'I'. I suggest, "After winning Miss World, she made her..."
 * Second paragraph
 * "She was number one on Eastern Eye's list of the "World's Sexiest Asian Women" twice." is oddly-worded; suggest "She has twice been placed at number one on Eastern Eye's list of the "World's Sexiest Asian Women" ". or " Eastern Eye has twice placed her at number one on its list of the "World's Sexiest Women".
 * Now you need to capitalise 'she' as it begins the sentence!

*"The National Film Awards is the most prominent film award ceremony in India." Do you mean 'prestigious'?
 * "In 2011, People and Maxim magazines respectively declared her as the best dressed woman and the "hottest girl" in India." 'Respectively' can be awkward. I suggest "In 2011, People magazine declared her the best dressed woman, and Maxim called her the "hottest girl" in India.
 * Done. Prashant   ✉  05:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "Pinstorm considered her the most influential Indian in the social media circuit." should use 'on' instead of 'in'.
 * Filmfare Awards
 * "They are presented annually by The Times Group to honour both artistic and technical excellence.", remove "both" - it's redundant. Again, probably change "prominent" to "prestigious" here; "prominent" means standing out whereas prestigious means having prestige, if that's what is meant.
 * Done. Prashant   ✉  05:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * International Indian Film Academy Awards
 * "...to honour both artistic and technical excellence...", as above remove "both" - it's redundant.
 * National Film Awards
 * "Due to their national scale..." Does 'national scale' mean a) they are awarded across the entire Indian film industry b) they are recognised across the entire Indian film industry c) their prestige is recognised across the entire Indian film industry? I'd suggest removing this - it's probably redundant anyway.
 * Yes the nominations and winners are selected from all over India. These are like Academy Awards. The regional and other film industry are also included. Bollywood films rarely win here, it all about performance and not about stardom. Prashant   ✉  04:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying; I'm not sure what to suggest here to avoid using "scale" – how about "Because nominations are selected from all over India, they are..."?
 * They don't have nominations but have consideration which are not announced publicly. Prashant   ✉  05:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough; I'll strike that suggestion/comment. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 19:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 00:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Screen Awards
 * "The Screen Awards is India's only awards ceremony involved with the Executive Director..." 'Involved with' --> 'involving' or 'that involve' – unless I'm misunderstanding this sentence.
 * Honours – a bit vague really; perhaps this should be called 'Beauty pageants' or similar.
 * Chopra has won the following honours – again a little vague; "Chopra has won the following beauty pageants" might be better.
 * Done. Prashant   ✉  04:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for implementing my suggestions; I've struck them where they've been dealt with and have added a few more (missing capital etc). Good luck with the nomination - I hope it goes well. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 04:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Quick Comment: There is a problem in the section National Film Awards, The National Film Awards does not have any nominations. They do have considerations but those are not declared publicly. Please remove this "from one nomination" from the section National Film Awards. 182.183.149.35 (talk) 05:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Done Prashant   ✉  05:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Oppose – This list cannot pass Featured criteria with unsourced content. For example, the awards have a brief, one-liner description about them but none of them are sourced to the content it says. Hence there being over 20 awards, such unsourced and non-verifiable content is not acceptable for FL. I pointed this out in the talk page of the list prior to the nomination, but I see this has not been heeded by the nominator who chose this to be a dig at him/her. — Indian: BIO  · [ ChitChat  ] 08:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * So what do you want, a whole article describing a single award to be used instead of those sources which proves that she has actually won. I think it's pretty immature to say that. Also, Its not about me...its about article. Don't use personal comments like "dig at ...". I Think it's not a right place to argue. Thanks for your opposition, now I know why you opposed it. Prashant   ✉  09:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You cannot expect to have a featured content where things are unsourced. For example you have lines like "The Apsara Film & Television Producers Guild Awards are presented by the Apsara Producers Guild to honour and recognise the excellence of their peers" and "The Filmfare Awards are one of the oldest and most prestigious Hindi film awards. They are presented annually by The Times Group for excellence of cinematic achievements", however where are the references backing those claims? There are pretty sure articles talking about the basis and foundation of awards, and they should be incorporated. — Indian: BIO  · [ ChitChat  ] 09:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Breaking News These awards are notable and has articles on Wikipedia. I don't need to introduce new sources claiming what all awards are about, their past and present. Prashant   ✉  09:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

In the same way as Billboard Music Awards (Billboard is a magazine). Don't make senseless arguments. Prashant  ✉  10:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The "Best actress " in the National Film Awards section, actress should be capital as it is a proper noun in this case, award name.
 * Filmfare Awards, the number of nominations is nine, not eight. And Filmfare is a printed magazine, so likewise should be italicized like the MoS applied thoghtout the list.
 * Filmfare Awards are presented by the Times group and has nothing to do with Filmfare magazine.
 * Wrong. The Times Group is the publisher for the magazine and consequently would sponsor for the ceremony. However, the awards "are" named after this magazine and per MoS, it should be italicized if you are following this norm throughout the list. If not, then the others should be un-italicized like GQ. — Indian: BIO  · [ ChitChat  ] 10:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Same for Dainik Bhaskar.
 * Check for internal redirections like the Bengal Film Journalists Association Awards.
 * Done Prashant   ✉'  09:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * One major thing I noticed about the lead was that it was not engaging, not brilliant prose and suffers terribly from proseline effect. Its just a who's who list of the awards she won, but without any context. Like one or two lines about the role for which she won the award, or a one liner review, those would make it engaging. And the jumpy prose starting from the "Between 2009... " part is really not helping the case at all.
 * Another minor quabble. This is not related to the oppose, but it might be better if the tables are modified as part of WP:ACCESS, data table. This is not mandatory, but I see all the recent FLCs following this.
 * Would you please tell me which latest flc and what the issue is? Prashant   ✉  14:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * One suggestion regarding the lead. You can refer to WP:LEADLENGTH, then find out how many characters your list is using and then decide on the lead length. At present it appears to be a little too short. I would suggest maybe three paragraph.
 * Many other reviewers told me to have short prose during 1St FLC. And By the way, what I will describe by having a 3 paragraph prose?...I don't want to explain her success and background here? Because her article is best to do. And One minute, why don't you suggest the same for Chopra article. You sounds too fishy. Prashant   ✉  14:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Can you clarify how some of these sources are reliable? What is the reliability aspect they are passing? Or any relevant RSN discussion you can link me to? They are: Pinkvilla, YouTube.com, Nadiawalagrandson.com, Eventfaqs.com?
 * Nadiadwalagrandson is official production company showing the awards won by their films. The live video is the best source we can get to prove awards (as you can see her getting that award). Eventfaq is the official sponsor of that award and is a renowned name in India for live events. As, long as Pinkvilla is concerned, this is also a good source because it covers live events and is not fancruft. More important, they are just showing the winners and not anything else which is true. Prashant   ✉  14:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * References are still inconsistent. You have missed accessdate in some of them (Ref 30 citekills). Also, since you are linking the first occurence of any particular reference work parameter, you should be consistent throughout. Like you have missed for Verve. Please check this throught the article and I'm sure you will correct them. Also, BBC Online is missing.
 * Check Verve has no link on Wikipedia. Prashant   ✉  14:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The Media honors section needs to be checked for the column widths as they do not conform to the rest of the formatting.
 * Refrain from using "&" in prose like that in Zee Cine Awards.
 * Done Prashant   ✉  14:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

These are some of the points I noted. It did have a wonderful expansion in the hand of the nominator, but lacks work still to be brilliant enough to be a list. I would suggest taking a look at similar lists like that of Madonna, Brown and Keys etc. — Indian: BIO  · [ ChitChat  ] 09:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I dont need to reflect back to your frivolous arguments. Prashant   ✉  09:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "Breaking News These awards are notable and has articles on Wikipedia. I don't need to introduce new sources claiming what all awards are about, their past and present." — This is what the nominator's responsewas regarding unsourced claims in the article. Pks1142, the fact that the awards have Wiki pages simply means that they are notable, it does not imply that any content present in them can be added directly here without a reference. This list, without references fails verifiability and I would suggest you pay attention, rather than calling my arguments "frivolous". My oppose still stands. — Indian: BIO  · [ ChitChat  ] 10:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Your issues over Filmfare Awards are baseless and she has received 8 nominations. I'm worried a person who don't even understand that Critics awards are not nominations but are presented by critics(jury) directly, is opposing this list. Prashant   ✉  10:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If you can stop the snide remarks it would do you good. You are right that I might not know about the nomination process and here in comes the important part. That the critics/jury awards are not part of the nomination should be mentioned. From a layman's term and reader POV, it appears to be misinformation since the reader can she that there were nine nominations while the prose says eight. — Indian: BIO  · [ ChitChat  ] 10:41, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * So, how could you point fingers to the information which you don't know. The above points which you raised, were not even mentioned by the Seasoned reviewers. Prashant   ✉  11:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You can either address the concerns politely, or you can let the oppose stand, suit your way, I won't bother. I have made my points clearly, you chose whether you want to address them. As I said, from a reader's pov it is essential that content is understandable, which your work has failed to provide, thus failing WP:WIAFL. — Indian: BIO  · [ ChitChat  ] 11:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * This User is playing very wisely to get me down....he is showing that I'm not interested in resolving issue. He pointed few issues and I resolved those. Then, he added more points following those issues to show my comments in a twisted way (to show that I'm going against his issue by ignoring it.) he would have added those continuing issues by adding more comments like What Bafle gab did to follow without diturding Tomcat comments. He is trying to portray me as I'm not resolving his issue. Prashant   ✉  15:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Closing note: I'm sick and tired of premature nominations and in-fighting in these FLCs. These issues really should be fixed before nominations are made, otherwise we waste the scarce resources of the FLC reviewers. Please think three times before renominating, and resolve all these outlying arguments before this nomination returns. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.