Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Priyanka Chopra filmography/archive2

< 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 not promoted by Hahc21 10:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Priyanka Chopra filmography edit

Priyanka Chopra filmography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): —Prashant 02:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list 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 filmography. The lead covers the most important content from the table, which is sortable. —Prashant 02:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Much better this time round and the intervening work on both text and table has moved it from a straight fail into a strong list. - SchroCat (talk) 11:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk)
*Comments from Crisco 1492
    • Only image is fine copyright wise. Colours look blown out, but overall its acceptable.
    • What does N/A for Planes mean?
      • Done: Removed it and added its budget and box-office collections.—Prashant 02:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's the point of having the budgets and grosses here anyways? They are not related to her as an actress.
    • Any critical reactions to Chopra's acting? An actress is more than just the sum total of her roles; she is also how well she performs in them. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:07, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done: Previously, the article was on the lines of Bale's filmography. But, the prose was changed. You are right the critical reactions are also important, so I have added them again.—Prashant 02:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was thinking more of direct quotes. You have several in the Fashion article, for instance. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Direct quotes? You mean reviews like this critics noted...?—Prashant 02:25, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Right. Like at Fashion, one of the reviewers said it would be Chopra's best-remembered role. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:25, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have added one quote for Barfi!.—Prashant 13:09, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Schrod and Crisco for your input and support. But on the quotes and critical acclaim thing Crisco, that was largely why it failed before because it was overcooked on that front. A filmography in my opinion does not need to have quotes from reviews but should be purely focused on providing a very basic overview..♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:23, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • The subway from Overcooked to Zero should have at least one station in between. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: List is always gonna be great and almost perfect, but here, the lead section adds to the quality. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 04:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from indopug (talk) 03:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
;Driveby comments Oppose

Good work overall.

  • For the two items in the key, use different symbols. WP:COLOR prohibits using only colour as a means of differentiation.
See this, Christian Bale filmography for more information.—Prashant 16:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That uses that symbol only once. Here you use the same symbol twice, and differentiate purely on the basis of colour, a violation of the guideline I posted above.—indopug (talk) 04:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done: Corrected.—Prashant 09:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rather than have an entire section for a single note, could you just give it a symbol and add it to the key? Or the opposite--remove the key and make them all notes.
  • Some clarification needed: the box-office and budget figures are from that time (and not inflation-adjusted), right? Also, what is the value of the exchange rate you take to convert Rupee to USD? The prevailing rate at the time or the current one?
The figures are from that time and not adjusted. Also, for the convertion, I have checked from the convert template and then have used.—Prashant 16:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's been done correctly. For eg: Aitraaz (2004). ₹240,000,000 ($4 million). That Rs. 60 to the dollar, which is the ~July 2013 exchange rate, not the 2004 one. (I'm also curious as to how, for the same dollar earnings, Andaaz earned a crore more).—indopug (talk) 04:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • ₹390,000,000: I doubt any Indian can understand this compared to ₹39,00,00,000. (Non-Indians are looking at the USD figures anyway) Also not just say "crores" instead listing out so many zeroes? (you say "$ 6 million")
It was changed due to the sorting issues at the PR. I think anyone can understand this.—Prashant 16:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Um, no. Indians don't think of their currency in terms of millions and billions. If they see a figure of Rs. 390 million, you are forcing them to mentally convert it to lakhs and crores.—indopug (talk) 04:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indicate non-Hindi and non-Indian films with symbols/notes?
Why Is it necessary? At the end of the day it's about films.—Prashant 16:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then why indicate year/director/role either? Language of the film is an important piece of information, especially in a multilingual film industry such as India's.—indopug (talk) 04:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done: Indicated.—Prashant 09:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bombay Talkies: why not name that segment's director and put an "et al"?—indopug (talk) 15:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
She did a cameo in a song of the film, not in any segment.—Prashant 16:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Further
  • Checking your sources: why have you written the earnings for Wadala as 52 crore when your source says it is 51.5 crore?
  • 'Teri Meri Kahani: where is the source for the box-office figure? (and this source appears blank for me)
  • Ra.One#Box office gives a much higher box-office figure.
  • Are you using nett figures or gross? The 51.5 crore above was nett, but the figures from Boxofficeindia.com are gross. There are no notes indicating which is which.
  • Bluffmaster: budget of "₹80,000,000 ($1 million)". When on Earth did $1 become Rs. 80?!

Seeing as to how the budget and box-office figures are riddled with inaccuracies and inconsistencies, I have to oppose this FLC. A thorough audit of each and every figure is required. Of course, a simpler option is to simply remove both columns; I will have no problem with this. It's probably better left to the films' articles, and FLCs such as Satyajit Ray filmography don't bother with them anyway.—indopug (talk) 04:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done: Removed the budgets and box office columns. So, there is no question about figures. Now, there shouldn't be any problem.—Prashant 16:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. The simplified list looks much better.—indopug (talk) 03:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 23:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments -
  • "Her portrayal of a seductress received wide critical acclaim from critics...". The last two words are redundant, as critical praise usually comes from critics.
Done: Corrected.—Prashant 16:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Period after Bluffmaster! is unneeded double punctuation.
Done: Removed.—Prashant 16:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Chopra went on to win the Flimfare Award for Best Actress and the National Film Award for Best Actress. and later that year appeared in the romantic comedy Dostana." The period in the middle is clearly incorrect. That shouldn't have slipped by two supporters.
Done: Corrected, it was my fault as I changed that sentence.—Prashant 16:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • More double punctuation by What's Your Raashee?
Done: Corrected.—Prashant 16:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "noted Chopra turn in one of the finest performances seen on the Indian screen." "turn" should be "turned".
Done: Corrected.—Prashant 16:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note IV: Why does this say "Films" when it only applies to one movie?
  • Refs 7 and 9 are identical and can be combined. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done: Removed.—Prashant 16:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose

  • Before I proceed are you sure that all the works of Chopra including documentaries, TV films apart from the regular feature films have been included.
Yes, all her films are listed here.—Prashant 16:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the list is complete. I cannot find Girl Rising (documentary) and a few TV series. —Vensatry (Ping me) 05:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done: Added. Also, I was knowing about the documentary.—Prashant 09:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The budget and box-office figures are unwanted. It's good to avoid them when for a majority of the films the figures are "unknown". Even most of the Hollywood artists' filmography pages don't have them.
Done: Removed.—Prashant 16:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Foot notes should be sourced wherever necessary.
  • In FNs, only complete sentences should have a period at the end.
Removed.—Prashant 16:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Role name required for Apuroopam
  • Why are "Deewangi Deewangi" and "Rockin & Reeling" italicized?
Done: Corrected.—Prashant 16:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong claims like Chopra portraying twelve distinct characters in a single film needs multiple RS.
FYI, It appeared at the DYK with that only source.—Prashant 16:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that this list appeared in the DYK column is irrelevant here. DYK looks every critieria at the basic level whereas at the FLC level something is expected beyond that. Anyways, sources should be easy to find. —Vensatry (Ping me) 05:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done: Cited another source.—Prashant 09:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A cameo appearance and a guest role may not be exactly the same.
  • The budget and box-office are either incomplete or erroneous as pointed out by Indopug. If you can't find complete information, it's better to remove them altogether. —Vensatry (Ping me) 04:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Removed already.—Prashant 16:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't anybody invite you to comment in the peer review on this? Thanks for your comments anyway.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was invited, but was quite busy at the time. Apologies for not responding then.
Additional comments (re-visit)
  • Why is "breakthrough" linked in the lead.
Because everyone don't understand what it means much like those figures which were removed.—Prashant 09:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's a simple English word for which I'm sure most of us would know the meaning. BTW, what it has got to do with those removed figures. —Vensatry (Ping me) 03:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "becoming the second and final woman to win the award". Final woman to win the award is not verified buy the source.
Done: Tweaked.—Prashant 09:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You need to explain Pooja (Mitali). Is it a dual role or a single role portraying two different characters. Likewise, "Susanna Anna-Marie Johannes" in 7 Khoon Maaf
Done: Tweaked and FYI, "Susanna Anna-Marie Johannes" is one name.—Prashant 09:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Things link "Double role", "Triple role", etc., need not be repeated in the "Notes" column since you have a separate column dedicated for that.
What?.—Prashant 09:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No need to repeat that she has performed dual/triple roles in another column since that is obvious from the Role(s) col. —Vensatry (Ping me) 03:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd suggest you not to sort the "Notes" column as the table will be messed up; others might have different views. If you want it sortable be sure to link all the awards in the column.
Done: Unsorted.—Prashant 09:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Link all the director's since that column is sortable too. —Vensatry (Ping me) 03:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say that she made her Bollywood debut through The Hero, but she got a "Best Debutant" award for Andaaz which is her second film according to the filmography.
It's a senseless point.—Prashant 09:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It makes sense for someone who behaves in a sensible way —Vensatry (Ping me) 03:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "To be released" is not necessary in the table since you've defined that in the key using a symbol and colour.
Done: Removed.—Prashant 09:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still not satisfied with the list as it looks like not fulfilling criterion 3(a). It appears that the contributor hasn't made a comprehensive research in developing this list. —Vensatry (Ping me) 05:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comprehensiveness? What? I have written her featured article. I know better. What you want should I list her films which she rejected or turned down. This is getting frustrating.—Prashant 09:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He has a point about mentioning things like television appearances, TV adverts etc. The Bale filmography does.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay So, Bale's filmography also has Budgets and box-office. It means I should add it back again? It's getting tired now. There is nothing in India called Saturday Night Live. So, please let's not get there. As, she has done around thousands appearences in some reality shows. It's not that she has done a fiction or a miniseries. Also, for advertisements she has done many and then, if we can't give full detail why including them? This is a filmography page. Better stick to films and television.—Prashant 12:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I just don't care whether you wrote a FA on her or not. The process won't be smooth as frustration will lead you no where. I suggest you better read the FLC criteria once again before responding here. The figures on box-office and budget are not necessary that too for an Indian artist, but to make sure that the 3(a) criterion is met all her works should be included. —Vensatry (Ping me) 03:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The figures have been removed and from what I can see your points have been addressed. I'm uncertain as to what you think is still stopping this from being promoted. In my opinion it is unfeasible to add every trivial appearance she ever made but some of the major TV shows and adverts which have been documented might be worthy of inclusion, although the main article only mentions one TV show. Indian actors have tons of endorsements and most are not really notable. Priyanka Chopra is a film actress and the list should primarily be a fully comprehensive list of films which she appeared in (which it is). What exactly do you think is really needed? Every chat show appearance and advert?♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Looks like the nom is not interested in the candidate anymore. —Vensatry (Ping me) 04:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am very much interested as I'm the main contributor and nominator of the list. I was busy for sometime that's all.—Prashant 16:11, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Much improved from the last FAC.----Jionpedia ✉ 14:17, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your thorough review. Of course you are aware this is not a FAC, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FLC he means of course...♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course he does. Just a demonstration of how well considered the review he made was against the FLC criteria, I'm sure.. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on a really quick read-through, there are still too many issues.

  • "Priyanka Chopra, an Indian actress, " why not "Indian actress Priyanka Chopra..."?
  • "Tamil film" you link only Tamil in the lead but both Tamil and film in the table. Be consistent.
  • It would have been nicer to have a film-based image of Chopra (for this, her filmography) rather than a promo shot advertising Nikon.
  • You mention her surname three times in three sentences in the opening para of the lead, repetitive.
  • "of a seductress (Sonia Roy) earned" I don't see any need for the character name here.
  • "earned her wide critical acclaim" I don't see that (easily) in reference 3.
  • "Chopra starred in six films in 2005..." the list has seven films, am I to guess which of those seven she didn't "star" in?
  • Not sure of the use of "blockbuster" in an encyclopedic article.
  • "in the hit action-thriller" reads like a tabloid newspaper.
  • "commercial and critical " ... " critical and commercial "... tiresome prose.
  • "performance and appearance in the film " are both needed, surely the first assumes the second?
  • I see no real evidence that a film in 2009 has become a "cult classic", I see a caption on a single website which says it was one of the "cult action movies of the 2000s", and I would guess this doesn't extend far outside the world of Indian cinema unless you can prove me wrong.
  • "a television host with the reality show" on the reality show? Or "for" it?
  • "critical appreciation for her portrayal of serial killer Susanna Anna-Marie Johannes in the critically acclaimed" too much criticality.
  • I would advocate linking black comedy.
  • "Critics Award for Best Actress.[14][4] " please place references in numerical order.
  • " of The Telegraph noted " perhaps worth telling the reader it's the Calcutta Telegraph, not the Daily Telegraph for instance (I know it's wikilinked but it's better to be upfront about it...)
  • "noted Chopra turned in one of the finest performances seen on the Indian screen" if this is a quote then it should be in quote marks. If not, it needs neutralising.
  • Sortable table so everything that's linked should be linked every time.
  • Why is the role in Alag blank?
  • "Multiple Directors" why the capital D?
  • "K.C. Bokadia" -> "K. C. Bokadia"
  • "Vishal Bharadwaj" -> "Vishal Bhardwaj"
  • "Ashutosh Gowarikar" -> "Ashutosh Gowariker"
  • Why is the documentary table sortable when it has only one entry?
  • Why all the (s) in columns which don't have multiple entries, yet not (s) in columns which do have multiple entries?
  • You don't need Category:Filmographies as Category:Indian filmographies is more refined.

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done: Corrected and resolved all your comments.—Prashant 19:02, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More

  • "Indian actress Priyanka Chopra has appeared in many motion pictures and one television program..." if you're going to lead like that then you need to mention the documentary she's been in as well.
Done: Added.—Prashant 05:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • " in 2003 in the patriotic drama film The Hero.[1] In 2003 Chopra" -> "in 2003" repetitive.
Done: Removed.—Prashant 05:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a quick glance, but in the first couple of paras of the lead I'm seeing "patriotic", "highly successful", "vivacious", "critically acclaimed", "seductress", "wide critical acclaim", " blockbuster superhero film", "successful action-thriller", "successful year" followed by a single sentence confessing that she hasn't been brilliant, but then subsequent sentences saying "a critical and commercial success", " performance and look in the film drew a positive reaction", " starred in the hit caper thriller", "received highly positive reviews", "a cult classic", "which surpassed the opening ratings of the previous two seasons" ..... etc etc. I know this is all fine and dandy and that Chopra is clearly well thought of in India, but seriously, this is an article about her filmography, not a heavily (and positively) biased pseudo-biography here to praise her every minute on film.
It's strange to hear this, Bale filmography has same kind of treatment and if a film is cult, highly successful and critically acclaimed, then it's not my fault. I have to show exact things. Everything is true. If you want then I'll add other unsuccessful film descriptions in the lead. It was earlier in that way but, was removed by an established editor saying: "we should only talk about her important films".—Prashant 05:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sortable table so everything that's linked should be linked every time.

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had already linked everything. The unlinked names don't have any page on Wikipedia.—Prashant 05:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Rambling Man. I did actually remove a lot of it but Prashant has restored a lot of the comments after a reviewer here asked why there wasn't any critical commentary. Frustrating. IMO you don't need to keep saying something earned acclaim.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:51, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For your information, Blofeld, a nominator's work is to resolve issues of every reviewer and I juat did that by re-adding important facts, which were missing.—Prashant 17:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They weren't important facts Prashant, it amounted to excessive, monotonous praise, not facts, which I had originally moved before the start of this FLC to make it a neutral article. You really don't need to mention acclaim for anything other than those which she won awards for. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:40, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's an issue with tone here, and I can't support until it's resolved. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The neutrality work I did on this was sadly undone. I strongly agree with you that a filmography should not mention critical acclaim and highly successful movies in every sentence and I have removed this now. You can imply critical acclaim anyway by wording it as "won a Filmfare Award for her performance in xxx" which I've now done and the article reads much better for it. I've reedited this now anyway, which is closer to the version which had the original supports here, not the version which you saw. Is that better now RM?♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Blofeld for improving the tone. I appreciate it. But, all the supports came on my version and not yours version. Above discussion is enough to prove it.—Prashant 04:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, the version Schrod and Crisco supported was the toned down version and the sugary and monotonous prose was the reason why it failed first time around. I'm sure if you asked some of the others they'd prefer a sugarless filmography. Next to nobody wants to visit a filmography and to be told if every film was a commercial success or failure, they can read this in the main article, people primarily are visiting it to get a comprehensive list of films. Documenting the major awards won alongside particularly notable roles is all that is needed and infers success anyway without the sugar. Naturally we try to be as responsive as possible to FA input, but it doesn't necessarily mean that every point a reviewer brings up or "answering to critical acclaim" is right or an improvement. Given the choice I'd rather somebody opposed this on the grounds that it doesn't state if every film was a critical or commercial success than somebody as experienced as Rambling Man opposing it because of sugary, monotonous prose (which was why it failed first time). I think the current version is the best it has ever looked on top of the constructive input already put into this and the addressing of tone again and I can't see any major outstanding issue as to why this shouldn't be passed now. I'd like some further input here from User:SchroCat, User:Crisco 1492, User:Giants2008, User:The Rambling Man and User:Jionpedia in particular as to whether they agree that the toned down version is indeed the way forward. We seemed to almost go back to square one for a moment.. This should at least make it clearer to the delegates as to whether we're getting anywhere..♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was about to change the tone of the article as per The Rambling Man. But, you did and I agree the article is at it's best. So, thank you. There is no need for more discussion please stop it—Prashant 12:03, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the discussion is needed, because if I was one of the delegates reading this FLC I'd find it difficult to keep track of progress.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:04, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Thanks. — ΛΧΣ21 06:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the "toned down" version is superior to what was there before and should be kept. It's important to note that the three supports also came before the two opposes (if I'm reading the FLC right), and less flowery prose may help in addressing the opposers' concerns. I also agree with Blofeld that the excess reception information is better off only being in the main article on Chopra. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:48, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that the current version is superior. I think it's great.—Prashant 08:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would re-start the nomination. The previous comments and supports are really no longer valid based on the fact they were made on an historic and no longer relevant version of the list. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any delegate watching this who has the power to pass or fail, I'd fail it based on the incivility of the nominator. This was a most disgusting message which I received earlier from Prashant and he's dismissed Rambling Man's comments as a joke. If one of the delegates had seen this abuse of one of the reviewers here it would have failed long ago anyway. I did nothing here but to act in good faith and to try to stop it failing yet according to Prashant I'm out for self-glorification (as if a filmography of an Indian actress is the way to go about that). I'd ban him from FAC and FLC based on his past and current behaviour.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:05, 4 October 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/Priyanka_Chopra_filmography/archive2&oldid=1146691259"