Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Preity Zinta

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 promoted by User:Raul654 01:36, 27 May 2008 [1].

---

[edit] Preity Zinta

previous FAC

This article, about an Indian actress, is already a WP:GA. It has had a long history on WP. It first achieved GA status, A status thanks to the great help of User:Blofeld of SPECTRE, and after failing its first FAC, was nominated for GA reassessment, delisted and returned to B. However, it marked the beginning of new understandings, collaborative work, and with help from User:Dwaipayanc and User:John Carter, it has improved a lot and came back to the GA position.

Now, after months of hard work, two peer reviews, I think it finally meets the FA criteria. Please leave your comments, and I'll be more than happy to address any of them.

With best regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note: double-check links; current ref 52 ("Preity Zinta's column for BBC website gets overwhelming response") appears dead. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 18:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed. Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Support -This article in my view has been FA standard since Christmas time at least and on assessment of why it failed FA before I believe this has been improved even further and any outstanding issues have been addressed. Well referenced, informative, well written article, an excellent source of encyclopedic imformation, uses the most reliable sources possible, given that she is an Indian actress not an American. It looks like a solid article all round and given the incredible amount of work and nurturing put into it over the last 9 months is a clear FA for me. Any outstanding issues which caused it to be demoted before I believe have been fully addressed. I think Wikipedia should be proud to have such a developed article on an Indian actress, many editors on here are using the article as a prototype for how an article on an Indian actor or actress should look like and has since seen the development of other articles based on the structure of this one. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 18:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note: Significant contributor. Please don't forget WP:FAC instructions: "If you have been a significant contributor to the article before its nomination, please indicate this." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Moni3:

• I strongly suggest you put the article at WP:LOCE right now to have experienced English writers assist with those elements of style that continue to elude even accomplished writers. For instance, the first paragraphs in Personal life have very little variation of beginning. They mostly start with "Zinta..." You're offering a very well-researched article that needs minor (but many) tweaks in the style to make it flow brilliantly.
• Some of Zinta's films seem to have made an impact due to their addressing complex social issues in Indian culture. Those social issues may not be self-explanatory to non-Indians. You may have to include examples of her impact. For example, she played an young single mother in one movie. This would not be a big deal in the US. Can you provide perhaps phrases from critics, or examples of the reaction to these apparently controversial roles?

I wish you luck with this article. --Moni3 (talk) 19:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, and for the encouragement. The article has been listed on WP:LOCE for over half a year now, but results are still pending.

In regard to your second comment, yeh, these roles were quite racy by Indian standards, that is why she has been credited with bringing a change. But these roles are by no means new to Indian cinema. I did add critics' comments for almost every role, but some films miss reviews on the net, and if there are, they're either unreliable or missing details regarding those particular issues. I will try to find something. Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment - just because she's written a couple of columns (which, in the case of celebrities, are pften ghost written/rewritten by somebody else) doesn't make her a columnist. indopug (talk) 19:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with you, and I didn't want to write that she's a columnist initially. But the sources you can find in the section, clearly describe her as columnist. Furthermore, in the lead, right after writing that she is a columnist, there's a sentence "having written..." which makes it quite clear why she is described as columnist, giving the reader the space to make his own conclusions. Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment — I should have added "She was seen blowing kisses at Yuvraj Singh" :) Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

LOL!!! Well done, I'll add that ASAP! :) Shahid • ^Talk2me 07:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://ibosnetwork.com/default.aspx
  • http://boxofficeindia.com/index.php
  • http://www.indiafm.com/index.html

All other links worked and checked out fine for me. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

indiaFM is the leading Bollywood entertainment website in India. All the Bollywood stars make appearances on there, it is one of the best known sites featuring content re Bollywood, reviews, news, interviews. It is also rated always very highly on Alexa's ratings.

boxofficeindia.com is a leading site for box office figures in Bollywood. Their "about us" and "disclaimers" sections are quite clear and detailed about their way of working. Not only Wikipedia, but famous and reputable newspapers like The Times of India, Hindustan Times etc use it as a source of information (see this article for example).

IBOSnetwork.com is also a well-known site for box office figures in India. Again, their sections prove that.

Shahid • ^Talk2me 07:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll leave these out for other reviewers to see your answers, since we don't see a lot of Indian films at FAC. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeh, Lage Raho Munnabhai and Satyajit Ray are the only Indian cinema-related FAs so far. Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment In the February WP:GA discussion I stated:
• Here is my problem with the current lead. All award winning actress WP:FA's except Judy Garland state clearly in the first paragraph a summary of her awards in a manner similar to two-time Filmfare Award-winning actress:

  Angelina Jolie - She has received three Golden Globe Awards, two Screen Actors Guild Awards, and an Academy Award.

  Jenna Jameson - By 1996, she had won the three top newcomer awards from pornographic film industry organizations. She has since won more than 20 adult film awards

  Bette Davis - two-time Academy Award-winning American actress of film

  Diane Keaton - Academy Award-winning American film actress,

  Vivien Leigh - She won two Academy Awards

  Miranda Otto - Logie Award-winning Australian actress

  Sharon Tate - Golden Globe-nominated American actress.

  • Miss Zinta still does not make clear the nature of her success in the first paragraph of the lead like the vast majority of other FA actresses. Critical recognition is one of the first things a reader looks for when reading an actor/actress page. Please consider adding the phrase "two-time Filmfare Award-winning actress" to the first paragraph of the lead.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 06:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello Tony! The reason I don't add this, is a decision taken by editors of Wikiproject:Indian Cinema. If it was a National Film Award, I would have definetely added it, like we mostly do on Indian film related articles. But Filmfare, as it was decided, are not cricket scores, they should not be used to "rank" actresses in terms of awards won.

Another reason is the previous FAC, at which one user said it was POV to start an article like that. And believe me, there is a big difference between Filmfare awards and the Oscars.

Thirdly, the awards are already mentioned a number of times. In the first paragraph it says she won a Filmfare Best Female Debut award; in the second, she won the Best Actress award. Also the infobox provides that.

I'm enormously impressed with your keenness to see this article in better shape. I'm grateful for that. Best regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 07:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes remember I added this before but it was removed. I thought it should be more specific to mention it in the intro too ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 10:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• From what I gather National Film Award is the top award and Filmfare Award is a lesser award. In the U.S. there are four or five lead worthy awards: Academy Award, Golden Globe Award, Emmy Award, Tony Award, Screen Actors Guild Award. If you have won or been nominated for any of these, the totals go in the lead paragraph. All other awards basically don't make the lead. I am not sure of an in between solution where they belong in the lead, but not summarized in the first paragraph. Thus I am confused. You currently are standing behind having a summary of who she is scattered throughout the lead. If Filmfare is important enough for the lead, it should be in the first para, IMO. It is probably as big as a Logie Award, but I don't know. I don't really buy this argument, but if Filmfare is the equivalent of a lesser US award I would let it slide.
• I absolutely do not buy the argument that saying she is a "two-time Filmfare Award-winning actress" would be POV. It would not. See actresses above.
• Your third argument about standing behind scattering the awards is not so hot. Basically, it seems to be the prevailing standard for important critical acknowledgement, but if it is not an important award, it can slide.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 07:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why you always compare this article to American actresses' ones. See articles like Cillian Murphy, Eric Bana. I'm doing something which was already decided a long time ago. The Filmfare is an important function, but as many here, I think it's a big POV saying she is award-winning before mentioning her occupation.

Filmfare Awards is definitely a prestigious award ceremony, it is, and one of the oldest and most prominent film events, alongside the NFA.

However, in contrast to the National Film Awards, which are decided by a panel appointed by Indian Government, the Filmfare Awards are voted for by both the public and a committee of experts. Also, National Awards are given to every possible actor in India for his work, in all the regional languages, regardless of what industry he works in, while the Filmfare — only Hindi films (Bollywood).

It was a decision, and as you see, several articles don't introduce awards in the first para, ie Cillian Murphy, who won some Irish award, and received a Golden Globe nomination.

Shahid • ^Talk2me 07:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

SUPPORT - Despite my continuing unresolved quibble, the article is fantastic. It continues to evolve toward a higher level of quality and refinement.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment Why not "In addition to being an actress, Zinta has written columns for BBC News Online South Asia..." since you agree with about her not being a columnist? Please delinks individual years in the filmography table. Didn't she change her name from something like "Preeti Zinta" a while back due to numerology issues? (Hence the weird spelling) Please try to ensure that a word is not repeated many times in close proximity, it reads very poorly--"The film, based on the 1991 film". indopug (talk) 13:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but the sources show otherwise. She was born Preity Zinta, she was never known as Preeti. These are not individual links, they link to list offilms of each mentioned year, but I'll remove it if you want.

As for the latter comment... What do you suggest? Maybe to change it to "movie"? :) Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Yeeah remove those year links, how is a list of films released that year useful? No, I think "movie" is not professional/formal. The Silence of the Lambs (1991) is fine. I don't think we have to go with the sources on the columnist; its not as simple an issue as fact or non-fact. If somebody is of the opinion that somebody else (who is already famous BTW) is a columnist after writing just four columns, then it remains just that—an opinion. The only reason she was given the opportunity to write a column in the first place was because she was already a famous actress. Ask around for other editors' opinions too, maybe we can reach a consensus. indopug (talk) 14:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You're right, I'll remove them now. I have asked one editor for his opinion re columns/columnists. Thanks, Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well - rephrased as you suggested, removed links to years. Still waiting for the editor to reply. Thank you. Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'm the person mentioned above or not. I might change the phrasing of one sentence to "In addition to her work as an film actress, Zinta regularly perfoms on the stage, and has written a series of popular columns for BBC News Online South Asia". I also note that I am probably less than objective about the subject myself, having been involved in the article for some time, but do not see any serious impediments to Supporting the article. And if there are any other specific concerns about phrasing, I ask that anyone specificy them here, so that we can all do what we can to address them. John Carter (talk) 15:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Noting the buried support in the comment above; please refer to WP:FAC instructions when declaring Support or Oppose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. Removed columnist, and rephrased as suggested by John on my talk page. Thanks for the comments, Indopug. Now what are we gonna do with the "Columnist" section? Shouldn't it be renamed? Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Changed to column writing. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - This article seems to have improved tremendously since the last time I saw it. Congratulations to everyone involved for that. However, the question here is whether it is ready for FA-hood. The answer, imo is a firm NO. The improvement of the last few months notwithstanding, the article falls short on many counts. For one, sources - boxofficeindia.com, ibosnetwork, indiantelevision.com etc., are not WP:RS sources for claims as exceptional as box-office figures etc.,. Secondly, though I am not a stickler for "brilliant prose" as long as it flows smoothly, is reasonably well-written and all other more important things like sources, NPOV, UNDUE etc are taken care of, I must still say that this article needs several rounds of cpedit before I can call it even "reasonably well written". More than the prose, the article needs to be checked for content and encyclopedicity. Sentences like --

"Zinta, a self-confessed tomboy in the early stages of her life, was influenced primarily by her father.[10] As a child groomed in an army household, she grew up with values such as discipline and punctuality.[10]"

are not even encyclopedic. It goes without saying that every child is influenced by its parents and "grew up with values such as discipline and punctuality" is just fluff. And all this is sourced, I think (correct me if I am wrong) to an indulgent page 3 interview with a newspaper(?). I am sure, the article has more such instances.

Also, "References" are not the same as "Notes"/"Footnotes" and it would greatly help if the ==References== section listed all the references which the notes source from. Also, I think the footnotes need to be made consistent for style and syntax. And given that the entire article is sourced to websites, it may be a good idea to explore some way of optimising the referencing, so editors dont have to keep tripping over lengthy {{cite web|....}} tags in edit-mode. Sarvagnya 22:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Box Office India the official website for statistics on the Indian Box Office not a valid source???? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 11:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Sarvagnya, boxofficeindia.com is a leading site for box office figures in Bollywood. Their "about us" and "disclaimers" sections are quite clear and detailed about their way of working. Not only Wikipedia, but famous and reputable newspapers like The Times of India, Hindustan Times etc use it as a source of information (see this article for example). So let's assume we can't use BOI, but we can use Hindustan Times; they use it as their source of information, as you can see in the ref. So what else can you do? It's clearly reliable. And I'm not going to discuss it here, it was already discussed and accepted by User:Spartaz and User:Nichalp who are great contributors, and you are not the one to decide what a WP:RS source is, and what a WP:RS source is not. Your way of presenting your views as obvious facts is IMO wrong, the right way is to ask what the reliability of the source is, in an appropriate manner, as it was done by another editor in this very FAC. We cannot always wander around the same issue. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, disregarding my personal preferences for books and non-tabloid newspapers, which are not available anyway, if someone is used by another as a source of information that doesn't mean the first is reliable, since reporters interview eyewitnesses who are primary sources, but the eyewitness put up their own blog, that doesn't become reliable. Unfortunately the way the world works is that the "reliable news sources" get stuff of random people and turn it into "solid info" - I'd like to get a personal benefit if being used by a reliable source makes one reliable - because the ToI copied my Wikipedia articles - then I could declare myself to be a notable cricket pundit and put my OR on Wikipedia. Unfortunately not, from a pure vanity point of view. :( Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeh I agree, but there must be some guideline for that. Boxofficeindia.com is a very well recognised website, and the info on there is precise and correct. I know that ToI have unreliable sections like cricket.indiatimes, ipl.indiatimes, but the original site newspaper is very reliable, and it uses and mentions boxofficeindia quite a few times. But let's assume we cannot base ourselves on only one source even if it's a newspaper, but we have also Hindustan Times (! the link given). All of them, major newspapers, use the source -- and use means, they say "according to boxofficeindia.com..." Why shouldn't Wikipedia? If they can, I can't see why Wikipedia cannot.

The site iteself looks great in terms of readability and reliability. Everything, their "disclaimer", "about us" sections are detailed. Their way of working is clear, they are very clear about everything. They also often answer questions addressed to them be readers. It's clearly a credible/reliable source. Sarvagnya was the only one to claim that it's unreliable during the first FAC and during this one. If I wasn't sure of this site's reliability, I would certainly have removed that in the time of the very first FAC. The main problem with Indian sites is their lack of international/wide recognition. That's why they're often considered unreliable. Shahid • ^Talk2me 04:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, your point "not even encyclopedic" is not valid unless you write what policy you are basing your claim on. This sentence was copyedited several times, and is now very well balanced and sourced. We say that she was primarily influenced by her father, and it is not an obvious fact. Also, you never know what kind of a family a girl can be grown up in. It can be a poor family or a criminal one. Other FAs about actors/singers also describe the person's childhood. I believe it is encyclopedic. I was quite sure you would oppose when you see this article, but nevertheless, it's your decision. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, as Sarvagnya has told, many sentences in this article are based on Zinta's interviews (page 3 or not). However, I don't think this can be a point of objection, since the words are from the horse's mouth. Regarding the syntax of references, the article consistently uses one style (cite web), which is not only ok, but recommended. --Dwaipayan (talk) 13:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding influences on the subject, such content is obviously very relevant when on is writing an encyclopedic biography article. In fact, I have reason to believe that, in at least some encyclopedia articles, it is even expected. I would ask the person who objects to such content to examine that such information is even included in some infoboxes, like Template:Infobox artist and Template:Infobox philosopher. If information on the influences of a person is significant enough to even be included in those infoboxes, I cannot see how similar information is not significant enough to be mentioned in the article itself. John Carter (talk) 15:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment:

Along with Ness Wadia and others, Zinta in 2008 acquired ownership rights for the Mohali Twenty20 cricket team of the Indian Premier League.[104] The group paid $ 76 million to acquire the franchise, and have since renamed the team Kings XI Punjab.[105]

• Shouldn't this be in the ==Other work== section.
• Was it really renamed the team "Kings XI Punjab" or simply named? If the franchise was renamed then what was the previous name?

Side comment: A controversy not mentioned in the article which was telecated by TV channels that some of the players of the team were shabbily treated and asked to move out of the Taj hotel to a less opulent place to accomodate some her guests". KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 10:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments. I changed it to "named" - you're right. But I don't think these two sentences can be shifted to the other work section. There is one - columns, one - Humanitarian work, and one - stage performer. So I don't know where I can add it in. Regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

As the craze and coverage of IPL increases, and Zinta has involved herself in a heavy way with the team, perhaps it was time to create a subsection for her owning the cricket team. The subsection has now been created. Please see if it suffices.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes it does suffice and the section shall grow as the IPL progresses. BTW I feel the title should be something like "Ownership of IPL team". KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 17:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Subsection renamed "Ownership of Indian Premier League team".--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Support - The article has tremendously improved since its last FAC. Overall, it is well-written, informative, cohesive and most importantly, well-sourced. Great job guys and all the best with this article!! --Bollywood Dreamz ^Talk 18:51, 1 May 2008

Oppose—Much improved, although I still had to remove some overlinking. Not at all sufficiently well-written. Needs fresh eyes by a good copy-editor throughout. Here are just a few examples from the lead (you'd think the lead would be better than the rest, actually).

• Now why would I object to the linking of "English language"? Second sentence, too. Makes fools of us.
  • You mean you want the link to be removed? Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• There's flab and a lack of cohesion here, right at the start: "She subsequently displayed her range, taking on a number of roles as characters of a diverse nature, and in doing so, has been credited with bringing a change in the image of Hindi film heroine." "Range" means what? I don't want to have to ponder it in reverse after finishing the sentence. "Roles" and "characters" are hardly worth differentiating here, are they? "characters of a diverse nature"—five words could be just two. Remove comma after "so". "bringing a change in" could be just one word.
  • Done - Changed to "She would subsequently take on a variety of character types, and in doing so has been credited with changing the image of Hindi film heroine." Please tell me if that's OK. Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• MOS issues: " the science fiction Koi... Mil Gaya, her biggest commercial success to date"—"science" was hanging at the end of the line for me: hyphenate it here, since it's a double adjective, yes? "To date"—what date? This is worthless in the future, so remove it and just make the statement; someone would have to update it either way.
  • Done - hyphenated and removed "to date". Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• "Cross-border"—Some people may be in on the secret, but to know that it means "India–Pakistan border" is too much. We shouldn't have to hit the link (piped, it turns out) to discover this.
  • Changed to "star-crossed" as per John's below suggestion. Done? Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

TONY (talk) 13:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello Tony, and thanks for the comments. Let me please take a glance. Also, I must say, writing the lead is IMO probably the most difficult task in writing a BLP article. :) Regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

What do you think about removing the link completely? Cross-border romance doesn't necessarily have to take place in India. It's quite universal. Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Not knowing the details of the subject, would calling them "a star-crossed romance of a Indian and a Pakistani" work? John Carter (talk) 15:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess that yes! But is "of a Indian and a Pakistani" necessarily needed in the lead? Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I've begun copyediting this article, and have finished the lead. I'll get to the rest of it soon (probably tomorrow); perhaps folks can have a look at the lead and let me know how they feel so far so I know if I'm on the right track, or if there are other things I need to look for? Thanks. – Scartol • Tok 15:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Strong Support: Well written, notable and valid. Furthermore, two relatively back to back featured articles on the Main Page, Satyajit Ray and this, would trigger off a large influx of effort towards Indian films. Universal Hero (talk) 18:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support It's a very good article. I see no reason to oppose. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• I just noticed someone changing the first sentence of Early life [2] and was surprised to find the reference [3] didn't support the sentence. It's also geared to kids and was used four times. I've replaced one with a recent Times of India article that supports the line (possibly a self-referential copy from here, though.) The reference for the 1975 year of birth [4] is only a couple paragraphs, and another ref from the same site, also used in this article [5], says 1974. The article should at least cite something like The Tribune [6]. It might be good to check some of the other refs and replace the weak ones with better sources. Gimmetrow 06:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes it was a very common mistake before 2004-5 but then started to change. Since 2005, it has changed and even in interviews she indicates she was born in 1975. Now every article clearly states she is 33-year-old. Regarding the source, I confused it with another source in this sction. You can see the old discussions in the talk page archive regarding her age. The Rediff source was added because it is the most recent one. Regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

So, can we do anything to reduce use of sources geared to kids ("My Fundays")? What indicates that [7] is "not a reliable section in this site"? Just wondering, because many of the Rediff pages don't look very strong. The Tribune link I give above is more recent than the Rediff one used for the year of birth, by the way. Gimmetrow 00:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

What is "geared to kids"?

No problem. I'll add the Tribune, the problem is that I didn't find it in the source. BTW, Rediff is very reliable.

As for the site, the sections ipl., cricket., are almost always conducted by who knows who, not the site's principals, and take their info from the net. Note, only these sections. Others no. Shahid • ^Talk2me 04:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, the Tribune site does not give us her full date of birth. Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually it does, it just has the two parts separated by a couple paragraphs. "Geared to kids" means the "My Fundays" page is written for children; it has "telekids" in the url. It's only being used twice now so it's not so bad. However, the article has lost the definition for ref #28. Gimmetrow 20:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• OT: Scartol has copyedited the article. Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Three non-free images that don't appear to improve the reader's understanding of the article and thus fail our non-free image policy WP:NFCC, notably WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. Black Kite 17:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

These images provide a critical commentary. Please see WP:FU. Also, please see other FAs like Diane Keaton and Cillian Murphy among others -- all use FU images. Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

No, WP:FU is a guideline on using non-free images; WP:NFCC is the relevant policy. None of the images are discussed in the text, and thus fail WP:NFCC#8 (and probably WP:NFCC#3a as well). Black Kite 20:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Well there appears to be a significant misunderstanding in perception of what is acceptable. Many people believe the use of the images is within guidelines as yes the text does discuss these films. Have you not read the article? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 20:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I acknowledge that the editor resisting the inclusion of the photos may have a point. However, I would ask him to review the two FU pictures in Cillian Murphy. The amount of discussion of the roles and images in both articles seems at least to me to be roughly similar. I acknowledge that Murphy has only two such images, while this has three, and that might be a significant difference. But the amount of direct discussion of the images, and the works from which the images are derived, seem to be roughly similar, and Murphy was only recently promoted to FA. If we were perhaps given clearer indications as to how he perceives the usage to be different, I think that would be very welcome. John Carter (talk) 20:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

If I had seen that FAC review I would have argued that the first image fails WP:NFCC as well, to be honest (OK, it shows Murphy as the evil villain, but does it really say anything the text doesn't?). The second one, as I mention below, appears to hit NFCC#8 sufficiently. Black Kite 21:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed regarding the first image. Not entirely sure what the second image actually illustrates though, maybe the "androgynous" part or the fact that he makes a passable female? I'm not trying to be smart or anything, by the way. I hope you realize that. I'm just not sure. John Carter (talk) 21:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

as a trial I'm removed all the copywrighted images and I have to say I think it affects the quality of the article. Two of the images I consider encyclopedia. The larger beatuiful picture of Zinta in KANK, the bottom one however I have to admit was more decoratative but the teenager mother and image of her with Khan in a Filmfar award winning role I think are encyclopedic and help understanding and visualize her role as an actress ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 20:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

They don't necessarily all have to be removed if they can be critically discussed in the text. For example, what the lower image in Cillian Murphy shows is clearly discussed in the text next to it, and the image thus improves the reader's understanding of that passage. If the images in this article can be shown to be justified by the increased understanding of the reader, that's fine, but they can't really just be random images of the actress in various films. Black Kite 21:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually the Diane Keaton article has four screenshots. Does this mean it should be demoted? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 20:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, yes, it should. Unfortunately the problem of articles passing FAC despite failing NFCC has been going for a long time - I only became aware of it recently whilst doing some NFCC patrol with my sock. Black Kite 21:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you still firm on your oppose? Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Given that those images have now been removed. Please comment on the actual content of the article thankyou. Many FA's have passed FA with many screenshots across wikipedia. Perhaps its time the site stuck to one policy as double standard is isn't a good look ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 21:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I agree. After all, we do have a policy regarding the use of non-free images and I would have thought that it would be the de facto standard to which all articles should adhere. I do need to make it clear that it is not the use of non-free images per se that is the problem - if they can used in a way that is aligned with WP:NFCC. Obviously I have struck my oppose now the images have been removed, but I will certainly have a look to see if there is a policy-compliant manner that at least some may be used. The problem is that most of images of Zinta uploaded so far are just "here's a picture of one or two people in a film" type images. I tried hi.wiki but their article doesn't help [8] (many other wikis don't allow NF images at all, though).Black Kite 22:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

"They don't necessarily all have to be removed if they can be critically discussed in the text." - but all of the images are critically discussed in the article. Kya Kehna was her first major breakthrough, as well as Kal Ho Naa Ho, which won her the Best Actress at the Filmfare. Apart from that. Her role in KANK was appreciated and the film is Bollywood's biggest hit in the overseas market ever. So what are we doing now? I first want you guys to make some rules clear. If it cannot be used here, it cannot be used in other articles including the so nice FAs about Cillian and Diane. as your quote above provides, I'll add as of now two images from the first two films I mentioned. They are clearly and specifically and critically discussed in the article, and the rationale itself, if you see, is perfect. Comments? Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

No - critical discussion means that the image itself is discussed, not that the film that it portrays is discussed. As a rule of thumb, the question you need to ask yourself is "if I removed this image, would the article be more difficult for the reader to understand?" Black Kite 19:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeh, I agree completely. And that was exactly what I felt while adding the images. It took quite some time to do that. The images illustrate the info of the text perfectly. For example the Kal Ho Naa Ho image illustrates the film as being a tearjerker, and the award she won is mentioned as well. It provides a critical commentary on the film and its contents. so does the KANK image, so does the Kya Kehna one. It was a long and hard work writing and composing the rationale, explaining everything in details. Have you seen the rationales? And without the images, it's definitely difficult for the reader to understand more about her and her work in an Indian film industry, especially considering the lack of knowledge people across the globe have about Bollywood and Indian cinema. Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support

Much improved, support conditional on sourcing issue below. Oppose, copyediting needed before this is ready. Problems easily spotted - several errors found just in the first paragraph of the lead.

• • I don't care for the phrase "in Bollywood" as that is not a physical location to my knowledge.

Yes, but it is an internationally recognised term, which makes it much easier for the Western reader to understand, who does not really know what Hindi cinema is. Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• • "She has appeared in Hindi films produced in Bollywood, as well as Telugu and English-language movies." Grammar.. need parallel structure of phrases.

Changed. Please tell me if it looks better now. Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Stylistic but ungrammatical commas - example: "After graduating with a degree in criminal psychology, Zinta made her acting debut in Dil Se in 1998, followed by a role in Soldier the same year."

mmm I really don't know what you mean. Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I mean that commas are used where you might "pause" in speech but they are not proper grammar. Generally speaking, you do not use a comma to separate a clause that does not stand on its own as a sentence. In the example above, the clause is "... followed by a role in Soldier the same year."

Thank you for the explanation. I've removed the comma, and I'll try to address this point in other sentences with improper grammar. Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you please give some more examples for that? Because I'm not sure. Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It looks like most of them have been fixed. I will remove any others I see. --Laser brain (talk) 15:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• • "She would subsequently take on a variety of character types, and in doing so has been credited with changing the image of Hindi film heroine." Grammar.. missing article.

There is no article about Hindi film heroine. What's the grammar problem? Could you please elaborate? Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I think he means there should be a "the" before "Hindi film heroine". Or made plural. But this is an exact quote from one of the cited sources. Gimmetrow 22:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I meant. If it's an exact quote, why isn't it in quotes? Anyway, maybe we should rephrase instead of quoting poor English. --Laser brain (talk) 04:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

No it is not an exact quote. I thought "the" would be a bit odd as it is not a definite term, so I added "a". What do you say Laser? Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I see

(source) "Credited with bringing a change in the image of Hindi film heroine"[9]

(here) "credited with changing the image of Hindi film heroine."

My mistake. Gimmetrow 19:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Many sentences are too long, containing a mess of commas and semicolons and expressing too many ideas. Readability is affected. Example: "Zinta, who describes herself as a tomboy as a child, has emphasised her father's military background as having a lasting impression on how family life was conducted, asserting the importance of discipline and punctuality to the children."

Done - divided into two. Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - but the whole article needs attention to this matter. --Laser brain (talk) 04:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh OK no problem, I'll try to figure these out. Do you have some additional examples? Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Another editor has fixed the ones I spotted. --Laser brain (talk) 15:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• • I don't understand what you are trying to say here: "Introducing Zinta as Preeti Nair, a middle-class Delhi girl and Khan's fiancee, the film was considered an unusual launch for a newcomer, as her role called for only 20 minutes of screen time." I don't see where your source backs up anything about this being an "unusual launch" for a newcomer.

Oh sorry yeh. The ref comes right after the following sentence. Would you like me to separate the sentences into two? Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I see it now. It is fine. --Laser brain (talk) 04:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

--Laser brain (talk) 19:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments Laser_brain. Best regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• I think overall this is a quite good article. I've been trying to fact-check the sources. For the most part they do back up the article, but they are sometimes used in odd ways. For instance, this article has all of three sentences on Zinta, but it was referenced four times (now three). This article is largely about her films, but it's used to reference a quote about boarding school. This isn't really wrong, but it would seem more natural to have more cites from the longer, more substantial articles. Finally, about being "credited with changing the image of the Hindi film heroine" - this was cited to the three-sentence one I just mentioned. OK, but it doesn't really explain how. This article, however, is precisely about the redefinition of the Indian heroine, and mentions Zinta. That seems to me more on point. Gimmetrow 22:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeh thanks. I think articles should not be necessarily long to qualify the sourcing. The Indian Express is a reputable newspaper, and it mentions her in particular. I think it's btter than a source from the Hindu which does not discuss this specifically. Good to note that I have cited a book reference about this claim which is a bit important. The other Hindu about the borading school has a perfect friend of her talking about her own life, childhood and loneliness at boarding school. So I guess it's OK. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

What I'm trying to get at is this: when I read a sentence, I have certain expectations of the type of statements and sources used to back it up. If a sentence says "she redefined the Hindi film heroine", I generally expect a bit more than a three-sentence blurb in a collection of news shorts with one sentence saying "Credited with bringing a change in the image of Hindi film heroine". A few brief, high-level sources like this are fine, but citing a lot of these can be a let-down to those readers who might read the sources. With some other articles I've used other sources already present in the article to replace cites to such brief blurbs; it helps reduce citation overload. Are you interested in doing something like that here? Gimmetrow 05:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I don't really think the length of the text in the source is a problem. As long as the source is reliable, I think it's fine. And the specific article (from The Indian Express) we are talking about is a very good article, with many separated sections. On the other hand, the new source from The Hindu does not seem to say anything specific about Zinta at all. So I think The Indian Express is far better, and this one, TheHindu, should be removed. I also have a book reference for this claim.

I'll later add the Tribune source you suggested me to add. Thanks, Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Nah, don't. I'll find something better. Gimmetrow 00:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Changes

I've made some significant changes to the article since it was nominated. I must have removed around 15 commas from the article. I hope now that most of the earlier concerns have been addressed. I've also added a different screenshot which I consider more encyclopedic and some other free images of her in the article which I believe enhance its quality.

♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 12:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

One sourcing concern while I was re-reading the article. Under the Success heading, you write of the film The Hero: Love Story of a Spy, "It was the most expensive Bollywood film of the year, but failed to recover its production costs at the box office." The source provided does not back up either claim. All it shows is the gross and net for the film. It does not show production costs, but if one assumes that the net was figured by subtracting production costs from the gross, then the claim is false. If a film failed to recover its production costs, the net would be negative (meaning the film lost money). --Laser brain (talk) 14:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Well spotted Laser. Strangely the The Hero: Love Story of a Spy article says it was the third highest grossing film of the year. Either it was absurdly expensive and despite being the third highest grossing still didn't win back its costs, or something here is false. Perhaps Shahid could find a source? Also this sentence I feel should be added as it fills in a bit more on what the film was about

"The film, about a spy network involving terrorists and a corrupt Indian army officer starred Zinta as Reshma, a villager who becomes part of this network". ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 15:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

BTW, it was not only the most expensive film of the year, but the most expensive Bollywood production up until then. As stated by BOI, the film was the third top-grossing film of the year. And it's right. It just that considering its very high costs, it expectedly did not succeed in recovering its production costs at the BOI. So, as you see, it was the third top-grossing buts verdict is "below average" -- meaning -- flopped.

Here are the sources:

• The Tribune: "The Hero, shot at a mind-boggling budget of Rs. 55 crore, sank without a trace."
• Rediff (pre-release): "People have declared it the most expensive Hindi film ever made."
• IBOS - box offcie overciew standard: "Billed as the most expensive film in 2003. Loser for producers, earner for the distributors."

Which one should I add now? Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I've fleshed out that bit and added some new sentences. To address the concerns by Laser earlier I've actually added two references ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 16:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I've added one more to backup the claim:) Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I think we can finally say... Done! ;) Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Great job, both of you. Highlighted my support above as I consider the matter resolved. --Laser brain (talk) 17:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment - My concerns have not been addressed and my oppose stands. I will be explaining in greater detail soon. Sarvagnya 23:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It would be useful if you specified which concerns you are speaking of. Your concerns about the "unencyclopedic" nature of influences on the subject of a biography are apparently contraindicated elsewhere, as has been indicated above, and thus may well qualify as simple opinion. The objections to the cite web template seem to run contrary to existing practice. Your other concerns about separating notes and refernces might be reasonable, although other entertainment FAs such as James T. Aubrey, Jr., Kroger Babb, Eric Bana, Rudolph Cartier, Jackie Chan, Emma Watson, and others use basically the same format. Having said that, I think we would be very interested in hearing the specifics, preferably as soon as possible. John Carter (talk) 00:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Sarvagnya -

Serious issues still remain with this article -

1. Non-RS sources - boxofficeindia.com is NOT a WP:RS source. Just because some RS sources quote it here and there, doesnt mean boi itself qualifies as one. For that matter, wikipedia is also sourced by RS sources routinely (often without attribution) and yet wikipedia is not a RS source. A RS source is one which has the credentials to be commenting on the issue. And to boot, the Indian film industry to a large extent is unregulated even today and Indian Box Office figures are notoriously unreliable. As such, box office figures are "exceptional claims" and "exceptional claims require exceptional sources". BOI is a questionable source and far from "exceptional". And when did Microsoft (msn) become a RS for Indian cinema articles? 2. Prose is still way below the average FA standards. The early life section reads like something from a comic book or something ("According to Zinta, she enjoyed schoolwork and received good grades; in her free time she played sports, especially basketball.") 3. John Carter's waving away of my comment about the "influence" sentence with his response stating that the "Influence" is also a field in infoboxes is disingenuous. The "influence" there (in infoboxes) refers to those who have been influences professionally.. ie., if Zinta's acting skills have been influenced by others, it would need to be noted. Did Zinta's father influence her "acting skills"?! 4. And like Gimmetrow (?) notes, most of the sources are used in curious ways. This greatly runs the risk of WP:OR. To quote from WP:NOR, --

“

to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.

”

Specifics, please. John Carter (talk) 01:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

In other words, this article is one hell of a quote-mining job. One glaring example is in the bombastic claim made in the lead. It is claimed in the lead that -- "She would subsequently take on a variety of character types, and in doing so has been credited with changing the image of a Hindi film heroine.[2][3]" (!!).

Now, this entire bombast seems to be sourced from a pathetic -- "...Today we have Miss Universe (Sushmita Sen), Miss World (Aishwarya Rai) and any number of Miss Indias. One of our biggest stars, Preity Zinta, was better known as the "Liril" soap girl not so long ago."

If one reads that piece, it is clear that the context is entirely different. In fact, the article only seems to be stating that the yesteryear 'vamps' have been replaced by the mainstream heroines. Whatever it is, it supports nothing of the sort that is being claimed in the lead. This is blatant WP:POV and WP:OR. I am sure there are several such cases throughout the article. More later. And once again, the prose is way below even reasonably acceptable standards. Sarvagnya 01:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Er, that was actually a cite I added. The one formerly in the lead (#24 now and still used later in the article where the same claim is met), was [10]. It had the line "Credited with bringing a change in the image of Hindi film heroine, the dimpled lady from Himachal is known for her steadfast approach and honesty" and said nothing else. This article, after mentioning those three women, says "The notion of a vamp in Hindi cinema, therefore, became extinct the day this generation arrived in the 1990s", which seemed to me more on point. Gimmetrow 01:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Responses to Sarvagnya (paragraph by paragraph) So you said before. However, that point has not clearly yet been established, and others seem to disagree with you. On that basis, if you were to seek to indicate that it is not reliable enough for the purposes for which it is used, I think that there would need to be some evidence to support that presented. I haven't seen any, barring your own statements to that effect and your attempt at circular reasoning above. We, by the way, aren't an RS because of vandalism. Simple assertion by editors of at best tangential points about how Indian Box office figures (and do you mean the site or just Indian cinema in general - please specify) aren't reliable, without sourcing, are even less reliable than the source they seek to indicate is unreliable. You have to date, that I can see, provided no such sourcing. You haven't demonstrated they are "exceptional claims", so there is no need for "exceptional sourcing". You should note by the way that boxofficeindia is currently seemingly used as a source in roughly 250 articles as per here, and I can't find any official complaints regarding its quality in any of the pages listed. On that basis, I would have to assume that what you are saying here is simply your own unverified opinion. And msn, whether you knew it or not, is now linked to NBC, one of the more generally reliable sources for most of the material it discusses. John Carter (talk) 01:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC) One sentence can be adjusted. If you have other concerns, please list them. John Carter (talk) 01:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

And you seem to have waved away the point I was making by attempting to misrepresent it. My contention is that, in any instance when an individual has themselves expressly stated the influences that shaped their lives, it is reasonable to mention them, particularly when those influences can be seen as being reasonably relevant to whatever the subject of the article is best known for. For a person of the few years this subject has had, it actually is rather likely that the influence of her father impacted her work ethic, memory ability, ways of expressing herself, etc., all of which are, actually, relative to acting skills. Also, for someone who has been, if I remember correctly, called the "only man in Bollywood" or some such thing for the courageous stance she took regarding attempted extortion, and who also took a degree in criminal psychology, which I don't think is generally considered a particularly "feminine" occupation, she has displayed a degree of courage and inteegrity which is not only remarkable, but also seemingly a significant factor in her current notability. That would make the influence of her father even more directly relevant to her biography. John Carter (talk) 01:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Try to control your language, please. If the citations make that claim, are you really in a position to counter them, with no evidence presented by you yet to the contrary yourself? If you have other sources to add, please feel free to add them. Until and unless you can yourself verify that your claims are indicated by other sources at least as reliable and verifiable as those used, WP:AGF would indicate that we accept the only real evidence which has been presented to date, which, to date, has not been by you. John Carter (talk) 01:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with John. Sarvagnya, I must say, you're working too hard.

• You say, "boxofficeindia.com is NOT a WP:RS source" - Interesting, and who are you to determine that? You are just one of million of users here. I think you mean "in your opinion" it is not, even if all the other factors contradict your opinion, no? What you said, should be said in a different way: Sarvagnya is not the one who gives the final verdict about what a RS is, and what a RS is not. I'm not even going to explain again why it's an RS, I've had enough. You are the only user who has problems with this site, while editors like User:Nichalp and User:Spartaz supported me with this source back in time. Interesting, none of all those great users here has had problems with it no? ToI and Hindustan Times, and here have a Rediff use it as a source of information. Isn't it enough for you? So take western sites, like Times Online for example. What else can you do?
  I repeat, your way of presenting your views as obvious facts is wrong, the right way is to ask what the reliability of the source is, in an appropriate manner, as it was done by another editor in this very FAC.
• The 'vamp' source was not added by me. It's happened during the FAC, I've now removed it. BTW, to support this, as you say, "bombastic" claim, I even added a book source (24) back in time. If you haven't seen that, it means you did not even pay attention to details.
• The early life section was thoroughly copyedited by User:Scartol. As one of the greatest copyeditors on here, he did not have any problem with this. Again, Tony and Laser above have not had any issue with that info either. Angelina Jolie, see her early life section to get some knowledge and familiarise yourself with how an "Early life" section in a BLP actor FA should look.
• Shahid • ^Talk2me 06:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that at one time there was a problem with Box Office India as a reference because the website for some time had a dead link for a home page. This HOWEVER was sorted out months ago and it now has a home page. Box Office India is the OFFICIAL SITE FOR INDIAN FILM STATISTICS and I wouldn't expect an encyclopedia like wikipedia to disregard an offical source which is strongly encouraged across all subjects. There are no other film statistics sites that could be considered more reliable than this for Indian film. It is an official source. Strong evidenc eof this is top Indian sources in themselves like ToI and Hindustan Times use it as a source of information themsevles very regularly. Other than this Sarvangya's argument that it is poorly written is complete nonsense. Notice how he quotes the same lines from Zinta's childhood to make the whole article seem like it is written like a comic. Your're case Sarvagnya is a very weak one it has to be said. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 10:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment. While I appreciate the generous title which has been bestowed upon me, I must note that my copyedit of this article was hurried and shouldn't be referred to as thorough. I would also point out that several of the changes I made were later reverted to the original wording.

That said, I fail to see what is wrong with the following sentence (which I revised, and which was not changed later on): "According to Zinta, she enjoyed schoolwork and received good grades; in her free time she played sports, especially basketball." The "According to Zinta" part is a bit awkward, but (since I didn't have – and still don't – time to go to sources) I assume it's a fair attribution, and seems necessary (since we're not hearing this from a third-party biography). Maybe we could compromise by using "Zinta told NAME OF MAGAZINE that she enjoyed schoolwork...". If we're unimpressed with what she recalls about her childhood, that's not really an issue of prose style. Balzac read a lot of books as a child, and used this detail later when writing his novels. Hopefully that doesn't make the article about him sound like something out of a comic book? – Scartol • Tok 15:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Scartol, please accept my apologies if you felt hurt. Also please note that my comments were in no way about your work.. not in the least. In that sentence I quoted, the problem is not so much with the prose as with encyclopedicity. I've already stated above that much of the article reads unencyclopedic and here, I was just alluding to that. I posted that message in some hurry last night, so looks like I might have got something wrong. Please note that my comment is not about your work. There is only so much that a copyeditor can do with quote-mined screed. Having said that, it is still my opinion that the prose (and content) of this article is way below FA standards. That however, has nothing to do with you. Thanks. Sarvagnya 16:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I must say, Honoré de Balzac is a damn good article! :)

Well now I think what you said is a direct evidence to the above editor that there is nothing unencylopedic (or a comic book huh!) in adding information about her background and early life. Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I just went through and did some copy-editing. I have to say, I find the article awfully uninspiring. It's basically a whole series of sentences saying "and then she did this" "and then she did that" "and then she did the other." It's practically a list: List of things done by Preity Zinta. This is a WP disease, of course, but one would hope that featured articles tried to break the mould. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 04:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment Just out of question. How on earth would you expect an encyclopedia article on an actress to read any differently?? If the article covers her life and career of course events of films are going to be following this she went on to ... etc. Are you not familiar with biographies on actors on wikipedia? Given that there isn't any information as in other topics on wikipedia where the article content would be completely different and be able to cover different aspects of something. The Zinta article is supposed to inform the reader what she has done in her career and life and it does this very well. You;re missing the point of it ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 08:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I am missing the point. And I am familiar with biographies of actors on Wikipedia. Indeed, I mentioned precisely that this was a common trait. There are various ways in which featured articles could try to break that mould, however, perhaps by taking a leaf from some of the articles about writers, which are in general less tied to chronology. I admit that this will be more difficult with an actor who is currently active (as is the case with Zinta), and so for whom there are fewer secondary sources, if any, that attempt a broader overview. NB, as I said, I think that this is a challenge for FA writers; in most cases, it would require a radical structural revision between GA and FA, which understandably few editors are willing to take on. WP works by accretion, and seldom by radical revision. NB also that I'm not opposing the nomination on these grounds. But I think it's worth a mention. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

And as for an example, perhaps Jackie Chan might be one. (Or even, perhaps strangely enough, Jenna Jameson.) Again, however, I recognize that it may well be difficult to write such an article about a figure such as Zinta. No harm trying, though. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey Jbmurray! Thanks for copyediting the article! I think you have full right expressing your opinions fairly like you do. Thanks again, Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed Jbmurray, also thanks with any edits you did. Writing an article on a contemporary actor or actress is an extremely difficult to write a decent encyclopedia article on, particularly a non-english world actress. I've said it many times that being able to write a full, informative but thriving article on a current actor with a completely neutral tone and balance is really not an easy task and in all the subjects I've come across on wiki has to be one of the hardest to write. Even with film direcotrs there is more room for further angles to add to articles such as examining their techniques of filming, use of camera angles, cinematic style etc which would make it seem more "inspiring" but with actors aside from old icons such as Jackie Chan and Bruce Lee etc this isn't really possible in this case. It isn't a fault of the actual article itself its just the subject in hand which is different from many traditional style articles. I think the Zinta article has other qualities in that it covers some of her controversies which to me are very interesting, and other aspects of her life an career. Many other articles on actors wouldn't even venture much into this. I think its pretty near the most informative and best article that could be written for her. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 13:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment on sources. With regard to the disagreements on the use of boxofficeindia.com, it maybe worth recalling that the unit of currency of wikipedia is not The Truth^TM; instead our modus operandi is attribution. That is, Wikipedia does not itself assert facts, it reports what the sources state. In the argument that "Indian box office figures are notoriously unreliable", the word "unreliable" is not being used in the technical WP:RS sense, but is a point of view on the accuracy of the figures: as John Carter points out, without attribution, this point of view is original research. The solution, when there is uncertainty as to the accuracy of a source is to attribute the information clearly. The ultimate answer to the question "Who decides whether a source is reliable?" is simple: the reader. With this in mind, I suggest that the first couple of times that boxofficeindia.com is used to support a precise figure, a phrase such as "according to Box Office India" is added to the sentence. The reader is then alerted to the possibility that the figures might not be accurate. On the other hand, many of the citations to boxofficeindia.com are supporting relative statements such as "the third highest grossing film of the year". These less precise claims probably don't need such a caveat.

Perhaps the only person who knows the true earnings of a film is the producer's or film company's accountant: this person, despite knowing the truth more accurately than any other source, is actually not a reliable source per WP:RS :-) Similar issues apply to biographical information sourced to interviews with Zinta. As long as readers know that these "facts" come from Zinta, they are free to use their own judgement on the size of the pinch of salt with which they take the claim. Geometry guy 17:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

WOW, that's an amazing analysis -- I agree with you Geometry guy!! Thank you very much for the comments. Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes Geometry guy I am also highly impressed by your understanding of this. You said it exactly. According to Box Office India.... - this would report the statistics given but does not immediately assume that this is the "actual". Wikipedia is all about such fact reporting from other sources and given that Box Office India is considered the leading site for film statistics and the second largest in the world it leaves most normal editors as to conclude whether this is a pretty accurate fact or a completely wrong one. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 10:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. I look forward to the addition of suitable "according to" phrases to the article. Geometry guy 18:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Geometry Guy, your "analysis" is fascinating but unfortunately, it is completely at odds with policy and as such, doesnt fly. The reader most certainly does not dictate what sources we should use. WP:RS and WP:SPS (in this case) do that. Unless it can be demonstrated that the site measures up to the said policies, it simply does not belong on wikipedia. Period. Adding "according to.." is no solution at all. "According to..." is used when you are quoting an expert. And we have not seen any evidence so far that BOI even remotely qualifies as an "expert". Sarvagnya 00:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't fly, period? I'd be interested to hear what is the precise definition of "expert" according to WP:NPOV. We provide the best sources we can. There's a minimum standard, but the main point is that there is no original research: we attribute, and let the reader decide. There is nothing fascinating here, it is common sense. Guidelines do not dictate what we do: the goal is improving the encyclopedia and guidelines are a (valuable) means to that end. Geometry guy 20:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Well now the article only uses BOI twice. 2 references out of 110 odd isn't a major cause for concern any more. I really don't think it would affect the article if the remaining two were simply taken out. As has been said the article is extremely well referenced anyway. It doesn't have to be big issue if people act maturely in response to this ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 13:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't want to vote or make a final comment on this yet (I've read most it once now, excepting a couple of parts I skipped - I need to read it again after an interval of day or 2 or so to be more clear in my mind about any concerns I have). Any concerns I did have on my first read did not correspond to those mentioned by the only oppose on this FAC. But I'll look at it again later to be sure. Anyway, I am commenting so that my first impression is known to those who worked on it - I found the article insightful, very informative, and I was impressed by some parts of it too. Of course, my emphasis is on whether it is comprehensive and prose aspects. To produce this sort of reaction from me, particularly on a first read in WP, is not just rare, but also means that the contributors have put in a lot of work, and should be proud of their effort, particularly in these areas. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist, thank you very much for the comment. Looking forward to your comments. Regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Purely on prose, for a film article that is a biography of a living person, I'm reasonably satisfied with the entire article (except with some parts of the early career and early background sections). May make the necessary revisions soon, so that I can add my support vote too. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Just curious.. where is it mentioned that we have different prose requirements for BLP articles? Sarvagnya 00:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support (moderate contributor). Satisfies the criteria.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Well-written, incredibly well-sourced - but most of all well-organized and good structure, which leads to overall good flow through the article. Great work. Cirt (talk) 10:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - the second screenshot (Image:KHNHLS.jpg) still clearly fails WP:NFCC#1 (replaceable by text) and WP:NFCC#8 (doesn't add to understanding). I don't see why it's necessary, to be honest - it's just a random screenshot; at least the first screenshot shows some of the look and feel of the film. Black Kite 10:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

remember I did replace it initially with the image that showed her face which I believed was more encyclopedic. I can understabd Shahid's view though that the image depicts the drama and content of the film and the New York location. Would anybody object to restoring the Image:KHNH23.jpg which in my view reveals more about her acting? Would you also think this image is inadequate Black Kite? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 11:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Unless a non-free image increases the reader's understanding of the text of the article then it shouldn't be used. If the image is doing that, it shouldn't be there. For example, there's no need to have an image to show that the film is set in New York, because you can merely have text saying that. If an image "shows the drama and content of the film" then it needs to reflect the text. Incidentally, I Support as the article currently stands.Black Kite 15:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Isn't an image is there to also illustrate what the text says? The matter is, Black Kite, that this image IMO does add. For example, the fact that the film is a tearjerker is illusrated very well. The location - New York (not said, and cannot be added), Indian-American - well you would still be able to imagine her wearing a Sari, and look very traditional, but the screenshot shows the opposite and in addition to that it shows more than everything else her acting skills. She cries with her lover who is going to die.:) What do you think? Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, you've just described it without an image, which sort of proves my point. Why couldn't the fact that the location is New York be added, btw? Black Kite 16:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

haha:) Yeh, but I also said "well you would still be able to imagine her wearing a Sari, and look very traditional, but the screenshot shows the opposite" which cannot be written... New York is a production note, which someone back in time considered irrelevant here. Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

remember also that we are waiting for two or three free images to clear in the commons which help improve the article visually also. These will be readded asap ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 15:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeh but I want the career section to be clear visually more than anything else. She is first of all an actor. I really agree with Black Kite that an image should provide an understanding of the matter. I'll later look for such images. But I believe the KHNH image is very relevant here. Apart from the fact that the film is a milestone in her career, it adds a lot to the understanding, something the text cannot replace. Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

NB on the use of film stills, the SCMS has tried to argue forcefully that they are fair use. Here's more or less their position: "that the use of stills to illustrate serious works of film scholarship constitutes 'fair use' within the meaning of section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976." But this is ЭLСОВВОLД's territory much more than mine, and no doubt this argument has been discussed elsewhere on Wikipedia. I suppose that one issue might be whether Wikipedia is a "serious work of film scholarship." --16:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not so much an issue of copyright law on fair use as it is a matter of Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia aims to be free content and for this reason our fair use guidelines are stricter than the law requires. This is something I fully support. However, there are many shades of opinion as to how much stricter our fair use guidelines should be. There are those who want to make this a science, whereas in my view, it is an art, requiring judgement, not wikilawyering. I am discouraged when I see editors bowing to the authority of other editor's territory. The ultimate rule is WP:IAR: if an image is legal under fair use, as almost all of the images which have been used in this article are, then the key question about whether to include an image or not is "does this improve the encyclopedia?". All editors can contribute to such a discussion. Much as I respect those who regularly contribute their advice on image copyright issues, this advice can be wrong sometimes: one such editor has misunderstood international copyright law recently, another has misunderstood guidelines on album covers. No one is a fount of all wisdom. I find the image being discussed here a particularly compelling demonstration of Zinta's range as an actress beyond the typical Bollywood cliche. But don't believe me: argue the case and reach consensus. Don't settle for "fails NFCC#8", which isn't consensus at all. Geometry guy 21:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Policies automatically have consensus - if they don't, they get changed. "Fails WP:NFCC#8" is a policy statement. If you wish to dispute it, the correct place is WT:NFCC, where there currently is a discussion about WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8 (though that discussion isn't really relevant to the image above). In the past, editors that use WP:IAR as an excuse to override policy usually find themselves realising that it's not a very good idea. Yes, there are images that fall on the borderlines of fair use policy, and to be honest, in those cases I usually err on the side of keeping them, even though we probably shouldn't. But where images clearly don't coincide with the policy, then it would be wrong of me not to point that out. Oh, and incidentally, since you're referring to me, your opinion that I have misunderstood the guidelines on album covers doesn't make it a fact, it merely makes it your opinion (and one which has consistently been rejected in the past). Black Kite 22:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

No they don't: nothing automatically has consensus. Policy and guidelines reflect consensus, they do not determine it. It is not possible for every wikipedian to watchlist every policy and guideline talk page. Instead we rely upon the fact that we have a common goal: improving the encyclopedia. And I am pleased to see you show some flexibility yourself in this respect. Everything is a matter of opinion: my opinion of your fallibility (we are all fallible) is based on this, this, and this. Geometry guy 23:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Surely that is just semantics though - I'm quite happy to refactor "policies have consensus" to "policies reflect consensus" if you wish. Regarding the album covers, this isn't the place - see your talk. Black Kite 01:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Gguy, thanks for this. I didn't particularly want to debate this particular image, so much as suggest a source for discussion about such images in general and ask for feedback. (NB in saying this is ЭLСОВВОLД's territory, I mean more that he's much more familiar with the debates and has thought about them a lot; I have been willing to disagree with him in the past, and will no doubt be willing to do so in the future, too  ;) ). --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• Note from Sarvagnya (talk · contribs): posts to AN, RSN, Village pump, and various editors, [11], [12], [13], [14] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - Prose still needs work. Also the sources do not look the best. I note that at least one of the sources seems to be not WP:RS. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie | tool box} 01:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • If you think "one of the sources seems to be not WP:RS", you should say which one, or the nominator has no reasonable way to address your complaint. Likewise, merely saying "prose still needs work" doesn't give the nominator anything to work with. Gimmetrow 02:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
    • This oppose is not actionable IMO. I'll ask Sandy. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. The prose has quite a few quotes. Can some of the generic quotes be removed? For instance in the media section: "I felt humiliated as it spoiled my reputation and character in public." Does this say anthing that just having "she felt..." wouldn't say? At the end of the personal life section: "Thereafter, the controversy came to an end.96" This is an abrupt statement and I can't figure out what it has to do with the source. Gimmetrow 02:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you suggest to remove "Thereafter, the controversy came to an end."? Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• There is flexibility (such as has been shown in the first screenshot), and then there is ignoring a policy completely. Since the New York image is back in the article, I change to Oppose again. I don't see how we can promote an article that doesn't follow a policy. I've thought about all the ways to back this image compliant, but it adds nothing to the article that couldn't be written in prose, its content isn't referenced in the text at all and so I can only assume it is decorative. Black Kite 07:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I would say that it's OK, because it's your right. But because I respect you, I must say that it's IMO very unfair to oppose a nomination only because of one image, especially considering other FAs like Diane Keaton and Cillian Murphy, which have four and two images respectively. I believe it adds to the understanding, you don't - so it's mostly a matter of POV here. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

If you think it adds to the understanding, you should demonstrate how and also why the same cannot be said in words. If it is there to simply show that it was in New York, then it doesnt add any value to the article at all. New York as the city where it is set is not critical to the movie at all. It could have been set in Timbuktu and it wouldnt have made a difference to the storyline or the melodrama. Sarvagnya 16:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Black Kite, as I said the film features Zinta as a young American woman. In contrast to the Kya Kehna image, you can see her here in a more modern look, which is not an obvious fact. Also the first image shows her smiling and dancing while this one - crying on the bridge of New York. There is a very new aspect in this image, which breaks from the mood in the previous one. We see her acting skilld im more dramatic scenes. What do you say? Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It appears to do with her acting, the different roles, etc. The first photo is from a film that earned her first nomination for Best Actress at Filmfare, but the second photo was from the film where she actually won. The content is referenced in the text. Changing a vote to an oppose solely for that 1 bit is questionable, but I'm not sure if the caption has been changed between now and when you changed your vote. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I really don't like to do it (the rest of the article is fine) but I'm just worried that if we "let this one go" it'll set a precedent for future FACs. Black Kite 19:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand your concern. Don't you agree with my explanation above? Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the problem is that none of what you've just said is mentioned in the text (or in the image caption). Even an attempt at explaining why the image is important would give the image a chance. Black Kite 19:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little confused at this Black Kite. The image clearly states that it shows Zinta in a Filmfare award winning role and the text discusses it is a tearjerker. The image demonstrates this and shows her in the role accordingly in a dramatic and key scene and helps to understand the atmosphere of what that film was like. I really can't see what it is further you are looking for. It meets exactly the same criteria as the first image does. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 19:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Me too. I don't think the oppose is valid as of now, unless/until any further issues are specified. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

If you want to be absolutely on the nail as regards to policy, then the first image probably struggles to pass NFCC as well. However, there is at least some discussion of her appearance in the film in the text. I see that you feel the oppose is invalid; however, in that case, you need to change a policy, namely WP:NFCC. The talk page for proposing changes to policy can be found at WT:NFCC. There are already too many Featured Articles that drive a coach and horses through our non-free image policy, and I am really loath to see another one do it. But since you ask for specifics (as if I mentioned this enough times above) then how does that image help you understand the atmosphere of the film? What would be lost if it was removed? (WP:NFCC#8). The fact that the film is a tearjerker and the image shows that is fine, but what is there that couldn't be mentioned in prose? (WP:NFCC#1) It's two people hugging each other in New York; that's all it is; unless it's actually referenced in the text with why the image is important, it's really not needed. This is a really well-written article, it's clearly a good candidate for FA, but I'm really at a loss to see why such a well-written article needs that particular image, except for decoration, and no-one's answered that yet. Black Kite 22:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand your reasoning. The image could be seen as just showing that the movie is about an unhappy romance set in NYC, which could be said in the text, making it effectively redundant. Would I be justified in thinking that, for instance, an images of Fred Astaire in Royal Wedding, with significant textual descriptions of the importance of the images and their importance, would be more in line of what you're thinking would be called for by policy? John Carter (talk) 22:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good example of "adding to understanding", where an image can make clear what a large block of text probably couldn't (or would certainly be unwieldy). The relevant policy statement is WP:NFCC#8 (there's currently a discussion on the second clause, but it's the first one that's important anyway). Black Kite 22:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Your oppose makes more sense now, but, criterion 8 of NFCC is written in such a way that indicates there is no need for any NFCC images in the article because of the other 2 images. So if enforcing the very poorly thought-out and expressed criterion 8, they'd both have to go. I, like several editors, would've supported getting rid of the second line of the criterion, but what I don't understand is why 1 extra image is causing this much of a headache for you - it's not going to make the same difference in the same way if prose and comprehensiveness is altered. I'd totally agree with you and also oppose if it was several images, but when it's 2 (and clearly different as a role, scene, happy vs sad, apparent age, etc. etc.) I really at am a loss why you're so keen to enforce it against 1 measly image. Again, if it was several images, then it would be a different story. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I could argue that I don't see why it's so important to include it, of course. The reason is; it's very difficult for non-free image editors to try and explain to people what is and isn't acceptable when they can turn round and say "But that article does it, and it's a featured article! It must be OK!" You only have to look at Today's Featured Article to see yet another FA that violates WP:NFCC, but I'm sure you can guess what would happen if I tried to delete the offending images now... which is why I'm trying to do it at FAC stage. Black Kite 06:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, as one of the editors insisting prose and comprehensiveness particularly need to be at a high standard prior to FAs passing (so that standards don't drop), I can understand what you're saying. But enforcing FA criterion 3 is quite a lot easier than copy-editing every FA that is/was below par (just getting copyeditors for FACs is difficult enough). Images either meet or don't meet NFCC, and those that don't can form an actionable oppose if you bring it to FAR, and editors are compelled to remove them accordingly (and they most probably can be deleted by you after). As it's one of those criteria that can be more easily and efficiently enforced on older FAs, I'm encouraging you to take this concern further, even if it's today's featured article, rather than confining it to some new FACs. There will be less eyebrows raised this way, too. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

If you examine the text discussion in the article the text which accompanies the second image is actually a lot more detailed than the first. In terms of article discussion and then illustration in my experience the second image has more validity than the first image particularly as it illustrates the drama and atmopshere of the film and the role which won her her first Filmfare. The first image is useful but it actually doesn't do as much to support the text in the article which describes her role as a pregnant teenager dealing with the hardships of society, not exactly depicted in the image. Sure you can dismiss the second as two people hugging each other in New York big deal, but anybody who knows the film, Zinta's career and Hindi cinema would agree that it is a symbolic one. I understand you are concerned that one article with images which passes can be used as a weapon to justify non free images in other FA articles in the future but please think about THIS article and its content only. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 10:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I must say if this image was in better conditions I would add it, or this one in which you can see her playing a 50-year-old woman (from Veer Zaara), I would. Black Kite, please tell me, what should I do now to make this image relevant? Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Black Kite, you are dead on when you say -- "..they can turn round and say "But that article does it, and it's a featured article! It must be OK!". It was months ago that I'd myself raised the same NFCC issues you've raised now. And believe me, the argument used then to try and shut me up was to point me to Angelina Jolie and Cillian Murphy .. - "Look! they use it.. AJ is FA.. they use it.. so can we!". For the record, I also hereby include NFCC vio as one of the reasons for my oppose in addition to the other issues I've already mentioned. Sarvagnya 16:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes and from what I recall I clearly stated that either we permit fair use images or we don't. All I want is consistency in articles and I wouldn't expect a decent encyclopedia to retract from this. Either we permit them all across wikipedia or we don't. However the agreement on whether to use fair use images or whether limited screenshots are acceptable in that they cannot be replaced by free content in discussing film material was split entirely down the middle. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 17:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Note - Sarvagnya, the reason for which you always opposed to have FU images was completely different from Black Kite's one, and you had never cited the policies he has. Also, the point that other FAs use it is very relevant, because they editors should also work to remove them first if they think its incorrect usage. Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Black Kite, please tell me, what should I do now to make this image relevant? Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Either: reference it in the text, in a way that explains why the image is relevant and improves the reader's knowledge; or remove it. Unfortunately, there's no middle ground. Black Kite 18:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll have to abstain as I won't have enough time for this. But, when I am back, and if this is still here, then I will make my vote. Good luck guys! Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Ncmvocalist. Shahid • ^Talk2me 07:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Support. It is comprehensive and well-written. Axl (talk) 16:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• With reference to the reliability of the sources on box office numbers, please see my rather comprehensive investigation at the RS noticeboard, summarised in this diff. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose (since I'm going on Wikibreak and cannot participate any longer. I still do believe this article goes into unnecessary details, that hasn't changed.): The article goes into a lot of trivial details in the Other work and In the media sections, which can be drastically cut down.

• Column writing: We've already determined that she's not a columnist and that celebrities writing columns ain't a big deal, so we do we need a discussion of each one of her columns? Cut down to about 2-3 sentences please (I would suggest removing from the lead too).
• Stage performances: Anil Kapoor, Aamir Khan, Aishwarya Rai and Gracy Singh.; Amitabh Bachchan, Aamir Khan, Shahrukh Khan and Aishwarya Rai;(Shahrukh Khan, Rani Mukerji, Saif Ali Khan, Arjun Rampal, and Priyanka Chopra); Akshay Kumar, Saif Ali Khan, Sushmita Sen and Celina Jaitley. - Ok I get it, she performed with a number of top stars. But do we need any of these names? Just make the first sentence "Zinta has taken part in several stage shows and world tours since 2001 along with many Bollywood co-stars." and all the meeaning you want to convey is done, without the pointless lists of names.
• "Zinta attended a blood donation camp..." How is that even remotely notable? And that quote too ... reads more like a magazine article than an encyclopedia.
• Does the Suchitra Krishnamurthy accusation really need such detailed coverage? Rather than just a mention?
• "Zinta made three appearances on the Indian talk show Koffee with Karan" - everybody has made appearances on KWK. I don't know of a single Bollywood star who hasn't been on that show!

These are just examples, there is still much further scope for cutting down to bring down her non-film work to appropriate sizes. I'd even recommend merging the three section into one concise one that discusses her public image and personal life (which seem really intertwined by the way). This would also cut down many of the repetitions such as the the Bharat Shah case being mentioned again. indopug (talk) 12:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with you in that those topics you mentioned are trivial to her life. Thats just your opinion. I'm not sure all those names have to be mentioned in the stage performances section but the article doesn't cover anything which is really that trivial like "Ooh Zinta is a size 5 shoe and her favorite food is custard cream pie" She loves horses". It highlights the most important events and committments she has in her life. Visiting a blood donar camp in other work is of note I believe. I am always keen to avoid repetition and perhaps some of the other work sections could be merged but its not a major flaw is it. Also many are likely to never heard of Koffee with Karan on here, and three times is worthy of mentioning in her tv appearances. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 12:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Response to Indopug - Sorry but I do not find any of your concerns valid.

• We have discussed only one thing re her columns, and concluded only one thing - she is not a columnist. It does not mean that we have to cut down the entire section - especially when it has such a huge coverage on the net and she was recognised for her work.
• If we describe a stage show, isn't it important to mention with whom she performed? It's exactly what comprehensiveness means.
• Blood donation is trivial? It's part of her humanitarian work. She supported the cause and encouraged other people to donate blood. So why is that trivial?
• KWK - Well not everybody takes part on the show -- Salman Khan, Aamir Khan have not. And this is not related whatsoever. The info is relevant for her regardless of what others have to do.
• Also good to note that you have not cited any policy or guideline which can support your points. Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok then, but I want to know what others' think, if you don't mind. I'm going to cite WP:WIAFA #4 "It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)." Shahid, I do find your definiton of "compehensive" funny; why don't you list every co-cast member (not just major ones) whenever you discuss any of her movies? That adheres to your definiton of "comprehensive" doesn't it :D. What I mean is that so many actors have come on that show, for example: you wouldn't cite the number of times Brad Pitt has been on Oprah/Jay Leno/Larry King will you? indopug (talk) 13:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you please give me a quote that either says or implies mentioning cocast members is bad/unacceptable/discouraged. But I think it is very important to note who she is working with, because it's part of the idea. Saying "She did that and that there and there in that and that and that year" is not a good prose either.

The matter is not that; the matter is that your oppose is based on your POV. If we describe her actions, we do not go into unnecessary detail. Unnecessary detail is if we say: "she has played the lead in a film directed by Yash Chopra, one of the greatest filmmakers in India who has been in the industry for almost 50 years" - that's unnecessary detail.

I can somehow agree with KWK, because I find it as a valid point. But that's not the matter. The matter is the general comment I cannot understand. If you think that her supporting blood donation is unnecessary detail, so I don't know what necessary detail is. Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstood my sarcasm (regarding the cast-members) but lets ignore that. While I agree maybe mentioning a few co-stars of her movies is useful sometimes, I don't think mentioning who she went on tour with has any point. Ask yourself this: what exactly is the reader supposed to gain by knowing the names of the people she did a tour with? Don't you think that listing out "Anil Kapoor, Aamir Khan, Aishwarya Rai and Gracy Singh" makes the article move away from the concentrating on its subject (Priety Zinta) and rather focus on auxillary details regarding on one of her tours? As an analogy, we do not name of the assistant director and make-up artist of every movie she acted in do we (in the prose of this article)? Why, because its just detail; and adds nothing to the reader's understanding of Priety Zinta but rather just makes the prose long-winded. Not naming the asst. director here does not imply non-comprehensiveness, does it? Same goes for her touring co-stars. I'll defend the rest of my points later. indopug (talk) 16:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Defend? I don't know what "defending" has to do with this FAC. Our goal is to see another FA (although it's clear this FAC won't pass). Just like we mention her co-stars in films because it's part of the film detail which is important, we mention her co-"performers". It's very simple. We give detail about her world tours, and it includes giving the costars. I can't see what the problem is, and can't see how an asst. is related at all.

Furthermore, I'd like to tell you something regarding columns. You say, "We've already determined that she's not a columnist and that celebrities writing columns ain't a big deal" - it's not precise. We've determined that she cannot be called columnist, but we have not determined "that celebrities writing columns ain't a big deal". It actually is a big deal, considering that we're talking about BBC, and her joining a lineup of South Asia's most renowned commentators. The fact that an Indian young female actor was appointed for that is important, regardless of her being a popular or famous one. And don't forget that, above-all, we are talking about popular columns.

Also, merging all the subsections would be a real mess, considering she has supported humanitarian causes, has written columns, has performed on stage and has gone into business as well. Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

By "defend" I mean that once you've dismissed all my points as invalid, and I would like to prove that they are indeed not invalid. I believe that by following my points we will reach the goal of another FA; since you disagree, I must put forth a defence of my points. Coming back to the article you've said "We give detail about her world tours"; that's precisely what I don't want you to give, because this article is about her not her world tours. While a brief critical discussion of her movies is very important in this article (mentioning the premise of the movie, her role and her co-stars), a critical discussion of each of her world tours is not being done. So do the names need mention? No. As an exercise delete the lists of names from the Stage performances sub-section and then read it (in the preview); you will find that the your understanding of the Priety Zinta article will not have reduced even a little. And that those lists of names really never added value to the section. Also do you think it is interesting in any way to read "Anil Kapoor, Aamir Khan, Aishwarya Rai and Gracy Singh." and then soon after "Amitabh Bachchan, Aamir Khan, Shahrukh Khan and Aishwarya Rai"? Of course not his eyes will automatically skip over the items and ocntinue reading. I would like this concern of mine addressed first, either by acting upon my suggestion or giving a good reason better than "It's very simple". I have given about 3-4 solid reasons in favour of removing the names while you've none supporting its inclusion. (Even Blofield is iffy on the inclusion of the names, if you've noticed) indopug (talk) 18:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

You misinterpret something here; we are not warring so what Blofeld or this or this editor thinks. We are trying to make this article better. World tours and stage shows are by all means a part of her career as an actor, a performer. As you said, the article "is about her not her world tours"; you can say it "is about her not her films". Do you thing that in doing so you would invalidate the mention of costars as well? I think it's wrong. Her world tours are as important. She is an actor in the first place yeh, but she is also a regular stage performer and has now signed another stage show with the Bachchans. I think it's important detail who she is working with. I don't really know what policy/guideline/whatever you can use to validate your point. I'm sure that it's a matter of common sense, and anything else. And though I respect you and find your previous comments very valid here I tend to differ from you. Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comments Prose comments from the lead only:

• "She has appeared in the Hindi films of Bollywood," Why the Hindi films? Why not just "appeared in Bollywood Hindi films?

Removed the. "Hindi films" is needed because that's not the end of the sentence and other languages are mentioned. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• "She would subsequently take on a variety of character types, and in doing so has been credited" Tension between tenses (conditional and perfect).

Is that critical? What do you suggest? Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not critical, but it's just a bit wordy and awkward. You could try separating it into two sentences, so that the tension disappears. You could try shortening the idea ("Her subsequent portrayals of diverse female characters has been credited with..."). BuddingJournalist 13:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Separating it into two would make it too much, because the less sentences we have describing something, the better. The second strikes me as a bit odd. Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I certainly don't agree with your first point; it all depends on the situation. Although in this particular case, shortening and eliminating redundancies is the better route, in my opinion. What is "odd" about that? BuddingJournalist 14:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a bit ambiguous, and the "Her portrayals have been credited..." is not correct, because we are talking about her. What do you think about changing it to "she subsequently took on a variety..."? Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

That takes care of the tension. "took on a variety of character types, and in doing so" is still a bit wordy in my opinion. BuddingJournalist 14:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't find it wordy. The fact is that there must be two parts in the sentence, which also somehow connects itself with the previous one. She subsequently - makes the tie with the previous sentence. And then there are two parts - "She did something" --> "result" - it's too short to be separated or shortened. Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• "publicly speaking her mind and openly expressing her opinions" I don't see the difference between these two.

I don't see a diffrence between speaking one's mind, and expressing one's opinions. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

What is the difference? To me, "speaking one's mind" is just a phrase meaning expressing one's opinions. BuddingJournalist 13:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll have to consult someone. Hope you don't mind. Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

BuddingJournalist 13:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

What I find frustrating about this nomination is that despite several peer reviews nobody addressed the "problems" it had at the time. It was precisely the reason that was conducted to avoid such problems when it came to be reproposed. Why was Giro or whoever not asked to identify its flaws at the time? This is an FA nomination yet it AGAIN has turned out like a peer review and a request for criticism page. Shahid has worked magnificently at trying to attend to the whims of all here, yet people keep throwing problems in his face and each time he tries to address something somebody else comes up with 6 more "problems". People have turned seemingly trivial "issues" it has way out of proportion into an argument as to why it doesn't quality for an FA. If you look at the main picture it is an overall very good article and covers everything that should be covered about her in a well written and informative way. Still nobody has come up with a strong single reason as to why it shouldn't be an FA. Anything anybody has identified is either based on their own individual views or a single sentence or word or quote or image which automatically is a reason to fail it?? I find it astounding that articles like Emma Watson never had this degree of fuss and this article in my view is more informative and of a higher standard than that. The fact is this article has twice the number of references and details (being on an Indian actress too) when the availability of information on Emma Watson must be huge. This article is in no way inferior to this in the way it is written either, yet one has been passed as an FA but this one still waits and waits and wait and waits..... The question is will everybody ever be happy with it? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 15:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Two points - 1) FACs should not be brought to nomination if strong issues preclude them from being featured - the whole idea of the process is to polish off articles which are practically there, and therefore viable candidates usually should only have smaller, more nitpicky issues. 2) Unlike GAN, FAC is not a rubber-stamp-type process - it is intended to be rigorous and nominators are expected to want to hear a thorough critique for the purposes of making their article stronger, tighter, and more exemplary, and thus the most effective FAC nominators tend to aggressively attend to the vast majority of comments, concerns, and objections as swiftly as possible. Comparing one nomination to another is somewhat fruitless, because the circumstances are always completely different with regards to the pre-nom state of the article, the quality of the available sources, who comments on the nomination, etc. No two are ever much alike. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, it ensures that the article is at a high standard - this is good for both the encyclopedia (including the WikiProjects the article falls under) and for those involved, even if it does take some time to get there. Addressing valid concerns (including Girolamo's), and gaining approval of the wide community ensures that the nom is going in the right direction - which it is. ;) Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

No your're misundertanding what I'm saying. Of course you expect to see light criticism at an FA and the writers of the article working hard to attend to it, believe me I think FAC's including this one should be discussed between far more people than this. Whether the concerns are valid or not all I am saying is that there has been more to deal with than I anticipated. That isn't to say that anybody who opposes is wrong to do so, I apprecaite as much input as possible and want the article to be as sound as anyone, what I am saying is that I wish more of these points had been brought up earlier given that it has gone through much discussion and peer review to get here. Now it seems much progress has made thanks to the hard work of everyone involved. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 09:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support, this won't be the best FA (prose could still use some work, sources aren't the best but that is largely the nature of the subject being covered) but it surely won't be the worst. I think it is comprehensive (maybe could use a little more about her roles in some of the films) and I disagree about some of the calls to cut down on certain sections. I think FA's need to be good and meet criteria--not be perfect--and I hope this improves even as an FA. gren グレン 22:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - Over-reliance on quote mining.Bakaman 21:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Girolamo Savonarola (consolidated by user)

Oppose - several issues, mainly with referencing:

• The second reference appears superfluous to the third one, and is probably too weak on its own to support the claim.

It's not that weak. It says that has played diverse roles. Also, the more references we have, the better. Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Do most actors not play in a variety of roles? I don't think that alone is notable enough to require a ref. Quantity of references is not important - quality of references are. See Ramón Emeterio Betances, which I picked at random from the FAs - it only relies on two primary references for the most part. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it supports the fact that she played diverse roles and the third ref backs up the second part of the sentence only, although it's better sourced in the career section. Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I ask because I am not familiar with Bollywood - is it common for actors not to play a variety of roles? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• In the lead: "India's top-grossing film in the overseas market that year" - delete; this information is superfluous to the lead and is not as directly relevant as the award.

Right. Removed. Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Did she actually graduate with a degree in criminal psychology? The source is unclear - she says "Yes, I actually did English honors and then I did an advanced program in criminal psychology." It's unclear to me if she graduated with an English degree with honors and also did a criminal psychology program as something like a minor, or if they were dual degrees, or what have you. The language is too ambiguous to indicate whether or not English was discarded or not, or whether the "advanced program" was perhaps a graduate-level study.

Well, almost every source in the article describes her as a "criminal psychology" graduate. Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough, although it would be nice to hear it from the horse's mouth. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the video link you provided, she clearly says that she "graduated with English honors and then I went ahead and did criminal psychology", so it's clear that she got an English degree; whether or not the criminal psychology was simply a minor, a program, a degree, a graduate program, or something else remains unclear. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm sure The English Honours is the minor here. She doesn't say she earned a degree. It is not necessarily her graduation from university. I must say she was not that clear about that in the video interview. Criminal psychology is the degree here, and she is mostly known for her criminal psychology degree. As I said, every possible source describes her as a "criminal psychology graduate".[15][16][17][18]. Oh and this one makes some things clear... What do you say? Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you're misreading - the ToI article makes it clear that criminal psychology was a master's degree. Which would make the English Honors her undergrad degree, just as she said herself in the video. It's also unclear if she graduated from the masters program, as per the video interview. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

She was not clear about that in the video, and I provided not only ToI, but Tribune, Rediff and Sify as well. She has always been described, everywhere as a criminal psy. graduate. Psychology was a postgraduate degree. What do you suggest to do now? Shahid • ^Talk2me 03:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

We go on the quality of the source, not the quantity - her interview trumps massively repeated incorrect information. From looking at some of her other interviews, she usually glosses over it, which leads the ambiguity which would allow something like this to occur. However, in the video interview, her exact words are "I graduated with English Honors and then I went ahead to do criminal psychology". The graduated with English Honors is completely umambiguous. As for the criminal psychology part, it is mentioned in several interviews as a "program", not a degree, and the ToI reference I mentioned specifically calls it a Masters program. If you have some evidence on the part of the press that Zinta was fabricating any of this, then her own testimony can be dismissed, but otherwise the video interview source has priority. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The quality of all the sources is fine, and the quantity only supports the matter. The video interview and the sources do not contradict each other. As she said and as the quote states, she went on to do criminal psychology. She did English honours, nobody claims otherwise. Didn't she say she had done criminal psychology after all? As mentioned in the sources, criminal psychology was a postgraduate degree, which only makes her words in the video clearer. She has always said she had graduated with criminal psychology in her interviews. See for example her CNN interview:

The interviewer asks: "Now you went to school and graduated with criminal psychology, correct?"

And Zinta answers: "Yes, I actually did English honors and then I did an advanced program in criminal psychology."

It means that she was graduated with criminal psy. which was, as supported by the sources, a postgraduate degree. I also remember her interview on Simi Garewal's show, where she describes her psychology studies and what particularly she liked about it. Unfortunately I can't find this video on the net - it's been removed from youtube.com. Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Read that again - I actually did English honors and then I did an advanced program in... - English is the Bachelor's degree; crim psy is the Master's. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hehe! That's exactly what I'm saying - it was a postgraduate degree. So what's the problem now? Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the article text doesn't support what we (or she) are saying - "initially majored" implies that she switched majors, which she didn't. She went onto a graduate degree in crim psy after gaining an undergrad in English honors. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• When did she graduate from these programs?

1998. She got the offer of Kapur while doing her last exams at uni. Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, can you source it? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Why? I don't mention it. Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

This is generally considered a notable detail which should be included in a biography. Can you add it (with appropriate sourcing, of course)? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't find a source for that. Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It would be very valuable if you could keep digging... Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

No source could be found for her graduating years. Since the year(s) are not mentioned the article, IMO, Giro can reevaluate the requirement of the inclusion of these years.--Dwaipayan (talk) 11:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there no chance that the institutions she attended would have publicized the fact? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• IBOS is a questionable source, and its own disclaimers indicates that its stats are derived from better sources anyway. (keeping this on my stet docket...)
• Birth details don't appear to be sourced.

Now they are. Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Information on brothers is not in its reference.

Has this been addressed? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

IMO resolved Yes, this has now been addressed. A reference from an article in Washington Post has been added, saying her brothers' occupation. Unfortunately, the article is not available free. Registration/purchase is required (and that has been mentioned in the reference). Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 10:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Info on the Perk commercial is unsourced - neither the commercial nor the year can be sourced to the refs provided.

It is sourced; please see the Rediff source. The year is from an interview I'd seen. I did not find a net ref for that. If you want, I'll remove the year. Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, your attestation that you saw it would not be a reliable source, so no, I'd need the reference for the year. The info is still unsourced as far as I can tell - there's nothing in the ref discussing a birthday party where she met a director or anything to that effect. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't find a ref that's why I said that I would remove the year if you want. The birthday party comes from the CNN interview. That is a kind of info I would never add without a net source. Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Where? I don't get any results in the article when searching for "party" "birthday" or "1996". Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

My bad - it's ToI. Added. Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• First paragraph of "Early career" is almost entirely unsourced; ref does not provide the information.

It is, the CNN interview covers it. The only thing not mentioned is the name of the film, which is in the Rediff interview. Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Where? I don't see anything at all mentioning Kapur or the film. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, you'll have to look with some more observation. She describes her first meeting with Kapur. Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll elaborate, the part where the interviewer asked her how she had become an actress. Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

And there's another one. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Soldier's delay is unsourced and appears to contradict Ref 15.

Well I actually heard that in an interview. Both KK and Soldier had been delayed. Soldier's delay was very short though. Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, that will need a source, not your assertion that you saw it in an interview. The reference seems to imply that Soldier was not in the running to be her first film. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I've added a source. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Ref 16 (Jyoti Mahajan) is too weak and spurious - better sources exist to prove commercial success.

What sources? Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, if that's the best source you have to show that the film was a commercial success, then I'd say it's unacceptable for that use. Surely you can find something more germane rather than a passing reference with no box office figures whatsoever? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Added, now you have two back to back refs. Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I accept the second one; the Mahajan one is better dropped. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Similarity to Silence of the Lambs may be construed as OR without sources.

OK, will add sources later. Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. Have added a source in the film article. Shahid • ^Talk2me 07:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Done? Well the source in the Sangharsh article (if that is what you meant) states the exact opposite of what you claim in the article. In that interview, the interviewer suggests that the movie is "lifted" from Silence of the lambs and the interviewee disagrees saying that resemblances, if any, are just superficial! How does that translate to "The film, based on The Silence of the Lambs (1991),.." ? Sarvagnya 01:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I have absolutely no interest to write that. It was what I've read several times. First of all, there is a difference between "remade" and "based". And here are the refs.[19][20] Shahid • ^Talk2me 04:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I still don't see anything in the only provided source which even mentions Silence of the Lambs. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I've added a source in the film article. If it does not suffice, tell me and I'll add one of the above links. Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it needs to be in this article, too. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this very minor detail has to be sourced in the article, not here. The article is the source. Unless there is some exceptional claim. Shahid • ^Talk2me 04:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

No, all claims in this article need to be sourced in this article. This is currently an unreferenced assertion, and without any appropriate sourcing, is an OR/POV issue. "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources", but all claims require sources. As per WP:BURDEN, I am challenging you to either add an RS ref or remove it. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You can say the same about Jolie, and ask for sources to prove that her film Gia was indeed based on the life famous model Gia. It is a detail that has to be sourced in the film article. The fact that Zinta's role in Lakshya was modelled after journalist Barkha Dutt does need referencing here, but a film being based on another film is mentioned and referenced in the film article itself. It's a film detail which has even nothing to do with Zinta herself, and I don't find it exceptional at all, as long as the film article has that sourced. I can't see what the problem is, after all you have seen the source. I don't make up stories. Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I am challenging the information as OR - the burden is on you to show otherwise. This is a critical issue, and I absolutely will not drop my oppose without this being dealt with. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I disagree with that. If it was the standard, every possible film detail would require a source. I agree, the burden of proof is on me. You challenged the info, and I provided reliable sources on the film article (where it actually belongs). And if you're still challenging the info, I can easily prove that by referring you to the film article. Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Resolved I've provided a Times of India reference that tells Sangharsh was based on Silence of the Lambs.--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem really is "based on", which implies that the rights were bought and that the filmmakers publicly recognized it as an adaptation. It needs to be rewritten to reflect that it is unauthorized, then - it neither had the rights, nor has it formally acknowledged the basis, and the original ref Shahid brought up actually shows the director to be denying the matter. Perhaps "with a plot considered to be lifted from" would be a better phrase. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

That only takes us up to "Breakthrough", but in the interests of keeping both reviewer and editors from being overwhelmed, I'll continue when these concerns have been addressed. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to start looking at the following sections, but if my remaining concerns can be taken care of in the meantime, it would be greatly appreciated. Keep up the good work. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Further Oppose comments:

• First ref in Breakthrough section does not actually backup claims of unexpected success.

Done It does. The source says that it was a surprise hit. Many other sources support the claim. If you want I can provide. Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

My fault - didn't catch it on the first go-around. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It's OK :) Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• All Filmfare Awards noms and wins need sourcing.

DoneIt is sourced in the article of her awards. Shahid • ^Talk2me 04:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Once again, assertions made in this article require sourcing in this article. (To be perfectly clear, all information across all articles require the appropriate sources within the articles - redundancy is to be expected therefore.) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Well but that's why the awards article exists. We cannot source any such thing - it's too much. If there wasn't a daughter article, I would source it, but the awards article is actually a part of this very article. And good to note that the award categories themselves do have Wiki articles. You certainly wouldn't ask to source that Meryl Streep won an Oscar for Sophie's Choice. Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

All article information needs to be referenced within this article. There aren't exceptions which state that it's fine to omit references where the information is duplicated on other articles. Are you implying that you can't find references for this? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Done Not only can I find sources, I also have prepared footnotes with reliable sources on the awards page. As I said, the award page is just a daughter page, and is by all means a part of this very article. The article links to it as "further information". I really can't see what the problem is. Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Done IMO Resolved In the "Filmography" section, all Filmfare nominations and wards have now been sourced. These, however, have not always been sourced in the text. Reasons: one, they are sourced in the Filmography section; two, for the sake of easy readability of the text (which already has large number of inline citations). Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 08:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I've removed the sources as of now. The awards article is part of this article. It is linked only in this article. I can't see how it matters. I'll see what Sandy has to say. Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

explanation No, List of Preity Zinta's awards and nominations is not considered a part of Preity Zinta article. That's an independent article which the reader may or may not chose to read while/after reading Preity Zinta. That article may be considered as a "daughter" article or "supporting" article. Having a daughter article is not a must for an FA, neither it precludes the main article have references.--Dwaipayan (talk) 12:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Dwaipayanc. If they remain sourced in the filmography, then that is fine. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• The quote in the last sentence of the first Breakthrough paragraph should be dropped - it comes across as peacock, and doesn't even apply solely to Zinta. India Today can also be dropped from the sentence - the ref identifies the source. Something simpler like - "she became identified as a part of a new generation of..." would be much more to the point.

Done It was added during this FAC as to address another comment. I have removed the quote, but India Today gives some credibility. What do you think? Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Good enough.

• Mission Kashmir plot needs to be tighter. Instead of "through the eyes of Aaltaf", something like "through the eyes of a _____", with the blank identifying what Aaltaf is that makes his POV so different. (e.g., a local farmer or a politician). Furthermore, the Hindu review is a poor choice for "generally well-received", with tepidly faint praise at best.

I don't know how to describe him in one phrase. As for the review, I thought that generally well received xonstituted exactly a faint review. I like the review because it's simple. Maybe removing the "generally well-received" would help? Shahid • ^Talk2me 04:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

"Generally well-received" doesn't seem faint - "decently received" does. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

"Decently received" -- mmm do you want me to write that? Maybe its better to remove the description and leave the quote only? Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

One or the other, I suppose. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

What is better according to you? Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Done IMO resolved "generally well received" removed. Only retained the quotation from the review in The Hindu.

The film narrates the story of altaf and others. It does not have Altaf as the story-teller/narrator. So, the film is not built from the viewpoint of Altaf (or anybody else). So, removed the phrase "through the eyes of...".--Dwaipayan (talk) 11:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Which brings up a far larger point - has Zinta (or her films) received any bad reviews? If so, why are they not represented? To argue that there are none, frankly, stretches credulity and gives a strong impression of cherry-picking.

First of all, during this time and even later in the 2000s Zinta received mostly positive reviews. The reviews you see on the article are representative and they represent the majority view of critics. We can do nothing if this is a fact. The only really "bad" reviews she received were for Lakshya (she was not criticised, but mostly described as "just adequate"), Jaanemann (where she was criticised for playing a small role) and Jhoom Barabar Jhoom. We have already discussed that with another editor back in time. But the conclusion was clear because we cannot fight critics, and after all maybe that's the reason behind her popularity? Shahid • ^Talk2me 04:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It does help to address criticism concerns to occasionally pepper in the odd contrarian review, simply to show that there were other minority views. Also, mentioning those bad reviews of the three films above, even if Zinta avoided the criticism, would help - I only see the last one mentioned as having bad reviews within the article. It is important to show that she has acted in films that have fared poorly as well, and as would be expected from any prolific actor. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't ommit any such details, everything is presented. In the Lakshya quote you can see the critic saying "she was good without being spectacular. This was actually the general reception, although there were many positive reviews for this film, but I thought this one represented the majority view. In the Jaanemann case, all critics agreed that she acted well, only some criticised her for taking such a small characters. One critic said that she was an "ornament thorughout", and that's mentioned. Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• The "(see below)" link fails MOS - it would be better to simply link the words "the trial of Bharat Shah" to the section.

Done I linked "the trial". Is that OK? Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

If you made the entire phrase "the trial of Bharat Shah" into the link, it might be clearer - linking "the trial" gives the impression that perhaps the word trial is linked. Shah can still be linked when the trial is discussed below. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Right. Done Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• "taboo issue of surrogate..." - neither link shows any evidence of something as strong as taboo. Controversial would be more appropriate, given the references.

Done Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• The MSN India reference, I say again, is a poor choice when plenty of stronger ones exist. These are exceptional claims, and therefore require exceptionally stronger sources.

Do you think it can be removed without replacement? Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I do. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• The last sentence in the second-to-last paragraph of Breakthrough seems to imply that all of the honors and recognition was a direct result of CCCC. Is that really the case, or are you trying to say that all of the recognition began to come in starting after her work in that film. The meanings are completely different. Furthermore, the sentence (or at least the sources) probably are better placed in the lead, to support similar claims made there.

As mentioned in the article, she was recognised not only for CCCC, but for her range of roles (which are quite different from typical roles), including the previous Sangharsh, Kya Kehna. The recognition was not a direct result of CCCC. It was the time when people started considering her as an actress of substance who plays diverse roles. What do you think? Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it needs some copy-editing to make it clearer, then, that this was not all the result of one film. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you have an idea to rewrite "after the release of this film"? Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It might be easier just to rewrite that sentence from scratch. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Well the sentence itself is IMO fine - the first clause is misleading here. Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully resolved. Rewrote the sentence as follows, "Following the portrayal of a wide range of characters in Kya Kehna, Sangharsh and Chori Chori Chupke Chupke, Zinta was recognised for her versatility as an actress, and credited with establishing a new image for leading actresses in Bollywood". This sentence clarifies that the recognition of the versatility and he credit is not the consequence of the film Chori Chori Chupke Chupke alone, but her portrayal of a wide range of characters in several gilms. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that's Breakthrough. If these comments, as well as the remaining previous ones, can be addressed first, I'd be happy to continue. Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Part 3 -

• I see that there's been some reversion regarding adding her cricket team ownership to the lead. I would have to agree that owning a major sports team is notable enough for inclusion, especially as she apparently is the only female owner in the league, and certainly far more notable than having had four newspaper columns published by virtue of her fame. The ownership certainly has occupied a more substantial portion of her life and responsibilities, for one.

• What exactly is meant by "a patriotic drama"? Patriotic by whose standards?

• The Hero reference is insufficient to back up the claims made by it - it is essentially a promotional press release, and the bombastic and exceptional claims should presumably have better sourcing than a BBC Shropshire preview blurb if they are true.

• Why isn't Armaan's unexpected box office failure (as discussed in the Tribune ref) noted, when several other films' are? I can see it did well critically, but the article seems to imply that no one anticipated anything but success for it.

• "(according to boxofficeindia.com)" needs to be deleted; the reference already exists in the article.

• The "Success" section is rather long; it may be prudent to split it into two or three shorter sections. (At the moment it takes up two whole screen-heights on my monitor.)

• "received a significant reception worldwide" - what is a significant reception? Something like "had a strong international release, including a screening at the Berlin Film Festival" might be more appropriate.

• The reference to Yash Raj as one of the largest production houses doesn't seem to directly cite that fact. While I don't doubt that it's true, I'm also sure that there are numerous exceptionally better sources to show this.

• "The film was another Yash Raj big-budget film" - this needs some polishing with a copy edit.

• Salaam Namaste claims to have garnered her with several nominations. Can this be sourced within the article? I can see the ref for the Filmfare nom in the filmography, but that's only one award nom.

• Why is the rest of the NYT's fairly negative review of Salaam Namaste overlooked?

• The "As of April 2008" paragraph needs references.

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