Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Freida Pinto/archive2

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 05:25, 21 December 2015 [1].

Freida Pinto edit

Nominator(s): —Vensatry (ping) 19:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an Indian actress who shot to fame with Slumdog Millionaire. I had to withdraw the candidate last time as there were reservations about prose. I went for another peer review and the article has really benefited from it. Thanks to Jaguar for copy-editing the article and the ones who took part in the PR. I believe the article now meets the FA crtieria. Look forward to constructive criticism and feedback. —Vensatry (ping) 19:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a great article on a topic (Indian cinema/stars) that has huge popular appeal both in India and around the world. I would love to see it as a featured article. I'm also voting for it because having it on the main page would bring some much needed diversity to the page (which appears to be dominated by articles about white men and their sport and history!). Great work. MurielMary (talk) 09:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)MurielMary[reply]
And there is nothing wrong with many FA articles about white men getting featured on the main page. It isn't "domination" when it isn't exclusive to biographies, everything has its fair share. What matters more is the quality of the article, not race and gender. You will need a better reason. Burklemore1 (talk) 04:12, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by an IP edit

  • The article states that Pinto "works predominantly in American cinema". What is meant by work? Is this more on the number of American films she participated in? Her filmography doesn't support this claim.
    • Most of her films are American/British co-productions, with a few of them being independent ones. Got a suggestion? —Vensatry (Talk) 12:12, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I suggest incorporating that information--the mix of US/UK films--instead of saying predominantly, which needs to be backed by a reliable source. Also, a reader might be curious how come this lady of Indian origin mainly doing films produced abroad? I mean its normal nowadays, but such a claim for a relatively new artist should be properly attributed. --124.107.75.38 (talk) 16:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done. I think the word "predominant" is essential because the majority of her films are American/British co-productions. —Vensatry (Talk) 17:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • That must be supported by a reliable source, I'm afraid. --124.107.75.38 (talk) 18:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • Not really, it's more like a case of WP:OBVIOUS. —Vensatry (Talk) 18:34, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • The examples given in the link do not support the case for Pinto. It's not a general fact, either, and not obvious, per se, for non Pinto afficionado. Aside from this, she's an actress hailed from India. To state that she "predominantly" do American films must be an established fact, and must be supported by a source compliant with WP:RS. To state that she acted in various American and British films is rather neutral. --124.107.75.38 (talk) 18:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*The filmography is barely supported with citations.

    • I don't think it's necessary. The films are already discussed in the article and a majority of them are blue-linked; the red-linked ones ares sourced though. —Vensatry (Talk) 12:12, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That year, The Daily Telegraph reported Pinto as the highest-paid Indian actress, although she had not appeared in a Bollywood film. This isn't supported by Telegraph source. And the connection might be misconstrued (or unnecessary).

  • Pinto is credited with breaking the stereotypical image... By whom? Stereotype should be linked, too.

  • Suggestion. The two images under the section "acting career" should be switched. In basic layout, the direction of the face/gaze (for lack of better term) should tell which side the picture should be placed (i.e. if facing to the left, should be placed on the right side of the article).
    • Is it not a convention to place images (at the beginning of a section) at the right side? I don't think swapping works because the images would look out of place as they become irrelevant to the paras. —Vensatry (Talk) 12:12, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I meant getting the picture on the right to left, and vice versa. Done it myself. --124.107.75.38 (talk) 16:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I understood that very well. You got my question? —Vensatry (Talk) 17:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Apologies. Did you mean the convention? I have looked up the relevant guideline, which states: "It is often preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text. However, it is not necessary to reverse an image simply to have the subject facing the text." (emphasis mine) --124.107.75.38 (talk) 18:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • The infobox image is rather odd, also, being that the face looks outside the monitor. Though the guideline states its not necessary to reverse. --124.107.75.38 (talk) 18:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • The problem is most of the images (of hers in Commons) are that way. We normally use high-quality images in FA/FLs; the current one is a Valued image. —Vensatry (Talk) 18:42, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • Not pushing this idea, either. Are you OK now with my changes on the two images (the switching)? So I could strike this out. --124.107.75.38 (talk) 18:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Slumdog Millionaire emerged as a sleeper hit, receiving acclaim particularly for its plot and soundtrack. Might imply that because it was a sleeper hit, it received acclaim such and such, or it received the latter because it became a sleeper hit.
  • The Telegraph states that Pinto was unknown even in her native country until her starring role in Slumdog Millionaire, and that its success paved the way for her future projects. Is this included in the article?
    • It's quite natural; you can't expect someone to become so popular before attaining celebrity status. To answer your question, the opening sentence of the 'Media image' clarifies this (although not directly). —Vensatry (Talk) 12:12, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe Wikipedia must seize that opportunity, by including such clear information from a reputable source. --124.107.75.38 (talk) 16:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is premiere in the French form première?
    • Because the copyeditors seemed to have forgotten that she's an Indian lady. Done —Vensatry (Talk) 12:12, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • she spoke out against the Indian government's ban on India's Daughter... the phrasal verb means "To talk freely and fearlessly, as about a public issue." Is this the intended meaning? Also, is there any additional content / information? What did she say about it?
    • Added a bit. Voicing opinions against a thing which has been banned in your motherland is certainly a bold act.

Thanks for your comments. —Vensatry (Talk) 12:12, 29 October 2015 (UTC) [reply]

  • "To prepare for her role, she watched the videos of the English anthropologist Jane Goodall." Why that of her? Any linking information would help. --124.107.75.38 (talk) 18:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support from Jim My concerns were addressed at PR, and I have no new issues Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think I've come late to the party but after a read-through of the article (and comments made in this FAC) I'm happy to conclude that this meets the FA criteria. Nice work here! JAGUAR  17:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jaguar: Thanks for that! —Vensatry (Talk) 06:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TrueHeartSusie3 edit

Lead:

  • I would restructure it a bit. I'd keep the first para quite short, and wouldn't go into her biographical details until in the second para, see for example Julianne Moore.
  • I think 'leading lady' is too informal, at least in the lead, and I think it's important to stress that this was also her first film role. I'd rewrite it, for example, "Pinto's first film role was in the British drama film Slumdog Millionaire, in which she starred opposite Dev Patel. The film was a critical and commercial success."
  • I think you should also mention the success or failure of her films post-Slumdog; has she continued to receive good reviews? Of course you shouldn't mention every film she's done, but any notable box office/critical successes or failures.
  • I think the bit about Indian criticism belongs in the previous paragraph.

Early life: *"Pinto studied at the Carmel of St. Joseph School in the neighborhood, where she played sports and performed in the school choir." Source?

  • Is AskMen a reliable source?
  • How did Pinto end up as a model?
  • You say she worked for Elite for two and a half years, and then that she continued modelling for 4 years? What was her agency after Elite? Do you mean she modeled for a total of 6,5 years, or for 4 years? This needs rewording. Why did she end her modeling career?
  • "In a 2015 interview with the Daily Mirror" It doesn't seem like DM interviewed her, they just wrote about an interview she gave in The Late, Late Show. Tabloids are also generally not considered reliable sources, so I think it would be preferable to find another source for this, or use that episode of The LLS as source.
    • I tried before, but couldn't find any newspaper sources. The episode is available on Youtube. You want me to include that? —Vensatry (Talk) 18:54, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Does it even need to be included though? A lot of people take random jobs as teens or uni students. You can cite audiovisual material (the template for that should come up with a search); you wouldn't cite YouTube though — YT is just a hosting site, and I doubt the LLS episodes are there legally. But I really don't think this factoid needs to be included; if she hasn't spoken about it elsewhere, it's probably not notable enough to be included. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:01, 28 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
        • Even if you decide to keep the factoid, you need to correct that she gave the interview to the LLS.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 10:20, 29 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
  • Also, I think it would be worth mentioning that how long she worked as an entertainer at children's parties, given that the previous sentences demonstrate that she was a pretty successful model, and the next one that she worked in television. Did she work as an entertainer between these jobs, (and why, if she was already a successful model)?
  • Did she continue living in Mumbai during this time?
    • Yes, but what's that you're actually looking for? —Vensatry (Talk) 12:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The para about her unsuccessful film auditions is otherwise good, but I'd begin it with "While working as [model, tv presenter, party entertainer, or whatever she was doing at the time], Pinto auditioned..."
    • For the given context, I think "time" would add more value. —Vensatry (Talk) 12:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Acting career:

2008-10: * I wasn't aware that Elite sends their models to film castings (also, this is confusing since you state in the previous section that she was an Elite model for only two and a half years?) — is this normal practice or did the director specifically want a model for the role?

  • Daily Express is a tabloid and as such, an unreliable source; I don't know enough about rediff, but it does not seem very reliable either. I'd try to find another source to replace these two.
    • Removed Daily Express. Rediff is considered very much reliable for Indian-film articles. A lot of FAs use that. —Vensatry (Talk) 12:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • NY Daily News is another tabloid; Fodor's writes travel guides, I wouldn't use it for film-related info.
  • If possible, I'd like to see something on Pinto's experiences on making the film.

* "emerged as a sleeper hit" – I'd add how much the film made in the box office, perhaps contrasted against its budget.

  • I'd also like to hear what the critics said about Pinto, i.e. I'd add a couple of quotes from notable film critics.
    • This was raised in the previous FAC as well. I'm unable to find anything that's more particular about her performance. —Vensatry (Talk) 10:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* I'd move this: "The film helped launch Pinto's career in Hollywood" to the beginning of the next section (you need to restate its title if you do so though)

  • "received negative reviews upon release." Did the reviews comment on her performance?
  • "played the central character" – 'starred' is simpler, especially since you use "she played" in the next sentence.
  • You need to cite more reliable sources for this statement: "The film received negative reviews, but critics praised Pinto's performance"

2011:

* I'd replace 'part' with something like 'film role'; also, since she appeared in several films released in 2011, you might consider mentioning this at the beginning of this section, so the readers know what to expect.

  • 'However' is generally frowned upon in FA-level articles.
  • It's not enough to cite just one review for the statement that the actors in Planet of the Apes were criticized; the source only demonstrates that this specific reviewer criticized them. I'm also not sure if IBtimes is considered reliable.
    • Removed the bit and added a couple of notable reviews. —Vensatry (Talk) 12:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why did you choose to mention the Slate and Metro reviews instead of ones from NYTimes, LATimes, The Guardian, Variety, etc.?
  • "unlike some of Pinto's previous films" – I'd say 'many' would be better; in fact, since this seems to have been her first film to receive good reviews since SM, you could just write it like that.
  • "Trishna gained a positive response from critics." – While the source does indeed call the film 'critically acclaimed', I'd also add Metacritic and Rotten tomatoes as sources.
    • Both say mixed reviews. Changed accordingly —Vensatry (Talk) 12:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, what did the reviewers say about Pinto's performance?
  • I'd give Antonio Banderas' full name again; what was the reception of this film like?
  • "She said that the film's extensive usage of CGI enabled her to prepare for her role in Rise of the Planet of the Apes." Very confusing, since this section begins with Planet of the Apes. I don't think it's necessary to mention this at all.
    • Agree, but a FN is there for clarification. It covers one of her "experiences" to prepare for her role. —Vensatry (Talk) 12:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • The experience is literally that she was familiar with the CGI technique before making Planet of the Apes. It's clearly not very important, and can easily be cut if it confuses readers. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 18:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
  • How was The Immortals received?
  • "She was criticised by the Indian media for a sequence that involved her shedding her clothes and becoming physically intimate with Mars" – Why did they criticize it?
  • I think documentaries are generally referred as being narrated by someone; voice-over refers specifically to combining moving image + spoken words without the speaker being shown, and can be used in different ways.
    • Not always. See Unity (film), there were a 100 narrators. You want me to change 'voice-overs' to 'narrators'? —Vensatry (Talk) 12:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • ?? I don't understand what you mean. A voice-over, as its linked article tells us, is "a production technique where a voice—that is not part of the narrative (non-diegetic)—is used in a radio, television production, filmmaking, theatre, or other presentations". Documentaries use this technique a lot (combining narration + visuals without showing the narrator), but it can be used in any type of film. The person who narrates a documentary is called a narrator; it does not matter how many narrators there are. If you don't believe me, the documentary's article also refers to Pinto as a narrator. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 18:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
  • "The film depicted the power of education in transforming girls' lives around the world" – I'd word this a bit differently, given that it's not a fictional film.
  • " praised Pinto's "wattage"" ?
  • How was Desert Dancer received?
  • "Pinto's first film of 2015 Knight of Cups, in which " I think this needs rewording; also, it seems she has a supporting rather than starring role. At the moment the text implies she stars opposite Christian Bale.
  • What were its reviews like? I'm aware that it's not been widely released yet, but I'm sure all the important critics wrote about it after Berlin?
  • How did Blunt Force Trauma fare in the box office, what were the reviews like?

Personal life

*"Before her appearance in Slumdog Millionaire" – I'd reword this. Perhaps "Before beginning her film career, Pinto was in a relationship with... She ended the relationship in January 2009, and began dating her SM co-star Dev Patel."

  • "After being in a relationship for almost six years" – "After a six-year relationship"
  • "Following that, Pinto relocated to Los Angeles from London." Confusing, since this is the first time it's mentioned that she'd been living in London.
  • US Weekly is a gossip rag, and hence does not qualify as a reliable source. Furthermore, the article in question discusses only rumours about their break-up; you'll need a source that quotes a statement from their publicists, or a direct quote from either of them stating that they are no longer a couple.
  • "She was the only Indian actress to participate in their annual fund raiser, "The 15th Grand Slam for Children", aimed at providing education for underprivileged children" – Is this important enough to warrant a mention, especially since The Agassi Foundation, according to its website, works only in the US? Did she actually join the foundation i.e. is an ambassador, or did she simply attend one of its fundraisers? If it's the latter, it does not need to be mentioned.
  • "Two years later, she was appointed as the global ambassador of Plan International's Because I am a Girl, a campaign that promotes gender equality with the aim of lifting millions of girls out of poverty. " – Needs a source.
  • "she said the film needs to reach the public as it is not a "shame-India documentary"" – I'd also state why she thinks it's important for Indians to see this doc, if she has commented on it.
  • There's no mention of her contract with L'Oreal – why not?
    • The fact that she is a "spokeswoman" of L'Oreal is already covered. —Vensatry (Talk) 07:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Media image * I'd reword the first sentence to say something like " After her breakthrough role in Slumdog Millionaire (2008), Pinto has been frequently included in magazine polls." There's no need to state that she was an unknown model before that.

    • I think that's an important bit. She was indeed an "unknown" model before SM. —Vensatry (Talk) 09:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • The 'breakthrough role' expresses the same meaning. You don't need to state that before she got famous, she wasn't famous... TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 10:20, 29 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
        • Not really, when it says 'breakthrough role'. Take the case of Bipasha Basu, a super model, who was very popular before she entered films. —Vensatry (Talk) 12:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But you don't need to state that even if there are famous models who've branched out to acting... All you need to state is that after SM, she was named in all of these polls, you don't need to state she wasn't popular in polls before, it's implied in that sentence. Just like you don't need to say "She's Indian, therefore she is not Canadian, or American, or British..." It's already been established in this article that she wasn't well known in any field before SM. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 18:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
Separated both sentences. —Vensatry (Talk) 06:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd also specify the types of polls she's included; all of them appear related to beauty and fashion. Her being the highest-paid Indian actress doesn't belong in the same group with the beauty polls, I'd move it to the next para.
    • Isn't that self-explanatory from the names of the polls? As for the highest-paid thing, it was reported in 2009, shorty after SM. So moving it to the next para would make it seem out-of-place. —Vensatry (Talk) 09:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because all of the polls are similar; in a well-written text, readers will already know what to expect when beginning to read a paragraph. When I started reading that para for the first time "included in magazine polls" made me think she has been included also in polls for her acting etc.; but it turns out she's only been included in beauty and fashion polls. You don't need to include these polls chronologically; what you need to prioritize is how the text 'flows' and whether the meaning you want to convey is as clear and easy to access as possible. The L'Oreal contract is not a poll, hence it should be discussed either before them or after. Being the highest-paid Indian actress in 2009 is not a poll; it's based on what she earns, not on opinions of journalists or audiences. Therefore it should not be included as a poll. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 10:20, 29 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
  • "she said she was consciously avoiding roles" – Has she stopped avoiding roles like that? If not, I think the present tense is more suitable.
    • Changed —Vensatry (Talk) 09:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I tweaked it a bit more; I'd maybe change 'depict stereotypes' as well. Also, it might be worth explaining what the stereotypes are when you first mention them.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 10:20, 29 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
  • Remove 'however'
  • "As an Indian woman, Pinto is credited by the media with breaking stereotypes of a leading lady in Hollywood" – Do you mean she breaks stereotypes about leading ladies in general, or stereotypes about Indian actresses? Who are 'the media' (give at least notable examples, if it's a general fact)? Also, I think 'leading lady' is pretty informal, I'd use 'female actor' or something like that.
    • Okay now? —Vensatry (Talk) 09:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I'm still confused. Do you mean that before Pinto, Indian women have only been given stereotypical roles in Hollywood films? What do you mean by stereotype? And you've still not given any examples of 'the media'.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 10:20, 29 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
          • What do you mean by examples here? —Vensatry (Talk) 18:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • At the moment it reads: "Pinto is credited by the Indian media with breaking the stereotypical image of Indian women playing leading roles in Hollywood." I have no idea of what the stereotype is, and hence no idea of how Freida Pinto is breaking the stereotype. It's not clear whether you mean that there is a stereotype of Indian women in Hollywood films (e.g. in the same way in which African-American women tend to be portrayed as maids, criminals or drug addicted prostitutes, and rarely as successful lawyers, doctors and journalists), or whether you mean that Pinto has been cast in starring roles, which are usually reserved for American actresses? Is it that she is portrayed in these films as a non-stereotypical Indian woman (in which case I'd like to see examples of what the stereotypical Indian woman is like), or that she's gotten leading roles in which her nationality/ethnicity is not brought up at all, which is rare for 'non-white' actors? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
              • Yes. Indian actresses, in general, are portrayed as Indians in Hollywood films. Pinto looks like being an exception, that's the point. —Vensatry (Talk) 05:19, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I'm unable to support the FA nomination at the moment (therefore, oppose). The main reasons for this:

  • There's very little on Pinto's thoughts about her work
  • There's not enough information about the reception (commercial and critical) of many of her performances and films
  • The article needs to cite more reliable sources
  • It needs some rewording & restructuring, and is confusing in some places.

I definitely think this article has potential, and agree with the above user that Wikipedia sorely needs more diversity. I hope you are not discouraged by my review — all the article needs is just some more work. I'd use FA-level articles of actors like Angelina Jolie, Julianne Moore, Philip Seymour Hoffman, etc. as examples. Also, please don't hesitate to ask if you'd like me to further clarify any of the points I've made. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 15:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

EDIT: I checked the previous FA review as well as the peer review; I think you should follow Cirt's advice in the peer review, if you haven't already. Instead of immediately trying to fix the problems with this article, I would advise you to take a break to compare it to FA-level actor articles. Note the language they employ, how much weight they give to different aspects, how they group information, and the types of sources they use. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 10:20, 29 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

I'm afraid, the article has had two PRs, and copy-edits by a number of native users including the ones at the guild. As for 'Pinto's thoughts about her work', she is too young to have a say about it. Until now, she's played minor supporting roles in most of her films. Comparing her (article) with that of a highly accomplished actress like Moore is not the right way to deal with; Emma Watson (I know this was promoted long ago) and Josh Hutcherson would be the right ones. Give me sometime, I'll try to polish the article. —Vensatry (Talk) 10:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware it's already been through several reviews, but that does not change my view that this article is not ready for FA status. I understand that it can be frustrating to hear someone say these things when you've worked for a long time on an article, so don't be discouraged. I just really feel you need to spend some time reading through recent actor FAs and comparing them to this article, as the article has problems and quite frankly, I don't think many of the changes you've made following my review are improvements, or rather, they've introduced new issues, or it appears that you didn't understand the problem to begin with even when the problem should be quite obvious (e.g. you've replaced the Us Weekly article about the Pinto–Patel split with a Daily Telegraph article. That's a step to the right direction, but you have overlooked the fact that the DT article quotes the Us Weekly article, which doesn't give any source but uses tabloid terms like "sources close to Pinto claim...". Gossip mags and tabloids often use terminology like that to mask the fact that they don't necessarily even have any sources, but just needed to come up with something to sell that week's magazine. To establish that this couple have split, you need a RS article with a statement from them; this is basic source criticism, and anyone taking an article to FAC should be aware of it already.)
I am fully aware that Pinto has been an active actor for only seven years, and hence her career cannot be compared to someone as established as Julianne Moore. But that wasn't even my point; my point was that all FAs need to adhere to certain common standards, as you know — they need to use only reliable sources, be broad in scope but not give undue weight to things that don't matter, and be written in professional-level prose. Therefore, when aiming to edit an article to FA standard, you can and should use current FAs as models. Naturally, Moore's article will be longer and more comprehensive than Pinto's as she's older and has had a longer career; however, the FA standards are the same for both articles. I offered those three as examples off the top of my head — you're of course free to use any FAs as examples. As for what I meant with Pinto's own thoughts about her work — actors usually get asked questions like "what made you choose this role/film?"; "what was it like working with [famous co-star, director]?"; "how did you prepare to play this character?" when promoting their films, I'm sure Pinto is no exception. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 18:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
I never said I'm fully done with your concerns. This is after all a work-in-progress. —Vensatry (Talk) 18:37, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely don't understand why you're in a hurry. May be you want to see the nomination archived soon? And, please properly sign-in your posts by typing four tildes ~~~~. For now, it looks like you're affixing your username. —Vensatry (Talk) 18:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And I haven't implied that, I know you aren't done yet, I'm just replying to your comments? I'm getting really confused...? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 18:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
I'm not meaning you opposed in a bad faith. But yes, your last reply implies so. —Vensatry (Talk) 18:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? What do you mean? I've spotted problems with the article, which are not just cosmetic ones; hence I don't think it's FA standard yet. The changes you've made and your comments to my review imply that you're not seeing these problems, even when some of them seem quite obvious, which makes me think that you would benefit from comparing the article to existing FAs. And what's this supposed to mean: "And, please properly sign-in your posts by typing four tildes ~~~~. For now, it looks like you're affixing your username." I've added four tildes every time before adding my username? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 18:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
Well, at least could you strike out the concerns which you think are properly addressed? I'm finding it difficult to follow. As for the signature, yes, it does look like you're inserting your username after typing the four tildes. —Vensatry (Talk) 18:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)r[reply]
The list is not comprehensive, as new issues have appeared with your edits and I've also spotted things that I missed the first time. As I said already when I first reviewed this article, I'm sorry but you need to do more work on this article for me to support its FA nomination, as its issues are not just cosmetic — it's simply not ready to be nominated, it does not meet Featured article criteria. If I were you, I'd withdraw and submit for peer review, or to the guild of copyeditors. Your directing the discussion to my use of tildes (which is sufficient according to WP guidelines and has not been brought up by anyone else during my three years here), combined with the comments you've made in the previous FA review, make me think that you're taking this far too personally. That doesn't make me motivated to continue this discussion, on which I have already spent several hours. I've already given you a lot of tips on how to improve the article, including that your first step should be to compare the article to other actor FAs. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
I'm sure you're aware this isn't an FLC. The article was agreed upon as being fairly comprehensive (by many users who had commented on the PR and this FAC) as there is hardly anything more to be said for the actress who has had a relatively-short career. It was copy-edited by a number of users who are highly experienced and professional level copy-editors. Agree, some issues with prose have come up. But that's mainly because of the changes which were suggested by you. Nevertheless, those are minor ones and I'm sure the article be polished in quick time. I'm not taking things personally, it's rather a few bad-faith editors like you who come up with trivial issues at the last minute and oppose for no reason. —Vensatry (Talk) 05:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, why are you so adamant in striking out the concerns which have been addressed? Because, I disagreed with you on a couple of instances? —Vensatry (Talk) 05:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You asked me to review this article, and I don't think it meets FA criteria; this doesn't mean it's a lousy article, merely that it's not one of the best yet. Yes, I'm really puzzled by some of your actions. I started by assuming good faith, that you genuinely just need to compare this article to other actors FAs, and maybe give FA criteria and MoS another read. Depending on how much time you have, I think the changes that this article needs to reach FA level could've been done in a week or so. But the more I interact with you, the more negative my opinion is becoming, unfortunately. I've spent several hours on this review and trying to think of ways to help you, but you don't seem to appreciate that. Instead of actually thinking why I've said the things I did and taking my advice, you resort to off-topic discussion and claiming that the review was done entirely in bad faith. If we start conferring FA status without making sure that the article meets FA criteria, then there's no point in even having these classifications. Reaching FA level takes hard work, and you should expect your reviewers to be thorough. If this was just a question of changing a couple of words, I would've said so. Furthermore, if you think the article cannot be majorly improved due to Pinto's short career, then why are you so determined on getting it named one of the best articles on Wikipedia? Why not concentrate on other Indian actors with more substantial careers, as I believe Dr. Blofeld suggested in one of the earlier reviews? Anyway, I'm sorry, but I think I'm done here. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
I'm seriously puzzled at your behaviour. You said the article is not yet FA ready, asked me to take a break, go for another PR, and comeback. And, now you say "Depending on how much time you have, I think the changes that this article needs to reach FA level could've been done in a week or so." If you look at my responses (to individual concerns that has been pointed out by you), none of them were negative. On every instance, I either "agreed" or was seeking for your clarification. It's you who is responding in bad faith. That said, I'm very well aware of the FA criteria and MOS guidelines. Regarding your last point, I totally disagree with you. As I said earlier, we have Emma Watson and Josh Hutcherson. It's okay if you don't wish to review further, but at least strike/collapse the concerns which you think are addressed. Thanks, —Vensatry (Talk) 12:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Final comments from TrueHeartSusie3 edit

(I'm beginning a new section for the sake of clarity) Vensatry and I had a discussion about the article on my talk page after the comments left on 30 Nov, and I have since spent several hours editing the article to demonstrate the types of changes I would like to see, as per our discussion. I also wanted to do this to demonstrate that my not supporting the FA nom is not due to some malicious intent, but because I genuinely feel it's simply not there yet. While Vensatry has made real progress with the article, my core concern remains the same and hence I still oppose it being named a FA. In the following paras, I'll try to explain the best I can why I don't think it meets FA criteria. I want to clarify that at this stage, I consider this article to be a good GA-level article; however, for FA, it needs to be close to perfection.

The foundation of a FA is extensive research, and its main contributor(s) have to be able to demonstrate that they are experts on the subject. Pinto's career has lasted for less than ten years, and hence I would expect the main contributors to have read the majority of her interviews and profiles published in reliable sources. In other words, while I believe that Vensatry has done a lot of research, for FA level he needs to do even more research. By the time that an article is nominated for a FA, there should not be any major issues with sources or the scope of the article; the changes made in FA review should be merely 'cosmetic', e.g. correcting typos, polishing the prose, further clarifying a fact or two. However, I've noticed the following issues:

  • Before, the section about Pinto's career mostly just listed her films. In a FA-level article, the section should not simply provide her filmography, but also analysis of her career, e.g. her own opinions and thoughts on her roles, information about the films' reception. A huge step to the right direction has been made during this review, but it's still not where it needs to be in terms of comprehensiveness.
  • I'm concerned by the fact that some of the basic facts about her life seem to have changed during this review (e.g. how her films were received) or have only been added during it. This implies that the article is not ready for FA, and the overall impression I get from the article is that the main contributor may not be aware of many of the interviews Pinto has given. I did some research while editing, and was able to find plenty of articles from reputable publications where Pinto discusses her life and work. The source material certainly exists, but it will take extensive research to collect and go through it.
  • When I first began reviewing, the article cited some unreliable sources; given that new unreliable sources (e.g. HuffPost twice, DT citing Us Weekly) were added as corrections makes me think that more work needs to be done identifying reliable sources.
  • Very general statements were made with very little backing from appropriate sources (e.g. one review does not imply what the reviews were like in general, Rottentomatoes or Metacritic are for that) — this has mostly been corrected now, but should've happened before FAC.
  • Occasionally, material has been misattributed (e.g. Tzanelli doesn't say anything about her performing at uni, just that she did amateur theater; she didn't live in London, but split her time between London and Mumbai...) or misunderstood (e.g. LATimes interview categorized and used as an example of a review)
  • The article was often very confusing (e.g. the length of Pinto's modeling career), and there are still issues, specifically in the 'charity' section, which does not make it clear what charities she supports as an ambassador, board member etc., and what her opinions are about the political issues she campaigns for. Again, more research needs to be done.

In short, the article demonstrates GA-level knowledge of the subject, but not FA-level. Again, a FA review is not just a peer review that may result in the article being graded a FA; the article has to already be in excellent shape with no major issues when it is nominated. This article had major issues to begin with (with research, scope, prose, clarity), and even though progress has definitely been made, more work needs to be done. I hope my criticism and editing aids the main contributor with developing the article, and I'm sorry that I cannot support the FA nomination at this stage. Vensatry, you do not need to reply to this unless you really want to, as this is my final decision and I'm unlikely to change it. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

While I certainly value TrueHeartSusie3's inputs, I don't think most of her claims, particularly about the usage of reliable sources in the article, are serious issues. To be very honest, I was not aware of non-reliability of the tabloid sources until the peer review; I missed out a few. In most cases, sources were apparently easy to find and replaceable. Agree with the lack of reviews (of her performances) though. But now that seems to be taken care of. As for the prose, the article was copy-edited by a number of native speakers, including the ones at GOCE. I must say it was after TrueHeartSusie3's recent copy-edits, some minor errors were introduced in the article, which I had to fix. Thanks to TrueHeartSusie3 for her time. —Vensatry (Talk) 12:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dr. Blofeld edit

  • " Pinto has subsequently appeared in a number of British and American productions including You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger (2010), Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011), Immortals (2011), and Trishna (2011)." -that was nearly five years ago, nothing since?
    • In fact, her only lead role after 2011 was Desert Dancer. Blunt Force Trauma is neither American nor British. —Vensatry (Talk) 07:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although the Indian media credited Pinto with breaking the stereotypical image of an Indian woman in foreign films, it criticised her " -shouldn't it be "have credited" and "it has credited"
  • "In addition to her acting career, she engages in philanthropic activities and promotes humanitarian causes that include her duties as a global ambassador of the Because I Am a Girl campaign." -a bit awkward.
  • "Pinto had a middle class upbringing in the suburb of Malad." -should be new paragraph.
  • Why is psychology linked and not economics?
    • The editors who had copy-edited the article had mixed opinions on whether to link it or not. —Vensatry (Talk) 07:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Despite her interest in acting from an early age, Pinto was undecided on which career path to take until watching Monster (2003) while at college: "I guess it was when I watched Monster ... And then I pretty much knew. I had to find a way. I had to do something like that, something completely transformational."" -too long. . I'd add a fullstop after college and then add "She stated:
  • "Pinto later stated it was good learning experience, stating t" -should be "that it was a good" and you should avoid repetition of stated/ing
  • "She appeared in a supporting role" -you don't really appear in a role. You appear in a film, or portray a character.
  • "Pinto appeared in four films released in 2011." -you don't really need to say both appeared and released, just "In 2011, Pinto starred in four films". or something.
  • "Pinto's second screen appearance of 2011 " -no need to mention year again.
  • " Pinto's final screen appearance of 2011 " -again you can say "the year" instead
  • "She appeared in the music video for Bruno Mars' single "Gorilla" in 2013, for which she was criticised by the Indian media as it showed her shedding her clothes and becoming physically intimate with Mars;[57] Hindustan Times called the act "dirty dancing".[5" -really awkward structuring. Needs ewriting, something like "In 2013, Pinto was criticised in the Indian press for appearing in the music video for Bruno Mars' single "Gorilla", in which she sheds her clothes and becomes physically intimate with Mars. The Hindustan Times dismissed it as little more than "dirty dancing",
  • "John DeFore of The Hollywood Reporter criticized the film," -are we using American or British/Indian English? Inconsistent spelling with further up article
  • "who had been her publicist at one point. " -vague
    • There was a discussion about this in the PR as well as the FAC (THS's comments). The wordings were suggested by Relentlessly, who thought that the source was not clear. I tried finding other sources, most of which were not clear and contradicting with each other. So we thought it's better to have it this way. —Vensatry (Talk) 07:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • " she spoke at the "Girls' rights summit" in London, where she called for more progress toward the end of female genital mutilation and child marriage.[85] The following year, she spoke o" -rep of spoke.

Oppose While I disagree with TrueHeartSusie that an article has to be perfect or even close to it (I think that's one of the most off-putting things with editors and FAC, they think it has to be perfect and there's no such thing as perfection) I'm afraid I agree with her overall and know what she's trying to say. The prose and overall quality of information isn't even close to FA standard. The prose in places is clumsy and awkwardly structured. It badly needs rewriting or polishing up to improve the overall flow, as well as content on some of her roles and production which might improve the quality and make it seem a little more encyclopedic. It's not just a few minor prose issues, it should be blatantly obvious to any fluent English speaker reading it throughout the entire article. It's always going to be difficult on an actress with limited roles, but this isn't even close to the level needed for featured articles on actors. Sorry Vensatry, I know this isn't what you wanted to hear but I hope you respect that I have to be honest and review this fairly.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:47, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But it would be nice if some specific examples are given. I must say TrueHeartSusie's (of course made in good faith) edits introduced quite a number of glitches. If you feel still there is a chance for improvements (in prose) so that the article will be polished with in the 'allowed time', please let me know. Otherwise, there is no point in working. —Vensatry (Talk) 06:23, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. The ones which you'd listed above are really minor ones. Except for a couple of ones (where I seek clarification) all of those have been resolved. —Vensatry (Talk) 07:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- Sorry but this review has been open almost two months and we still don't have consensus to promote, so I'm going to archive and ask that any further work be undertaken outside the FAC process. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Freida_Pinto/archive2&oldid=1136097794"