Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Priyanka Chopra/archive3

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 Ian Rose 00:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Priyanka Chopra edit

Nominator(s): Dr. ☠ Blofeld, Prashant and BollyJeff 07:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because Priyanka Chopra is one of the most popular and versatile actresses in Hindi cinema. The article has been thoroughly researched and is a comprehensive and well-written account of her career. The statistics indicate that it is within the top 750 most popular articles on English wikipedia.—Prashant 07:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support The article has been thoroughly researched and is well referenced. It is deserving of a Featured Article. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 17:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:09, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Isn't it rather unusual to have a long quote in the lead? I didn't follow the previous fac discussion, so don't know if it was a consensus decision to keep the cnn-ibn long quote in the lead. Perhaps the nature of the quote forced the editors to keep it?--Dwaipayan (talk) 00:32, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No one said anthing about the quote in the lead during the previous fac and you are right, the nature of quote is suitable to the situation in the lead. That's why it is there.—Prashant 03:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]

During the previous FAC someone mentioned that it should be cited; no one said that it shouldn't be there. BollyJeff | talk 00:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The lead, as we know, is a summary of the body of the article. In my opinion, it should not need a long quote to summarize the body of the article. Of course the quote may be well-suited somewhere in the body of the article. That being said, I don't know if there is any guideline on long quotes in the lead. The topic of the quote is not something extremely controversial so as to need a quote in the lead, I feel. Other opinions are welcome.--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:09, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prashant, be careful not to compare new comments with archived FAC's. Forget the previous attempts when it comes to new reviewers or comments, that was then and this is now. You should be treating this FAC as a completely new nomination. -- Cassianto ^Talk 09:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think, the quote fits better with the situation in the lead, which describes her acting range. So, it can be there. Some suggestions are welcome.—Prashant 03:18, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with Dwaipayanc on this. The lead is supposed to summarise the entire article. The quote can be placed in the main body, as it sounds too gushing in the lead! --smarojit ^HD 10:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removed that quote from the lead. Thanks.—Prashant 13:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ I certainly feel that filmography should have a new article. With filmography, this article is long to scroll down!! Other wise, this one stays on the subject, with added images for most of the sections which makes it to qualify to be a featured article. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 06:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Created a separate article for her filmography and retained few of her films under a section "Selected filmography" which also has a link to her filmography.—Prashant 08:18, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Support as per Doug and Cas Liber. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 16:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"Chopra has maintained a strong relationship with her family, including her younger brother, Siddharth, and lives in an apartment on the same floor as her family, with her dog Brando." – Why is the fact she lives with her dog worthy of being mentioned?

Removed the name of her dog.—Prashant 13:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Her mother, a well-established gynaecologist in Bareilly, gave up her practice to support Chopra as she embarked upon a successful film career." – Do you embark on a successful film career, or just a film career. Surely it would be too early to tell if it was going to be a success or not?

Tweaked.—Prashant 13:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Chopra had signed Abbas-Mustan's romantic thriller Humraaz (2002)" – what does "signed" mean? Do you mean signed up to, or signed to do, or something like that?

Re-worded.—Prashant 13:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"...she stated the production conflicted with her schedule, while the producers stated they re-cast because Chopra took on various other commitments." – repetition of "stated".

Removed repetition.—Prashant 13:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Chopra has little to do. But she does it with eye-catching aplomb." — Shouldn't the full stop come after a closing quote mark?

Corrected.—Prashant 16:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Putting punctuation inside or outside of quotes was done in accordance with this Wikipedia policy link: Wikipedia:Quotation_marks#Punctuation_inside_or_outside. Yet several reviewers have now questioned that. I need to know if this is to be followed or not. BollyJeff | talk 15:26, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bollyjeff, see Wikipedia:Logical quotation. If the punctuation is part of the quoted text, then place in front of the quotation marks. If the punctuation is not part of the quoted text, then place behind the quotation marks. Victoria (talk) 15:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria is spot on. The article will need checking throughout to make this consistent. -- Cassianto ^Talk 15:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That redirects to the same link that I provided. It was my feeling that all quotes were adhering to it. Of course there are several cooks here, so some of them may not. Both of those quotes end in a period, so the period is part of the quote, and should be within the quote marks. Is that not right? BollyJeff | talk 16:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is right. Victoria (talk) 16:08, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This recent edit has it wrong. Only a single quotation mark is added to text so it's confusing, and a full stop is added, when the sentence continues after the ref. Suggest slowing down and checking these carefully. There's no rush. Victoria (talk) 15:54, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think, I mistakenly edited that but, have corrected now.—Prashant 16:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Drona, widely criticised for its extensive use of special effects, marked Chopra's sixth film in succession which had failed at both the box office and critically, although Sukanya Verma of Rediff.com stated that Chopra displayed convincing action heroine skills." — I'm not too sure of its correct format, but should box-office be hyphenated like it is everywhere else? If it should, then there are a few un-hyphenated uses throughout so this may need going through and checking to make consistent. -- Cassianto ^Talk 15:04, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected.—Prashant 15:35, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's a "caper thriller"? -- Cassianto ^Talk 15:04, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Nikhat Kazmi of The Times of India noted her role completely reinvents her" —Sounds odd. I would say "Nikhat Kazmi from The Times of India thought that Chopra's role completely reinvented her".
"Aniruddha Guha of Daily News and Analysis wrote: "Chopra gets a crack at a role of a lifetime and she sparkles like never before." —watch for the punctuation at the end again.

Linked, changed and corrected.—Prashant 16:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"In the first paragraph of the Television and stage performances section, there seems to be a heavy use of her name where I think we could get away with pronoun usage some of the time.

Review finished and I can't see any further issues. I shall await your updates. – Cassianto ^Talk 09:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected.—Prashant 11:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support — per resolved comments this time and last. -- Cassianto ^Talk 13:53, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I had my say last time round and the alterations since then have only strengthened the article. Well done to all concerned. - SchroCat (talk) 12:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks fellas, much appreciated.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK (most images haven't changed since last FAC).

File:Priyanka_on_the_ramp_for_Mijwan_fashion_show.jpg - OK. The only new image (OTRS), source and author provided. GermanJoe (talk) 20:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the image check.—Prashant 01:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - this is comprehensive and has improved since the last FAC. Still a few comments regarding prose:

Lead

"Although Chopra at one time aspired to study engineering or psychiatry, she accepted offers to join the Indian film industry" > presumably this is a result of her Miss World win? If so, perhaps mention that. (btw, I've reworded here a bit)

Done.

"By 2006, Chopra had established herself as a leading actress of Hindi cinema with starring roles in the highly successful films Krrish and Don. After receiving mixed reviews for a series of unsuccessful films, she was praised for her portrayal of unconventional characters, including a troubled model in the 2008 drama Fashion" > needs a little more clarifying here with a brief explanation that in 2006 she was successful but then apparently not but then by 2008, a mere two years later, successful again

The difference is commercial success vs critical success; I have tried to clarify that.

In addition to acting in films, she has participated in stage shows, hosted a reality show on television, and written columns for India's national newspapers. Chopra has engaged in philanthropic activities, and was appointed as a UNICEF Goodwill Ambassador for Child Rights on 10 August 2010. In 2012, she released her first single "In My City", which, although a commercial success in India, was met with mixed reactions from the critics." > rem "In addition"; consider changing verb tenses. Does she still do stage shows, etc? If so, maybe something like: "She participates in stage shows, has hosted a reality show, writes a column for India's national newspapers" and so on. By the way - is the column published in multiple newspapers?

She wrote for two different newspapers, but only had a regular column in one. BollyJeff | talk 17:55, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Early life

Mentions that she traveled frequently as a child. Did the family travel (as in leaving and returning home) or did they move the household frequently?

Use of the word relocated is not clear enough? I removed travel from the lead. BollyJeff | talk 18:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's better. I think I got hung up on traveling and it me made think something other than relocate. Victoria (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"She now considers Bareilly her home town, and maintains strong connections there.[13] Chopra has fond memories as a child of playing in the valleys of Leh, in the cold northwestern Indian desert region of Jammu and Kashmir. She has said: I think I was in Class 4 when I was in Leh. My brother was just born. My dad was in the army and was posted there. I stayed in Leh for a year and my memories of that place are tremendous ... We were all army kids there. We weren't living in houses, we were in bunkers in the valley and there was a stupa right on top of a hill which used to overlook our valley. We used to race up to the top of the stupa and that too 'nange paon' (bare feet). We used to go to the market then.[14]" > a couple of issues here: is Leh the same as Bareilly? If so, can that be clarified somehow by saying something like: "fond memories as a child of playing in the valleys of [nearby] Leh" or somehow to indicate proximity so the reader knows it's the same place. I'm not crazy about the blockquote here and wondered if it could be summarized, but if this is the reason she now considers Bareilly her home, then perhaps that should be emphasized to give context to the quote

I think it's a good and appropriate quote and coming from her lips gives a good impression of her childhood which is better quoted than put in a word summary in my opinion.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tired of arguing at FAC. This is now the third time it's happened. It's a long quote and hard for the reader to get through where it is, but if you disagree, then you disagree. Victoria (talk) 20:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why did she move to the US? How many years was she there? Massachusetts and Iowa are quite far apart - is there a reason for the moving?
"Grade 10" > not a term used in America (usually 10th grade) but since presumably Indian English is being used here, maybe substitute something like "second year of high school"

Grade 10 means the same as 10th grade, quite clearly I think. I see no reason to change it, it isn't written in American English.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was when in US though; I don't care either way, you may change it. BollyJeff | talk 20:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've suggested a workaround solution. Is Grade 10 in India equivalent to Grade 10 in the US? If so, then not a problem. Victoria (talk) 20:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that it says "senior year" for her last year in school in India. In the US the tenth grade = "sophomore year". Perhaps for consistency that term can be used? Victoria (talk) 20:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be the same: Tenth_grade#India. Changed to sophomore year. BollyJeff | talk 20:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"During her teenage years in America, Chopra sometimes faced racial issues and bullying for her looks. She has said, "I was gawky imperfect, had low self-esteem, came from a modest middle-class background, had white marks on my legs. But I was damn hard working. Today, my legs sell 12 brands."[19]" > When I first read this article this sentence really jumped out at me, but I've now looked at the source and see that it's cited to the Daily Mail which isn't a great source to use. Did the bullying happen in Newton or in Cedar Rapids? Also the quote doesn't really support the fact that she was bullied for her looks or because she was Indian.

There are other sources available. I will fix this; didn't know that Daily Mail was not considered reliable here. BollyJeff | talk 18:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now she's back in India finishing high school > when did that happen? after which grade?

I think these are all addressed now, although we cannot always know why a person does what they do. BollyJeff | talk 19:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All much better now and really only needed small tweaks.Victoria (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Because of the use of the Daily Mail and the large number of sources here, would very much like to see a source review, because I haven't a sense of the quality of these sources. I'd offer to do it, but it's not something I do well. Also, I noted some discrepancies in the citations (which might only be because of template rendering) which I think need to be looked at for consistency.

The Daily Mail isn't blacklisted as a source; I've used it for several articles in cases where it provided a lot of detail which other sources didn't cover. But I agree that if possible it should be replaced with a more "serious" newspaper.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've not said it was and I think the replaced source in the case cited re the bullying is much better. What I meant, and perhaps it came across wrong, is that I looked at the sources and noted a., some inconsistencies with formatting (for example retrieval dates aren't necessary for books) and b., I'm not familiar with all the sources used. For that reason, as is the norm in a FAC, imo, a source review would be helpful. That's all. Victoria (talk) 20:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the access dates from the book sources, and am awaiting the source review. BollyJeff | talk 02:41, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The rest of the article looks good - I"m working my way through slowly and if necessary will post more. Thanks, Victoria (talk) 15:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC) A few more comments:[reply]

Recent work

Third paragraph: repetition of "item number"
Last paragraph: per WP:DATED should probably mention the projects are under development in 2013

Done.
Further reading

Are these entries necessary? I guess my question is whether they should be used in the article, or, if not, then deleted from this section.

I think that's all. Victoria (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for your input. BollyJeff | talk 20:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Waiting now on replies from Dr. Blofeld. Victoria (talk) 20:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really good observations. Thanks.—Prashant 01:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - have finished reading through, my comments are resolved, and I think this is a well done and interesting article. Although I still see a few places where the prose can do with a bit of tightening, that's not enough to stop me from supporting (and when the FAC is done, I might copyedit it myself a bit). I've enjoyed reading about her. A request for source review can be added here, which is not at all a reflection of this article: it's standard operating procedure at FAC. Victoria (talk) 02:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support and taking so much time to deliver all of the points which has definitely improved the article. That I might disagree on several of your concerns is perfectly normal, and I'm surprised it's only the third time you've experienced that. That I agree with the vast majority of your points and the article has improved as a result should be an indication that your input at FAC is much valued and appreciated Victoria. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 07:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

As iUniverse is a self-publishing company, what makes its publication a high-quality reliable source?
Be consistent in how Bollywood Hungama references are formatted
Be consistent in whether you include locations for newspapers
Be consistent in how you format sources retrieved through HighBeam
FN93, 194: should be endash not emdash
FN142: title formatting

Quote's within quotes? I changed to singles. I hope that is what you meant. The rest of these are done. BollyJeff | talk 01:27, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why are we citing a law exam guide for the detail that she is a Goodwill Ambassador? Particularly when there's already a UNICEF source?
FN186: why the wikilink?
SAGE or SAGE Publications? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:31, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the source check.—Prashant 01:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 19:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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