Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/National Film Award for Best Actress/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
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 Giants2008 00:11, 19 January 2013 [1].

National Film Award for Best Actress edit

National Film Award for Best Actress (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox


Nominator(s): —Vensatry (Ping me) 18:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria. I've been working on this list for quite a long period of time. Look forward to your comments and suggestions. —Vensatry (Ping me) 18:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Quick oppose - needs copyediting.
  • Not sure about the very short single-para lead, per WP:LEAD.
    • Merged the succeeding section with the lead. Will copy-edit soon. —Vensatry (Ping me) 06:48, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Last Awarded" in the infobox is usually used just for defunct awards.
  • The infobox needs to be adjusted so it doesn't have so much overcapitalisation, e.g. First Awarded -> First awarded, Cash Award -> Cash award.... etc etc.
  • En-dash required in infobox year range. Check article and references (e.g. ref 37) as well.
  • Infobox says 48 awards, prose says 46.
  • "Raat Aur Din[6] The actresses" missing full stop.
  • "Sharada [12]" remove spaces between text, punctuation etc and references.
  • No need to bold the year (and no need to refer me to other lists which may also incorrectly do this).
  • Why isn't 1971 or 1976 linked? Red links are permitted.
  • Sortable table so link everything that's linked in every instance.

The Rambling Man (talk) 11:49, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've removed those statements regarding the history of National Film Awards and merged the rest with the lead with a small c/e. Thanks for your comments. —Vensatry (Ping me) 14:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Zia Khan 00:12, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
;Comments
  • Image for the lede?
    • There is an infobox, besides there are many images in the table. Whose image should I include in the lead? —Vensatry (Ping me) 11:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • An image of the award or the current holder's (Vidya Balan) image. Zia Khan 13:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Until 1974, winners of this National Film Award of Merit ..." → "Until 1974, winners of the National Film Award of Merit ..." and I don't know why have you added "Merit" here?
  • "...the actressses whose performances..." → actresses
  • In the lede you have "15th National Film Award (1968)" while in the table it is linked as "1967 (15th)", could you fix this?
    • The year in the lead and infobox indicate the year in which the ceremony took place, while in the table it refers to the year in which the film was censored. —Vensatry (Ping me) 11:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have used "As of 2012, " in the 2nd para twice, would prefer them to place in the Notes.
    • They shouldn't be included under FNs per WP:DATED. I've made a slight modification to the text. —Vensatry (Ping me) 11:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As of 2012, four actresses..............English film Mitr, My Friend." Perhaps, a ref needed here.
    • This is a reflection of the table, where the fact is sourced. Lead is just a summarisation of the article. —Vensatry (Ping me) 11:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the table, you've linked all the languages at every occurrence except English. This should be consistent, I guess.
  • Notes → References, References → Bibliography?
    • The book which I've used is a reference which in turn is linked to the citations. There shouldn't be any problem I guess. —Vensatry (Ping me) 11:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't know why is the table extremely wide? Looking odd!
    • It's good to have tables of this sort. Similar FLs follow this format. —Vensatry (Ping me) 11:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zia Khan 00:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support— Nice changes since my last review. Zia Khan 00:12, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose without citations. Vivvt was trying to figure it out with Directorate of Film Festivals on the copyrights issue. Moonriddengirl was somewhat involved in it. There was no conclusion of removal of citations. In worst case, citations could be cut short. But without citations this article is incomplete. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, in this case, we are copying citations from various catalogues and not just one. That much would be covered in fair-use. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a requirement to add those citations just because other articles have that? I'm personally against adding those citations since the article wouldn't be benefited much from adding them. Also this being an encyclopedia, giving more weight age for them seems totally meaningless. I'd wait for others' opinion in this case. —Vensatry (Ping me) 06:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The citation states why the jury considered this performance notable enough to be awarded. How is that meaningless? Meaningless would be that Role(s) column. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree that Role(s) are not significant unless it is notable. I've added that since other award pages (Oscars) have them. But adding citations to an encyclopedia sounds like promotional stuff. Also the citations are not available for all the years, and it would look like dominating the whole table. —Vensatry (Ping me) 07:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not objecting that column of role(s). What i meant was that this column is more meaningless than those citations in comparison. And how is it promotional? If someone jumps in a fire and saves 3 kids and wins National Bravery Award will stating the reason for conferring the award be promotional? What is being promoted here? In such case, stating that someone won such and such award is itself promotional. All award articles are promotional then. And we cant help if citations were never given previously by DFF. And whats wrong with it dominating the list? Currently the beautiful faces are dominating the list. Better the award list is dominated by what they did than how they generally look. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We are not presenting a book on Indian cinema to praise the acting performances of our actors. Inclusion of images are a part of the FLC criterion. We have a separate project for those who are keen on quotes. Besides, overusage of quotations, which you're suggesting is not advisable too. As I said earlier, I'd wait for others to comment on this issue. —Vensatry (Ping me) 12:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do as you wish! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 16:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Including citations are not a part of FLC criterion. If you have any constructive comments other than that, do post it. —Vensatry (Ping me) 16:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking??? Its Obvious!!! The FLC writers wont have a divination that someone is gonna raise a FLC for a award given in India whose jury will state reasons of granting awards. Why will they ever write whether citations is needed or not?!?!?! Criterion like these will never be speaking about everything. How will they ever possibly do that?? Thats why they say that comprehensiveness is needed in the article. When you are excluding the reason for grating the award, the article is not comprehensive; its incomplete, especially when such citation is present. Filmfare's jury doesn't speak about it and hence no citation is needed there. But it is needed here as the information is available.
And i don't understand why is it so difficult for you to get the grip of what exactly is educational and what is not. It does not matter what the character's name was. It does not matter what language the film was in. But it matters what exactly appealed to that jury that they thought of worth complimenting with this award. In the notes column of Bharat Ratna for Lata Mangeshkar, we do not write that she is a Hindu or has long hair or has composed under name Anandghan. We write "Playback singer". Because that's why she has been conferred by that award; not for all the other things that she is.
And i have already said that you may do whatever you wish to do. My oppose doesn't stop any of the FL directors from putting a star on this page. They will do what they wish to do.
And if you want "your-definition" constructive comments, i have those too. Change the colour scheme of the list back to yellow shades. It matches with all the 130 articles and 17 templates of NFA. Of course, i understand that you must have changed it to blue as it wasn't mentioned in FLC. Also it does not matter in which year the award ceremony took place. The awards are given for films certified in that calendar year. Both 16th National Film Awards and 17th National Film Awards were presented in 1970 but they weren't for one and the same year. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 20:12, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are many things to be included other than these floral compliments. We have other things like jury, presenter, etc., We cannot go ahead and add all those which other people might think are essential. I've included the "roles" column since similar FLs follow that pattern. As I said earlier, this is not "wikiquote" to include chunks of quotations. I'm not going to set a new precedent to new FLs by including these citations. —Vensatry (Ping me) 05:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again! They are not floral comments. They are comments by much esteemed jury members, definitely better qualified than you. When students of cinema will be studying these awards, they would want to know WHY the award was presented. FLs and FAs on WP should not be made just because they look good. They should be complete with relevant encyclopaedic information.
Frankly speaking i dont think you understand what educational information is and what a filler trivial is. It seems you only want FLs to your credit and nothing else. That's the reason you also seem to be worried about all the work required to write citations. Well then there is a good line for you; "Wikipedia is not compulsory". And i am no longer replying to your nonsensical replies. My oppose stands as it is. FL directors can decide whatever they want. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A single question which you never bothered to answer. In what way are these citations encyclopedic? We include them just to add some essence to the article. Including them just because one person likes it doesn't seem sensible at least to me. I'm not begging for your support, so let's stop here as I don't have time to respond for such frivolous questions. —Vensatry (Ping me) 13:24, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"It seems you only want FLs to your credit and nothing else". Making these kind of statements are totally irrelevant to this discussion. If getting FLs is my only goal, I have tons of lists to look into. It is evident that you along with one more editor take it as a personal vengeance for the failure of the 59th NFA FLC and are planning to spoil this process. If that's your wish, good try! I don't have to listen to such bad-faith people and nothing stops me. —Vensatry (Ping me) 13:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have any existing FL where these type of citations (comments from Jury why this candidate was selected as the best) are used? Otherwise, it does not seem to be a good precedence to create. For Best Films of the year or Best Direction of the year, these can still make some sense, but for Best Actor or Best Actress it always boils down to something like this: "he/she was able to bring about a wide range of emotions" or "he/she portrayed the character (after specifying few specifics about the character) very nicely". So, how can they add any value to an encyclopedic article? --GDibyendu (talk) 14:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, we have no FLs that I'm aware of that contain massive copyright violations, nor repeat verbatim these hagiographical citations which are in no real way encyclopedic. By all means link out to reliable sources that publish this kind of rubbish, but we don't want it polluting an encyclopedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Resolved comments from GDibyendu (talk) 16:12, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
;Comments: Compared with the article Tony Award for Best Featured Actress in a Play. This one has got FL status in 2012. The following differences in presentation should be removed:
  • It won't be possible to get suitable images for all the actresses. So, please move the images outside the table.
  • Please make the column lengths of various columns to an appropriate size, rather than depending on the default.
  • Citations for certain rows, not standing as proof for all the info in the row. For example, 2003 (Meera Jasmine) ref does not tell the name of the role. You can use additional refs from IMDB for these role names.
    • Done. IMDb is not considered a RS, so added sources from NFA and other third-party refs. —Vensatry (Ping me) 09:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keys section should be moved to 'Notes'.
    • Done. I'm not going to move {{dagger}} out of the key for obvious reasons. —Vensatry (Ping me) 09:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, it looks good.--GDibyendu (talk) 17:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Great improvement with new references from IFFI.--GDibyendu (talk) 16:12, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 00:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – Let me start off by saying that I don't think we want text copied from a website inserted wholesale into an FL candidate. I don't mind seeing a quote or two to liven up the writing, but almost 50 of them is borderline copyvio.
  • "as" should be removed from "The awards were called as 'State Awards for Film' when established in 1954."
  • "are the only three actresses to be granted with the award..." shouldn't have "with" in it.
  • The sentence after this is entirely overlong; I would go with separate sentences for Archana and Shobana's awards.
    • This is done, but I now see "and was awarded and her second for for the second time". Everything between "awarded" and the second "for" is destroying the prose quality here. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:26, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Shobana received her first award for the Malayalam film Manichitrathazhu and for the second time in the English film Mitr, My Friend." Grammar appears off here. Maybe replacing "and for the second time in" with "and her second for" would be enough to fix it?
  • Also, English language doesn't need two links in the lead.
  • The last paragraph is stubby at one sentence. Can it be added to the previous paragraph?
  • List of recipients header could be shortened to just Recipients, as it's fairly obvious that this is a list from its formatting.
  • Nargis Dutt caption: "Nargis Dutt was the first recipient of the award who was honoured at the 15th National Film Awards." For the sake of prose quality, I'd drop everything after "award". The writing goes downhill from there.
  • Tabu caption: Replace "among the" with "of".
  • Could spell out CBFC in ref 1, as it is going to be unclear to non-Indian film buffs who that group is.
  • Ref 27 has a pp. for a single-page citation, which should instead be p. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Dwaipayanc
  • Comment So, there was no best female actor award by the Indian government from 1954 to 1968?--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • There was no such award for individual performers before 1968. It's very well explained in the first para. —Vensatry (Ping me) 17:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • If I remember correctly, there was an award given to Best performers at the state level; Sivaji Ganesan and Savitri both have won that numerous times. But that's totally different and has got nothing to do with this award. —Vensatry (Ping me) 18:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • State (province) level awards are irrelevant. Also, that cash prize part. It should say "that amounted to 50k in 2012", or removed (unless it's always been 50k). Did some edits, please have a look.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've added the age for the youngest actress. Other edits are fine. —Vensatry (Ping me) 05:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The State Awards instituted the individual award in 1968 as the "Urvashi Award for the Best Actress""

What does "individual award" mean here? This particular award? Or, in general, awards for individuals (such as actors or actresses)?--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changed it to "Best Actress" award. —Vensatry (Ping me) 14:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment reference 1, Times of India directory and year book. That's a book, right? S, it needs a page number.
  • Ref 17, Illustrated weekly of India. That's a periodical. So, either publication date, or volume and issue number is need.
  • Ref 24. Asian Women. Way is that? Book or periodical. If book, an identifier (if available ) , such as isbn is needed. This particular reference looks somewhat incomplete.
  • Ref 25 has publication location (Madras) within parenthesis. No other references have publication location. For consistency, you should either name publication location in all, or none,
  • Ref 37 has Bowker as author and publisher. It's unlikely. Can you please check. You can check in amazon.
  • Ref 62 has rediff.com wiki linked, although rediff.com has appeared in the reference section before this.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • All the above comments were appropriately addressed. --Dwaipayan (talk) 08:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think alt captions for images need improvement. Please see WP:ALT and the examples there.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm afraid, alt and caption shouldn't be having the same details. —Vensatry (Ping me) 07:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please read WP:ALT. I am quoting—"Alternative text is text associated with an image that serves the same purpose and conveys the same essential information as the image. In situations where the image is not available to the reader (perhaps because they have turned off images in their web browser, or are using a screen reader due to a visual impairment) the alternative text ensures no information or functionality is lost." Alt text, of course, should go by the context. So, please read Wikipedia:Alt#Importance_of_context. Such alt captions as "woman wearing black saree" are useless. So, please change the alt caps (not necessarily to the alt captions that I did, but something meaningful for the context).--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're right. This being a list which is not particular to just one actress, subject name should be included. But it also says that "The alt text is read out by screen readers just before the caption, so try to avoid having the same details in both", so mentioning what which was said earlier in the caption seems meaningless. I've made a few changes slightly. —Vensatry (Ping me) 08:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yeah, I also was not much aware of the alt caption rules. I read it recently. Indeed there is an option "alt=refer to caption" which may be suitable in many cases (in general, not specific to this article). Anyway, IMO the alt texts read ok now.--Dwaipayan (talk) 08:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I am not sure if the Nargis image is acceptable in US public domain. I do not have much knowledge about image copyrights. Not sure who would be the best person to consult. May be Rambling Man would know who to refer to.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm a long way from an expert. So look forward for someone with more expertise to comment. —Vensatry (Ping me) 08:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • There a few regulars in FAC that are image copyrigth experts. I can not remember of teh top of my head. You can skim through a few FACs, if needed. If they are requested, they might do an image review here. You can actually ask The Rambling Man if he/anyone else he knows can do an image review. The other images are all ok.--Dwaipayan (talk) 08:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've reviewed it and nominated it for deletion, it's not PD in the US. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The years of receiving the award for Sharda, Archana and Monisha Unni are not matching bwteen the lead and the list. You have to stick to either the award-ceremony year, or specify on each occasion that the year mentioned are year of release, or provide the year within parenthesis following the film name (which indicates release years). However, since this article is about the awards, I think it will be ok to mention the years of the awards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • They need not match as the table indicates the year in which the film was censored. I've provided a FN there for clarification. As for the lead, the years should be the one in which the award ceremony took place to avoid confusion. —Vensatry (Ping me) 07:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok. The leads now mention the years in which the ceremonies were held, right?--Dwaipayan (talk) 08:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • More comments. Some award winners in the list have two references as evidence. Why do we need two references for something non-controversial? One good reliable source will suffice as evidence, unless something extra-ordinary or controversial happened. I suggest removal so all those extra references. That would get the article rid of unnecessary size. Also, the current revenue 79 (Deccan Chronicle) is a dead link.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Now that all my concerns (discussed above) have been addressed satisfactorily, I feel this list meets featured list criteria. Nice job!--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:34, 13 January 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/National_Film_Award_for_Best_Actress/archive1&oldid=1090670338"