Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/A-class review/Preity Zinta


 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the discussion was: promoted.

Preity Zinta
Support This article has had considerable development even since its promotion to GA status. It is well written, structured and informative and is an excellent source for encyclopedic information. It covers every aspect of her career and life and has over 100 references which are correctly filled out and professional. For me this is already A-class standard and with some minor improvements I believe is up to FA quality. It is better in my view than some of the actor articles which are already FA. Please could you review as soon as possible thanks  ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦       "Talk"? 13:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - My only really remarkable reservation is the number of comparatively short paragraphs. Paragraphs should preferably contain at least three sentences, and several of these contain only one. That's the only real reservation I see, though. John Carter 13:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Reply. Thanks! Can you give examples please? Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  14:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The first paragraph indicates that she is one of the most popular people in the industry. That might require either referencing or some indication that the "Indian cinema industry" or whatever is being referred to. 4th paragraph of the introduction is only one sentence . 3rd and 5th paragraphs of "Personal life" are only one sentence apiece. 2nd paragraph of "Humanitarian work", first paragraph of "Controversies", and first paragraph of "Alleged affair" are also all single sentences. John Carter 15:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the guidance. I'll take care of it, but tell me please, are paragraphs of one sentence not permitted at all? Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  16:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think the intro sentence can be re-written, removed or attached to the previous paragraph, as it deals with distinct description. And the intro of the controversy section is just like it has to be, it's a little introduction. Don't you agree with me? Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  16:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * They're clearly permitted, as there is no official policy or guideline prohibiting them. But there are guidelines that any such very short paragraphs either be removed or be merged into another paragraph, which stand in the way of articles with such paragraphs getting A or FA status. John Carter 18:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * See it now, please. What do you think now? Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  18:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - I took the liberty of making some minor changes to the format of some of the content, which I hope no one minds. If they do, they can revert them. I personally have reservations about including footnotes in the middle of sentences, rather than perhaps breaking up the sentences so that the footnotes do come at the end, but that is really more a personal preference. Other than that, I can see no real problems. John Carter 22:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks!!! Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  22:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Support I haven't read through it completely but I've had a quick scan and read some of it. It looks good and al the info seems accurate. Could be an FA if there are no grammar or spelling errors--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 12:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Support Great job! It would be nice if the table in the Filmography section was fixed (some of the lines aren't presented in a standard manner), but it isn't a big deal. With that fix it would make FA easily. - Francis Tyers · 13:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Support Well written and researched article Tovojolo 13:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. Nice one. - Darwinek 09:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Support This article looks good. I only have one suggestion - The section header "Commitments" looks a little odd to my eye. It is not something that I have seen on any other biography pages, which doesn't mean that it doesn't exist it just means that I haven't seen it. Also not everything in this section quite fits this wording. Unfortunately, I can't think of a better title at this moment for this section so I am only throwing this out there in case someone can come up with one. Otherwise it should stay and this should be given its FA. MarnetteD | Talk 20:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.