Wikipedia:Peer review/Kareena Kapoor/archive1

===Kareena Kapoor===


 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2008.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because it has improved substantially over the past few days. The article, about an Indian actress, has recently reached a GA status. Even since the GA review, it has been substantially edited. Please leave your feedbacks, suggestions and ideas to improve the article further.

Thanks, Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  09:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC) :Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Peer review/Kareena Kapoor/archive1.
 * I glanced at the article and noticed that the image captions are filled with unencyclopedic and weasel words ("bubbly", "cosmetic beauty"). Please remove these. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 16:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well spotted. Done  ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦       $1,000,000? 17:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here. Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 17:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Since the next stop after GA (congrats) would be FAC, I will make some comments with FAC in mind. The hardest criterion there for most editors is to get the prose to a professional level - this article also needs a copyedit. For example After a period between 2002 and 2003 when a series of unsuccessful films and repetitive roles resulted in film critics giving her negative reviews, in danger of becoming typecast, Kapoor accepted more demanding roles. or Hailing from a family deeply involved in the film industry, despite making her acting debut in 2000, Kapoor faced the media spotlight from a very young age.[13] See the list at WP:PRV for help with a copyedit if you want to go for FAC or try reading this aloud.
 * Article is generally well-cited but there are a few places that still need a ref, i.e. She is the granddaughter of legendary actor and filmmaker Raj Kapoor and the great granddaughter of Prithviraj Kapoor. Bebo, as she is fondly called, is also the sister of popular actress, Karisma Kapoor and the niece of well-known actor, Rishi Kapoor. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. See WP:CITE and WP:V
 * The caption "Early work, until 2000" could be clearer - could it be "Early work, to 2000" instead?
 * I would provide context for the reader - films are referred to as being successes or failures but most do not have the actual box office receipts (how much did they earn?). See WP:PCR

I read through it and tried copyediting some parts. Other than that:


 * In section 2.3, "a bubbly and talkative Sikhni girl with a strong zest for life" sounds more like something you'd see on fansite. Can you come up with another description?


 * In section 3, "...for a special Holi weekend episode...". What's a Holi weekend? Holiday? Holy? If it's something else, you should probably link it somewhere.


 * In section 4, "scandal when onlookers with mobile phone cameras filmed them kissing". Why is that a scandal? I would appreciate some context, even if it's just a cultural-difference thing.


 * In section 5, "A few months later, she modeled and walked the ramp along with Shahid Kapoor and actress Urmila Matondkar for Manish Malhotra's fashion display, Fashion Week 2006, titled Freedom." I don't get what the end of that sentence means. if Freedom is the title, then what's Fashion Week 2006? Another title?


 * Some stuff from the 'other work' section should in my opinion be moved to the 'in the media'-section, since currently both of them have mentions of fashion displays. The game show appearance should probably also be moved to the 'in the media'-section. Also, Manish Malhotra isn't wikified in the first instance he's mentioned, so I assumed you've been working around with the placings of some of that stuff before, and could probably look at it again and come up with a better way of organizing those.

-Bobet 18:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

In response to User:Ruhrfisch's comments: First of all, thanks for your comments!! :) In response to User:Bobet's comments: Thanks for your comments too!! :)
 * ✅ Since the article was primarily edited by User:Blofeld of SPECTRE, User:Shshshsh and I, we did our best in improving and bringing the article to the place it is today. To improve the article further, Kapoor's article is currently going through some copyediting by some new users.
 * ✅ After posting this message, I will be adding the source for the following sentence. (She is the granddaughter of legendary actor and filmmaker Raj Kapoor and the great granddaughter of Prithviraj Kapoor. Bebo, as she is fondly called, is also the sister of popular actress, Karisma Kapoor and the niece of well-known actor, Rishi Kapoor.)
 * Regarding the captions, I am thinking of changing it completely; i.e. Instead of "Early work, until 2000", I am thinking of changing it to "Until 2000: Early work" or "To 2000: Early work".
 * Correct me if I am wrong, but shouldn't the films that were a success at the box office, only have the box office receipts mentioned?? I am not sure if it would make sense mentioning the box office receipts of films that were failures. --  Bollywood Dreamz  talk 01:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess my thought is that success or failure are relative terms - if the actual box office grosses or better yet profits or losses were given, then the reader could judge for themselves. If 10 films made 100, 90, 80, 60, 50, 30, 20, 10, -10, and -100 million each, which would be successes and which failures? Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 16:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You are right in a way, Ruhfisch, but I somehow tend to differ. Not always does a box office gross number help the reader understand something. Saying "the film flopped miserably grossing Rs 10 Million" would not really help promote the article's readability. A flop is a flop - the film did not recover its costs and there is nothing else to add; it can be of course a major failure or just a simple one - the reader is not really interested to know how much a film grossed if it failed. On the other hand - a hit can be described in different ways and should sometimes be elaborated because in such cases a BO receipt -- A) Gives credibility. B) Here the reader is interested to know how big the film made it. So I agree with BD that mentioning box office receipts of failures just wouldn't make sense. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  19:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ummm... I am still not sure about finding another description to replace the one in section 2.3. Does anyone else have any ideas?? I think the version that is currently on the article sounds perfectly fine.
 * ✅ Linked Holi in section 3 to make it clear and give the reader an explanation of what it is.
 * Fashion Week 2006 is the event's title for that year!! For example, if it was the year 2007.. it would be "Fashion Week 2007" Every year, different fashion designers come up with their creations and models/actors model them. During the fashion week, each day is devoted to a different fashion designer and hence they create a title for their own creation (Freedom), which was what Manish Malhotra did.
 * The "other work" section was created to outline her media appearances in terms of concerts/world tours and philanthropy/humanitarian causes whilst the "in the media" section was for everything else. Regarding her two fashion displays, her appearance in the "2008 IIFA Fashion Extravaganza" was for charity, with the proceeds from the show going to the IIFA Foundation, a charity organization set up by the International Indian Film Academy to support families of film industry workers who have been adversely affected during the production of a film. On the other hand, her app. in Fashion Week 2006 was just to model and walk the ramp for Malhotra's creations. Her game show app. was again dedicated to humanitarian causes. --  Bollywood Dreamz  talk 02:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I changed the wording for the fashion week bit based on your comment, but don't know much about fashion displays so I can't tell if that's the best wording. Did she model stuff on more than one occasion, or are they all one-off events? If the latter, it should be changed to "at Fashion Week 2006" instead of "during".
 * ✅ - They were all one-off events so therefore the one used on the article ("during") is fine. --  Bollywood Dreamz  talk 05:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Another thing that bothered me about the structure but I forgot to say was that the "other work"-section had the first mention of her boyfriend, who was then discussed in more length later on. The first mention just felt out of place.
 * I don't get what you are taking about. In the "other work" section, it doesn't talk about her boyfriend. It only talks about things like Kapoor being involved with humanitarian causes to her taking part in stage shows. Could you please let me know what you mean?? --  Bollywood Dreamz  talk 05:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Based on my comments from before: on further reading, I'd suggest taking the mention of the 2006 fashion display away from the "in the media"-section and moving it up to "other work", since it seems like a better fit there (I guess it could be classified as work, and having three sections that talk about fashion displays seems like giving a small part of her career too much prominence). - Bobet 21:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)