Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Madhuri Dixit filmography/archive1


 * 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 promoted by Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:32, 18 June 2015.

Madhuri Dixit filmography

 * Nominator(s): FrankBoy  CHITCHAT  11:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

My tenth nomination, which is on the filmography of Madhuri Dixit, an Indian actress. Madhuri Dixit is one of the most popular bolywood actress. Do I need to say more who she is? Okay, she is the one known for her acting and dancing skills. She is the recipient of four Filmfare Award for Best Actress and a Best Supporting Actress award from the same award show. I look forward to constructive criticism, and I feel that the filmography fulfills all criteria and has the potential to be promoted. -- FrankBoy  CHITCHAT  11:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * At first glance, I can see that the list isn't comprehensive enough. In the early 2000s, Dixit hosted a television show called Kahin Na Kahin Koi Hai, but there is no mention of that. There is also no mention of her appearance in the Gujarati film Satyavadi Raja Harishchandra. So I have to oppose it for failing to meet criteria 3(a) . -- Krimuk | 90 ( talk ) 02:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * While the first one has been added there with a source, the latter hasn't been added. I searched for it to find a reliable source to add, however, nada. I don't think it was notable enough. If it were, a source would have been certainly found, no? You may start your review if you want. -- FrankBoy  CHITCHAT  09:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think much research has gone into creating this list. Here is a ref for the Gujarati film. -- Krimuk | 90 ( talk ) 09:56, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Added, thanks. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT  10:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment – If I'm right, the source only confirms the existence of the film. We need explicit sources to prove that Madhuri was a part of the film. Some sources mention the name of the film as Satwadi Raja Harishchandra. Also, it looks like a Gujarati/Rajasthani film. I know neither of these languages. &mdash; Vensatry (ping) 10:36, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If I'm not wrong, the source clearly says "Gujarati cinema too in films like Raja Harish Chandra with Madhuri Dixit", which indicates her presence in the film. Besides it is a Gujrati film, dubbed in Rajasthani. -- Frank CHITCHAT  10:56, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * What if I say the source is a WP:MIRROR? &mdash; Vensatry (ping) 11:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Despite the fact that it was Dixit's only Gujrati appearance, I doubt the notability of this film, as no proper and reliable source exists for it and secondly it has no article in Wikipedia - a place to create notable articles. What say ye? -- FrankBoy   CHITCHAT  11:27, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm unsure about the film's notability. I understand there won't be much coverage for a 1980s Gujarati film in the internet. But your reason for not including the film citing lack of notability isn't really convincing because lack of a WP article cannot be correlated with assessing the notability of a film. Trust me, there are loads of notable Indian films which don't have an article over here. If I were to take Devika Rani's filmography to FL status, I cannot ignore those red-linked films just because they don't have their own articles. &mdash; Vensatry (ping) 11:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on that, yet this film did not prove to be notable at least not for Madhuri Dixit as it was just a "special appearance". A big Bollywood film star of her era making a special appearance in a Gujrati film, but still no source. Non-notable film. -- FrankBoy   CHITCHAT  11:58, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's alright. I have given the lead a major copy-edit as well. Good luck! This doesn't affect the nomination, but I'm sure you can find a much nicer image of the gorgeous woman than the current blurry picture. -- Krimuk | 90 ( talk ) 06:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the copy-edit, which makes it look much better than it was. BTW I have uploaded the image of same setting with a nicer quality, but if you feel there is better image than the current one, please go ahead and change it. -- FrankBoy  CHITCHAT  09:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's good that you retained the film. But we cannot have the ref. as it's a mirror site. The other ref. is incomplete. &mdash; Vensatry (ping) 14:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No ref. is available for it, and I have removed it. It does not affect the comprehensiveness of it as it was a non-notable Gujarati film appearnce. I don't think that absence of one film appearnce should stop a list from becoming FL. -- FrankBoy   CHITCHAT  15:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I wasn't the one who insisted you to include the film. So why didn't you saying anything when Krimuk opposed the candidate solely for excluding this film and the TV show? Reread the discussion below. &mdash; Vensatry (ping) 17:21, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * At the time when Krimuk opposed it, there was a ref. and I wasn't aware of it being a mirror, that's why I didn't say anything. -- FrankBoy   CHITCHAT  17:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

But then, you continued to have the film in the table until today. I pointed out it was a mirror long ago. &mdash; Vensatry (ping) 17:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * While resolving other queries, I just forgot about this, and I was in the search of another source these days, however, I couldn't find any. My apology! -- Frank<small style="font-size:85%;">Boy   <small style="font-size:85%;">CHITCHAT  17:59, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No need to apologize. I was concerned because initially you included the film when Krimuk had opposed and now when I say the ref. is a mirror, you say the film is a non-notable one and excluding it will not stop this from becoming an FL. &mdash; Vensatry (ping) 18:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, when Krimuk opposed, at that time, too I objected, "I searched for it to find a reliable source to add, however, nada. I don't think it was notable enough", but when he provided a source, I added that. Anyways enough of it.


 * Support – Looks much better now &mdash; Vensatry (ping) 18:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Leaning towards support The lede is a tad bloated, and it should feature some notable TV performances, but it is a well researched list other than this, I was looking at it earlier. Perhaps you could add some of her TV performances too to ensure it is fully comprehensive?♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:53, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Thank you for the kind review. I think that Dixit, being a film actress does not have so much of contributions in the television industry, but the two shows she judged/hosted are present there. Besides she has had appearances in TV shows, which is common among film actors, and I don't think that is a good idea. -- Frank<small style="font-size:85%;">Boy   <small style="font-size:85%;">CHITCHAT  09:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Krimuk left the impression that it wasn't comprehensive that's all. I agree that a lot of those sorts of TV appearances aren't worth mentioning.♦ Dr. Blofeld  09:36, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * When nominated, a notable TV show that she had hosted was not mentioned at all. That's why I didn't consider the list comprehensive. -- Krimuk | 90 ( talk ) 12:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The oppose came in mainly because this list was short of one TV show, seriously? &mdash; Vensatry (ping) 15:16, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * His oppose was also based on the exclusion of that Gujarati film. -- Frank<small style="font-size:85%;">Boy   <small style="font-size:85%;">CHITCHAT  17:15, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not just about being short of one TV show, Vensatry, it's about not being well-researched. -- Krimuk | 90 ( talk ) 03:38, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * But then, I don't see much of an improvement in this list in terms of comprehensiveness. &mdash; Vensatry (ping) 10:04, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Vensatry, the oppose was based merely on those two missing things, which are now present. -- Frank<small style="font-size:85%;">Boy   <small style="font-size:85%;">CHITCHAT  14:51, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

A few comments Sorry for being late. Well, i feel there are a few issues to be rectified or an explanation being required.
 * Why mentioning 'Ek Do Teen' in particular? I believe her other songs 'Choli Ke Peeche', 'Dhak Dhak Karne' and 'Maar Dala' were equally popular. So, i suggest the nominator to remove it.
 * We all know that Tezaab was a breakthrough film for her, which I think is also mentioned in the previous sentence. The song was a major highlight in the film and was highly instrumental in the film's success. Dare I say, it served as a launchpad for her career. I agree that the other songs you've mentioned are also popular but we cannot include every cult song of hers here. &mdash; Vensatry (ping) 10:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Per Vensatry's comment.
 * "play the romantic interest to male protagonists" — i don't think so that she used to play the romantic interests of antagonists in particular. Isn't the statement She continued to play the female lead in the successful action-dramas Ram Lakhan (1989), Tridev (1989), and Kishen Kanhaiya (1990) enough?
 * Done.
 * Perhaps Gaja Gamini be called and art house film rather than using the term experimental. If using art house is wrong, forgive me. But experimental is a bit out-of-the-blue.
 * Art house is a bit informal. I think experimental is correct as I have seen most of the high quality articles use this term.
 * In 2013, she performed an item number in the Ayan Mukerji-directed romantic comedy Yeh Jawaani Hai Deewani. — adding the song name along with a reliable source is appreciable.
 * The song wasn't quite notable, but since it was her only appearance in 2013, I gave it a mention.
 * Since you gave a mention, at least cite it please. It is important. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 11:01, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The citation is properly covered in the main body of the article. Per WP:LEAD, we do not need to repeat the references in the lead, . -- Frank<small style="font-size:85%;">Boy   <small style="font-size:85%;">CHITCHAT  11:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Surely makes sense. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 11:26, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Anyways, the table is looking fine and comprehensive. The validity of the image used is also perfect though a recent image can be more appropriate. However it is the nominator's call. Ping me after you rectify these issues and/or after you complete giving explanations if any. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 08:07, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, i assume that she was "praised" by critics mostly. For example, in the statement The widely praised role of a con woman in Abhishek Chaubey's black comedy film Dedh Ishqiya (2014) marked her first acting role in seven years i think "widely praised" can be replaced with "critically acclaimed".
 * The "widely praised" is same as "critically acclaimed" and such. Since "critical acclaim" has been used twice in the list, I have used the term "praised" to avoid monotonous prose.
 * Any info about the critical reception and BO Verdict of Gulaab Gang?
 * We need not mention critical and/or box-office performance for each and every film. This film's performance (barring Juhi Chawla's) was not notable anyway.
 * Are the four seasons of Jhalak Dikhla Jaa, in which she served as a talent judge, consecutive?
 * That is explained in the form of a FN.
 * Thank you for the comments. Pinging per his own statement. --  Frank<small style="font-size:85%;">Boy   <small style="font-size:85%;">CHITCHAT  10:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Support — Good job overall, could be better. Being a non-native English speaker, i am unable to find further issues. But i am sure someone else may do. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 11:26, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: Dixit received a Filmfare for completing 25 years (I dont know if this should be mentioned or maybe). What are your thoughts since its her filmography and she got that recognition for her long list of films.
 * Better suits the parent article and the awards page.


 * Why mentioning of her item number (YJHD) in the lead is important to her filmography? I think it should be removed.
 * Was her only appearance of 2013 (that too after six years).
 * Still I think this should be removed. So please remove it.
 * Several reasons justify the presence of the song: it was her first item-number in her career, the only appearance she had in 2013, and the same thing is also present in Aishwarya Rai Bachchan filmography (from Bunty Aur Babli). -- Frank<small style="font-size:85%;">Boy   <small style="font-size:85%;">CHITCHAT 17:01, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Her role in Lajja was not a starring role but a supporting. Correct this.
 * Corrected.


 * "She also appeared in Yaraana—a remake of the psychological thriller Sleeping with the Enemy". Why this is important in her filmography. It fits better either in the film's article or her biography.
 * Removed


 * That's it.— Prashant 11:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments. --  Frank<small style="font-size:85%;">Boy   <small style="font-size:85%;">CHITCHAT 12:12, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Support: Well done.— Prashant 13:43, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Support: I agree that the lead is slightly too detailed and "bloated", but that is easily sorted. Aside from that the table is fine and so are the references. — <b style="color:#595454">Calvin999</b>  16:54, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Calvin! Given the long career she has/had, I think the length is fine. -- Frank<small style="font-size:85%;">Boy   <small style="font-size:85%;">CHITCHAT 18:11, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delegate's comment - Reading the lead, I have to agree with the above comments regarding it appearing bloated. It's not as bad as some I've seen, but a trimming would be nice. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 06:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I have done some trimming. It looks [reads] certainly better now. -- Frank<small style="font-size:85%;">Boy   <small style="font-size:85%;">CHITCHAT 09:37, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree, it does look better. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:17, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


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