- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:32, 18 June 2015 [9].
- Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 07:59, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
P.G. Wodehouse was a prolific author whose career stretched from his 1902 novel The Pothunters, through over ninety books to his unfinished 1977 novel Sunset at Blandings. In-between he brought, and still brings, joy to millions through the stories of Bertie Wooster and his valet, Jeeves; the immaculate and loquacious Psmith; Lord Emsworth and the Blandings Castle set; the disaster-prone opportunist Ukridge, the Oldest Member, with stories about golf; and Mr Mulliner, with stories about many things from film studios to the Church of England.
This page has been reworked recently to bring it up to scratch and all comments are welcome. – SchroCat (talk) 07:59, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:52, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
Comments a quick run-through since you asked so nicely...!
- Hmmm... that's from the {{post-nominals}} template. I'll look into the documentation and see if there is a reason. - SchroCat (talk) 09:02, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- More quickly than I thought, there is no good answer! I've tweaked the link for a workaround. - SchroCat (talk) 09:12, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "to which he remained devoted all his life he was" I think it would read marginally better if there was a comma after "life".
- "and his early novels were mostly school stories" this reads oddly to me, kind of tagged on.
- "novel and story writing" I would have thought these should be hyphenated, i.e. novel- and story-writing career...
- I'm going to hate myself but wouldn't "who became familiar to the public" be better as "with whom the public became familiar"?
- Two links to A Gentlemen of Leisure could be confusing, perhaps you could clarify that one links to a film?
- "and then for RKO Pictures" worked for?
- "During the Second World War Wodehouse was captured by the Germans" how did that happen?
- "In chronological order" -> Initially in chronological...
- (All London) is probably best incorporated into the hatnote as "All publishers based in London".
- (New York unless otherwise stated) - I couldn't see any "otherwise stated"s...
- Be consistent with the full stops in the notes.
- Plays, initial sort order, the 1911 should come before the August 1911 otherwise you can never sort back to the initial order.
The Rambling Man (talk) 08:02, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Cheers RM, many thanks for the above, which I've followed scrupulously
, bar the first point. I'll look into that and see if there is a reason for it. Now sorted! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:12, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Harrias
|
Comments – because while I probably could just support this straight off, TRM gets agitated about such things! *nudge nudge wink wink* Being honest, most of the issues I found on first read through, TRM has already identified, so what I can see is very very minor.
- Might it be worth adding (MGM) after Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. I know you link it, and never refer to them by the abbreviation, but there are plenty of people around who will know them better as MGM than Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer.
- Given that the "UK title" is the "row scope" column for the Novels list, could it be made slightly wider? At the moment the width seems to diminish its importance.
- I'll have a look in the morning on a range of screen sizes. I tend to leave the columns to break where they are because there are so many variations in screen size. – SchroCat (talk) 23:09, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Now looked - and I've widened the first column so that none of the titles break onto a second line. The formatting is ignored on some readers (tablets, phones and narrower screens), but there isn't much we can do about that! - SchroCat (talk) 11:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Are the non-linked films and plays non-notable? Otherwise there is nothing wrong with red links. I notice they are red linked in the nav box at the bottom.
- Im not sure they are! (Although that's because I don't know enough about them. I'll copy the red links from the na box so they match, which seems a sensible option. – SchroCat (talk) 22:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- In the references, I found it slightly confusing that you use "pp. 30–37" (rather than "pp. 30–7") but "pp. 331–33" (rather than "pp. 331–333") And similar later.
- It shoud never have a single digit as the second number (unless the page is 1-9), but shoud otherwise have either two or three. I go for double dit its in ranges. – SchroCat (talk) 22:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Can ref #17 have a full stop at the end, to remain consistent with all the other references?
Harrias talk 20:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support With that done, I'm happy to support a top-class list, nice work! Any chance you could take a look at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Wisden Leading Cricketer in the World/archive1 if you get a chance? Harrias talk 16:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks in great shape!♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:54, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks Doc - much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Declaration of interest: I have contributed a handful of words to the page, but I think that so minimal an involvement leaves me free to support in good conscience. This page is just what such a Wikipedia offering should be. Meets the criteria and, what's more, will for years be one of those WP pages that are the default recourse for anyone seeking the information. If ever a Wikipedia editor hit the bullseye and entitled himself to a cigar or coconut according to choice, that editor is SchroCat. – Tim riley talk 22:27, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks, Tim: your thoughts in the writing process and here are always appreciated! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:36, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Seattle (talk) 17:53, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
Comments
- Article title spaced at "P. G. Wodehouse" but infobox spaced as "P.G. Wodehouse"
- In good BrEng there shouldn't be a space (or full stops), but we are forced by the US-centric MoS to have them as such for titles. - SchroCat (talk) 21:06, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- in an arrangement that "helped transform the American musical" of the time. how so?
- I've added a broader description of what he did that was considered radical. - SchroCat (talk) 08:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Vanity Fair should be italicized in the Louder and Funnier row
- I count 15 scripts instead of 14
- Done. A few pieces of his work were added later, but I forgot to update the IB. - SchroCat (talk) 07:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I count 42 plays instead of 37
- I count 24 collections instead of 23. Seattle (talk) 19:33, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All done, bar the Americal musical comment, for which I,need my sources to clarify: I'll do so shortly as I'm away from my books at the moment. Thanks very much for your comments – very much appreciated. Cheers. – SchroCat (talk) 07:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Seattle, All now done, with the final point (on the Americal musical) now addressed. Thanks agan for your thoughts and comments on this. Ceers - SchroCat (talk) 08:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support, a quality list. Seattle (talk) 17:53, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks Seattle, much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Dudley
- "stories about many things from film studios to the Church of England.[1]" "things" does not sound right to me. How about "subjects".
- " his script A Gentleman of Leisure " To be a bit pedantic, this links to the novel, which states that he collaborated with another writer to turn it into a play.
- Quite right - removed link (and in table too) - SchroCat (talk) 07:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The Man Upstairs is not school stories.
- I wish to blame this on my co-nom. I can't, however, as it was my error ad I have no co-nom! De-schooled - SchroCat (talk) 07:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "No major productions, but produced in the by touring companies" Something gone wrong!
- My brain and its ability to produce anything but gibberish... - SchroCat (talk) 07:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- No publication details of plays? The ones I have looked at are available on Worldcat.
- According to David Jasen in his preface to Four Plays, Come on Jeeves toured the English provinces in the summer on 1954 but never made it to London.
- The Uncollected Wodehouse, edited by Jasen and with a foreword by Muggeridge, was published 1976. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks Dudley, much appreciated. I'll pull something together for the print editions of the plays in the next day or so. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Dudley Miles, Now added: I think I've got them all, but if there are any others that you know of, I'd be happy to add them. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A first rate list. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks, Dudley, for your insight here (and at the biographical article too) has proved invaluable. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:44, 16 June 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.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:32, 18 June 2015 [10].
- Nominator(s): FrankBoy CHITCHAT 11:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My tenth nomination, which is on the filmography of Madhuri Dixit, an Indian actress. Madhuri Dixit is one of the most popular bolywood actress. Do I need to say more who she is? Okay, she is the one known for her acting and dancing skills. She is the recipient of four Filmfare Award for Best Actress and a Best Supporting Actress award from the same award show. I look forward to constructive criticism, and I feel that the filmography fulfills all criteria and has the potential to be promoted. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 11:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- At first glance, I can see that the list isn't comprehensive enough. In the early 2000s, Dixit hosted a television show called Kahin Na Kahin Koi Hai, but there is no mention of that. There is also no mention of her appearance in the Gujarati film Satyavadi Raja Harishchandra.
So I have to oppose it for failing to meet criteria 3(a). --Krimuk|90 (talk) 02:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Krimuk90: While the first one has been added there with a source, the latter hasn't been added. I searched for it to find a reliable source to add, however, nada. I don't think it was notable enough. If it were, a source would have been certainly found, no? You may start your review if you want. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 09:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think much research has gone into creating this list. Here is a ref for the Gujarati film. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 09:56, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Added, thanks. --FrankBoy CHITCHAT 10:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – If I'm right, the source only confirms the existence of the film. We need explicit sources to prove that Madhuri was a part of the film. Some sources mention the name of the film as Satwadi Raja Harishchandra. Also, it looks like a Gujarati/Rajasthani film. I know neither of these languages. —Vensatry (ping) 10:36, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Vensatry: If I'm not wrong, the source clearly says "Gujarati cinema too in films like Raja Harish Chandra with Madhuri Dixit", which indicates her presence in the film. Besides it is a Gujrati film, dubbed in Rajasthani. --Frank CHITCHAT 10:56, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- What if I say the source is a WP:MIRROR? —Vensatry (ping) 11:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the fact that it was Dixit's only Gujrati appearance, I doubt the notability of this film, as no proper and reliable source exists for it and secondly it has no article in Wikipedia - a place to create notable articles. What say ye? -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 11:27, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unsure about the film's notability. I understand there won't be much coverage for a 1980s Gujarati film in the internet. But your reason for not including the film citing lack of notability isn't really convincing because lack of a WP article cannot be correlated with assessing the notability of a film. Trust me, there are loads of
notable Indian films which don't have an article over here. If I were to take Devika Rani's filmography to FL status, I cannot ignore those red-linked films just because they don't have their own articles.
—Vensatry (ping) 11:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
[reply]
I agree with you on that, yet this film did not prove to be notable at least not for Madhuri Dixit as it was just a "special appearance". A big Bollywood film star of her era making a special appearance in a Gujrati film, but still no source. Non-notable film. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 11:58, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It's alright. I have given the lead a major copy-edit as well. Good luck! This doesn't affect the nomination, but I'm sure you can find a much nicer image of the gorgeous woman than the current blurry picture. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 06:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the copy-edit Krimuk90, which makes it look much better than it was. BTW I have uploaded the image of same setting with a nicer quality, but if you feel there is better image than the current one, please go ahead and change it. --FrankBoy CHITCHAT 09:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It's good that you retained the film. But we cannot have the ref. as it's a mirror site. The other ref. is incomplete. —Vensatry (ping) 14:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No ref. is available for it, and I have removed it. It does not affect the comprehensiveness of it as it was a non-notable Gujarati film appearnce. I don't think that absence of one film appearnce should stop a list from becoming FL. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 15:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't the one who insisted you to include the film. So why didn't you saying anything when Krimuk opposed the candidate solely for excluding this film and the TV show? Reread the discussion below. —Vensatry (ping) 17:21, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At the time when Krimuk opposed it, there was a ref. and I wasn't aware of it being a mirror, that's why I didn't say anything. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 17:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But then, you continued to have the film in the table until today. I pointed out it was a mirror long ago.
—Vensatry (ping) 17:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
[reply]
While resolving other queries, I just forgot about this, and I was in the search of another source these days, however, I couldn't find any. My apology! -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 17:59, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- No need to apologize. I was concerned because initially you included the film when Krimuk had opposed and now when I say the ref. is a mirror, you say the film is a non-notable one and excluding it will not stop this from becoming an FL. —Vensatry (ping) 18:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, when Krimuk opposed, at that time, too I objected, "I searched for it to find a reliable source to add, however, nada. I don't think it was notable enough", but when he provided a source, I added that. Anyways enough of it.
| Resolved comments from —Vensatry (ping)
|
Weak oppose
- Ref. #1, needs a page no.
- No page seems to be written there, but the link directly goes to the page no. (unknown) which I have used as a reference for the info. present in the list.
- A page no. is definitely there. —Vensatry (ping) 18:46, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It says pg 2002, but I ain't sure about it (if a book has 2000+ pages, which is a little bit rare). Anyways I have added that. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 21:04, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You can find out the exact page no. by browsing through sites like Amazon, provided the corresponding page is available under a free preview. —Vensatry (ping) 15:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not available under the free preview either. I have replaced that source with another one by Hindustan Times. I hope that's okay. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 17:21, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Sanjay Dutt and Shah Rukh Khan are linked twice in the lede
- "Dixit then played roles in commercial failure" - borders tautology
- "Her breakthrough role came two years later with the lead role in" - first role is redundant
- The above sentence is a little too long. Consider splitting it
- "one of the highest grossing film" -> one of the highest grossing films
- "her role of a violent revenge-seeking woman was well received." - This is not verified by either of the sources.
- I missed this – "She won a second Best Actress award ... woman who rebels against her manipulative mother-in-law in the drama Beta" This isn't verified by the source either. Page #573 of the book talks about Saroj Khan. —Vensatry (ping) 18:48, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoops, my bad! It's pg 394 that says "In Beta, Madhuri Dixit takes on a scheming mother-in-law, Aruna Irani, to ensure justice for..." The "Best Actress" part has also been cited with a reliable source. @Vensatry: Please let me know if I have resolved your concerns. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 18:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "she played a woman escaping from her abusive marriage" - Same as above
- Yes, it doesn't, yet it talks the same thing about Julia Roberts' character in Sleeping with the Enemy; Yaarana was its remake. And since Dixit is the one stepping into the role of Roberts, I think the source is okay.
- What are you trying to say? Is there a mention of Sleeping with the Enemy anywhere in this article? —Vensatry (ping) 17:25, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "However, her 1997 release of the romantic film Dil To Pagal Hai was a major success" -> However, the 1997 romantic film Dil To Pagal Hai was a major success.
- "Her two film releases in 2002 were ... " - We are aware that we're talking about films until now.
- "In the latter film, she portrayed a prostitute in love with an alcoholic" - I'm not sure about the usage of the word prostitute here. Courtesan would be more appropriate.
- A mention of Gaja Gamini could well be made in the lede owing to the importance given to her character.
- The link to Bombay Talkies in the table points to the studio
- "The role of a con woman in Abhishek Chaubey's black comedy film Dedh Ishqiya (2014) marked her comeback after five years, which earned critical acclaim" - It's quite obvious to anyone that the gap was seven years.
- Whoops! Mixed up with Aaja Nachle. Corrected!
- "For her role in Dedh Ishqiya, Dixit received her 14th nomination of the Filmfare Award for Best Actress" - This should precede the previous sentence.
- Swati was directed by Kranthi Kumar, not L. V. Prasad.
- Be consistent with T. Rama Rao and Tatineni Rama Rao. Likewise, for K. Bapaiah and K.Bapayya.
- "She served as the judge from fourth season til seventh season." - typo
- Refs #26, #32, #52 are missing publishers
- Link Zee News in its first occurrence
- Why is India TV italicised in the ref.
The table looks fine, but the lede needs a fair amount of work before this gets promoted. —Vensatry (ping) 13:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the amazing review. All of the concerns have been taken care of. --FrankBoy CHITCHAT 15:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
Leaning towards support The lede is a tad bloated, and it should feature some notable TV performances, but it is a well researched list other than this, I was looking at it earlier. Perhaps you could add some of her TV performances too to ensure it is fully comprehensive?♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:53, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi @Dr. Blofeld: Thank you for the kind review. I think that Dixit, being a film actress does not have so much of contributions in the television industry, but the two shows she judged/hosted are present there. Besides she has had appearances in TV shows, which is common among film actors, and I don't think that is a good idea. --FrankBoy CHITCHAT 09:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Krimuk left the impression that it wasn't comprehensive that's all. I agree that a lot of those sorts of TV appearances aren't worth mentioning.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:36, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- When nominated, a notable TV show that she had hosted was not mentioned at all. That's why I didn't consider the list comprehensive. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 12:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The oppose came in mainly because this list was short of one TV show, seriously? —Vensatry (ping) 15:16, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
His oppose was also based on the exclusion of that Gujarati film. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 17:15, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not just about being short of one TV show, Vensatry, it's about not being well-researched. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 03:38, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- But then, I don't see much of an improvement in this list in terms of comprehensiveness. —Vensatry (ping) 10:04, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Vensatry, the oppose was based merely on those two missing things, which are now present. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 14:51, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A few comments
Sorry for being late. Well, i feel there are a few issues to be rectified or an explanation being required.
- Why mentioning 'Ek Do Teen' in particular? I believe her other songs 'Choli Ke Peeche', 'Dhak Dhak Karne' and 'Maar Dala' were equally popular. So, i suggest the nominator to remove it.
- We all know that Tezaab was a breakthrough film for her, which I think is also mentioned in the previous sentence. The song was a major highlight in the film and was highly instrumental in the film's success. Dare I say, it served as a launchpad for her career. I agree that the other songs you've mentioned are also popular but we cannot include every cult song of hers here. —Vensatry (ping) 10:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "play the romantic interest to male protagonists" — i don't think so that she used to play the romantic interests of antagonists in particular. Isn't the statement She continued to play the female lead in the successful action-dramas Ram Lakhan (1989), Tridev (1989), and Kishen Kanhaiya (1990) enough?
- Perhaps Gaja Gamini be called and art house film rather than using the term experimental. If using art house is wrong, forgive me. But experimental is a bit out-of-the-blue.
- Art house is a bit informal. I think experimental is correct as I have seen most of the high quality articles use this term.
- In 2013, she performed an item number in the Ayan Mukerji-directed romantic comedy Yeh Jawaani Hai Deewani. — adding the song name along with a reliable source is appreciable.
- The song wasn't quite notable, but since it was her only appearance in 2013, I gave it a mention.
- Since you gave a mention, at least cite it please. It is important. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 11:01, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm. Surely makes sense. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 11:26, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, i assume that she was "praised" by critics mostly. For example, in the statement The widely praised role of a con woman in Abhishek Chaubey's black comedy film Dedh Ishqiya (2014) marked her first acting role in seven years i think "widely praised" can be replaced with "critically acclaimed".
- The "widely praised" is same as "critically acclaimed" and such. Since "critical acclaim" has been used twice in the list, I have used the term "praised" to avoid monotonous prose.
- Any info about the critical reception and BO Verdict of Gulaab Gang?
- We need not mention critical and/or box-office performance for each and every film. This film's performance (barring Juhi Chawla's) was not notable anyway.
- Are the four seasons of Jhalak Dikhla Jaa, in which she served as a talent judge, consecutive?
- That is explained in the form of a FN.
Anyways, the table is looking fine and comprehensive. The validity of the image used is also perfect though a recent image can be more appropriate. However it is the nominator's call. Ping me after you rectify these issues and/or after you complete giving explanations if any. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 08:07, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the comments. Pinging @Pavanjandhyala: per his own statement. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 10:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support — Good job overall, could be better. Being a non-native English speaker, i am unable to find further issues. But i am sure someone else may do. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 11:26, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Dixit received a Filmfare for completing 25 years (I dont know if this should be mentioned or maybe). What are your thoughts since its her filmography and she got that recognition for her long list of films.
- Better suits the parent article and the awards page.
- Why mentioning of her item number (YJHD) in the lead is important to her filmography? I think it should be removed.
- Was her only appearance of 2013 (that too after six years).
- Still I think this should be removed. So please remove it.
- Several reasons justify the presence of the song: it was her first item-number in her career, the only appearance she had in 2013, and the same thing is also present in Aishwarya Rai Bachchan filmography (from Bunty Aur Babli). -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 17:01, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Her role in Lajja was not a starring role but a supporting. Correct this.
- "She also appeared in Yaraana—a remake of the psychological thriller Sleeping with the Enemy". Why this is important in her filmography. It fits better either in the film's article or her biography.
- Support: I agree that the lead is slightly too detailed and "bloated", but that is easily sorted. Aside from that the table is fine and so are the references. — Calvin999 16:54, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Calvin! Given the long career she has/had, I think the length is fine. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 18:11, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Seattle (talk) 20:45, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
Comments
- Slashes in the "Role(s)" section should be removed per MOS:SLASH
- Television "year" section should have ndash in 2012–14
- She continued to play the female lead in the successful critically or commercially?
- Dixit featured alongside Jackie Shroff and Sanjay Dutt no need to repeat Dutt's given name again
- Both of Dixit's releases in 1996—Rajkumar and Prem Granth—were unsuccessful. critically? financially?
- However, Yash Chopra's 1997 romantic film Dil To Pagal Hai was a major success for whom?
- The widely praised role → The widely-praised role
- from fourth season till seventh season. "till" is informal; change to "until". Seattle (talk) 08:50, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Delegate's comment - Reading the lead, I have to agree with the above comments regarding it appearing bloated. It's not as bad as some I've seen, but a trimming would be nice. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 06:06, 16 June 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.
Pavanjandhyala (talk) 04:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
