Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sonam Kapoor/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Graham Beards via FrB.TG (talk) 23:24, 14 November 2015‎ [1].

Sonam Kapoor[edit]

Sonam Kapoor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Toolbox
Nominator(s): Frankie talk 15:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the "Masakali girl", a not-so-good actress, yet a fashion icon. It was reviewed and promoted straight away by the user Jaguar on October 2015 for GA. Anyway, the article is pretty comprehensive as it covers important aspects of her life and career. This is my first attempt for FAC (not for featured as I have already a bunch of FLs under my belt). The article is well-researched. Comments, in any form and from anyone, will be very much appreciated. Happy reading! -- Frankie talk 15:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kailash[edit]

I have some comments to make, but I'll examine the article first. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is hard to point out errors, but I have cleaned the prose up a bit. Please tell me if you like it. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that! :) -- Frankie talk 15:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Quick question: where is the source that she is Punjabi? Kailash29792 (talk) 04:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Added. -- Frankie talk 06:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Yashthepunisher[edit]

Lead

  • "Kapoor has been nominated for three Filmfare Awards and won two Stardust Awards." Only filmfare and National awards should be mentioned.
  • Because she has only been nominated for Filmfare, and she has only won Stardust Awards.
  • Delhi-6 (2009) is not a political drama, it's more like a comedy drama.
  • This says otherwise.
  • "She also featured briefly in the highly successful biographical sports film Bhaag Milkha Bhaag (2013)"...The word "highly" should be removed.

Early life and background

  • "Her sister is producer Rhea, and actor Harshvardhan is her brother." Harshavardhan hasn't acted in a single film yet. Is it wise to call him an actor.!?
  • Mention her relation with actress Sridevi.
  • I don't think she is the relative of Sridevi; she is only her uncle's wife.
Which means she is her aunt.
Yeah, added. -- Frankie talk 14:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As a child, she was interested in reading books, and was a bibliophile." Looks trivial to me.
  • Being a bibliophile seems quite notable to me.
  • "For health concerns, she visited Jindal Health Camp in Banglore." Again.
  • The media does not have info on whether she was treated after her diabetes or not, and I believe this is the only info available on her treatment regarding diabetes.

Debut and career fluctuations

  • Is it important to include Stardust Award for Superstar of Tomorrow – Female? coz in india, every channel has there own awards and they'r not important.
  • Yeah, as this is the only award, which she won.
  • There is a repeat use of the sentence "The film underperformed at the box-office." You can replace one of them with "the film failed at the box-office", or "it was a box-office disappointment."

Personal life and other work

  • "The actress currently lives in Juhu, Mumbai." Why not include this in the early life and background section?
  • That section already says that she moved to Juhu while a month old.
  • Mentioning her relationship with Ranbir Kapoor, Sahil Berry sounds like a gossip column stuff. They didn't lasted long enough unlike Shahid-Kareena.
  • Nope, they have been widely reported in the media. Although they (she and her boyfriends) haven't acknowledged, it's important to know what the media has reported.

In the media

  • Her opinion on her approach to acting doesn't looks relevant to "In the media" section". It should only include opinion of other's about her.
  • I think it's important to know on what basis she chooses roles.
Then "In the media" section is not a good place for this quote, place it somewhere else.
Well, I don't know if it is relevant for in the media section, but it definitely suits the paragraph it is in as it talks about info related to her acting. -- Frankie talk 14:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMO this section has too much quotes, please remove one of them atleast.
  • I can't remove or paraphrase them as the media section is always about this; what they think of her. @Yashthepunisher: I have paraphrased a quote from the section. I can not think of paraphrasing (or removing) other quotes as they are pretty important ones and some things are best when original. -- Frankie talk 15:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's it from me. Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments Yashthepunisher. I have resolved the rest. -- Frankie talk 14:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from all these, I don't see any problem with the article. There are still two unresolved issues, resolve them and it has my Support. Yashthepunisher (talk) 15:38, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! :) -- Frankie talk 14:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from West Virginian[edit]

  • FrB.TG, thank you for submitting this article for FAC. I've completed my thorough and comprehensive review of this article and I find that it meets Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. I do, however, have a few comments and suggestions that must first be addressed. Thank you for your hard work on this article! I have completed an image review and found no issues. The details of the image review are included in my comments. -- West Virginian (talk) 10:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you West Virginian for your excellent and comprehensive review. I have replied them in your capped comments. Also, I will try to return the favor by reviewing your FAC. -- Frankie talk 14:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support FrB.TG, thank you for your timely responses to my review. Upon my re-review of your article, I find that it is ready for Featured Article status! Congratulations on a job well done! -- West Virginian (talk) 15:39, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by West Virginian (talk) 10:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lede and overall
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lede of this article adequately defines Sonam Kapoor, establishes the Kapoor's necessary context, and explains why she is otherwise notable.
  • The info box for Sonam Kapoor is beautifully formatted and its content is sourced within the prose of the text and by the references cited therein.
  • The image of Kapoor is licensed CC BY 3.0 and is therefore good for inclusion in this article; an alt caption per Wikipedia:Alternative text for images has also been incorporated.
  • I would suggest mentioning one or two of her more notable or popular products that she endorses in the third paragraph of the lede.
  • The rupee symbol only needs to be wiki-linked once in the prose; I de-linked the second mention of Waheeda Rehman.
  • I made some other minor edits throughout, so just let me know if you have any issues or concerns with these.
  • The lede is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

Early life and background

  • The image of Kapoor with her father Anil in 2011 is licensed CC BY 3.0 and is therefore acceptable for inclusion here. An alt caption has also been included.
  • I added a comma after her mother's name in the first paragraph.
  • Thanks! :)
  • I would suggest specifying that her sister Rhea is a film producer specifically. I would also do the same for her uncle, Boney Kapoor.
  • This may be an Indian English vs. American English issue, and if so please ignore, but I feel that "educated" may sound more encyclopedic than "schooled."
  • This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

Acting career

  • In the next to last sentence of the first paragraph, "box-office" can probably lose the hyphen for consistency's sake. Subsequent instances of "box-office" can also lose the hyphen.
  • The image of Kapoor in 2010 is licensed CC BY 3.0 and is therefore fine for use here. An alt caption has also been included.
  • The image of Kapoor promoting Raanjhnaa on Jhalak Dikhhla Jaa in 2013 is also licensed CC BY 3.0 and is suitable for inclusion here. An alt caption has also been included.
  • The first mention of biopic can be wiki-linked to Biographical film.
  • This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

Personal life and other work

  • I would wiki-link Gujarat as some readers may not be familiar with the state, and it doesn't share international recognition like Bangalore and Mumbai.
  • In the first paragraph, it is mentioned that she says she is religious. What religion is she? Hindu, Muslim? Do we not know?
  • It's already stated in the Early life section: "Kapoor, a practicing Hindu.."
  • "denied" may work better than "refused"
  • I would re-render the the last sentence of the second paragraph: "stating that she is "completely against talking about [her] relationships to the press""
  • This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

In the media

  • The image of Kapoor at the Femina Women Awards in 2014 has been licensed CC BY 3.0 and is therefore acceptable for use here. An alt caption has also been included.
  • This section is well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no comments or questions for this section.

Filmography

  • The table is beautifully formatted, but is there any way that inline citations could be added for each row in the "Notes" column? I am not as accustomed with standards for articles on actors, so please let me know if this is not standard.
  • Don't think that is needed as they are already sourced in the career section.

Awards and nominations

  • The table is beautifully formatted and sourced, and I have no comments or suggestions for it.
  • "Other honours" is also sourced and well formatted, so I have no comments or suggestions here either.

Comments from Cirt[edit]

  1. NOTE: Please respond below all these comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
  2. Image review: I as well have reviewed all the images. All check out except File:Sonam Kapoor Dheere Dheere Unveiling.jpg = tagged with: This image, which was originally posted to Bollywood Hungama, has not yet been reviewed by an administrator or reviewer to confirm that the above license is valid.
  3. Alongside her career, Kapoor supports charities and causes, such as creating awareness on breast cancer. = this sentence is oddly phrased for several reasons. "awareness on breast cancer" and "alongside her career" are awkwardly phrased.
  4. Early life and background - could be just titled more simply, Early life.
  5. Acting career - similarly the two subsection titles within this sect would be better if simpler titles used.
  6. "has become" ... "has been"... can be changed throughout the article to simpler "became" "was"
  7. They lived in an apartment with one room furnished. After her father became a popular Bollywood actor, he built the entire house. - you mean "furnished" the entire house? Was it not built before? Or not furnished?
  8. Kapoor was educated at the Arya Vidya Mandir school in Juhu,[13] following which she enrolled at the United World College of South East Asia in Singapore for her pre-university education, where she studied theatre and arts - sentence is a bit long, consider splitting.
  9. "However" = used eight (8) times in the article, consider removing these outright.
  10. "Also" = used twelve (12) times in the article, consider removing these and phrasing differently.
  11. According to Kapoor, she started working at the age of 15, and her first job was that of a waitress, which lasted for one week. = too much use of commas in this sentence, consider splitting.
  12. NOTE: Please respond below all these comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!

Impression overall: Quite meticulously sourced, high-quality article for its present stage of WP:GA, which is good and I'm glad it reached that level -- so thank you to all for the Quality improvement efforts that went into improving this page for our Wikipedia readers. However, the writing quality could stand with some improvement from a few Native-English speakers and/or Professional-Level-English speakers. Specifically with regards to awkward phraseology, too much use of commas, "However", "Also", etc. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 16:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cirt: Thanks for your comments. The source (regarding furnishing the house) itself is quite unclear and we can not necessarily assume either. I have removed that. I have copy-edited the article. I am not going to request copy-edits from a "few" English speakers as I think the prose is now good enough. And most of the Indian articles are written this way (I have modeled it based on them). Please revisit and share your thoughts with me. Thanks. -- Frankie talk 14:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but that was not a sufficient response. Many of the above issues are unaddressed. Just because some of the Indian articles are written this way and you modeled it based on them, does not mean this one should have sub-standard prose. I do wish you the best of luck -- but the article needs significant copy-editing from Native-English speakers or Professional-level-English speakers. — Cirt (talk) 20:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Johanna[edit]

Sorry it's been such a long time. I figured I would do a source review. Most of it's looking pretty good. I just have a few questions on the reliability of a couple sources—what are "Mid Day", "Rediff.com", and "Skjbollywoodnews.com"? Why are they reliable? Shockingly for an article with this many refs, there are no deadlinks, and everything seems to be formatted quite well. Looks like you've done a lot to get the picky stuff up to snuff. :) Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 02:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the source review Johanna. Mid Day is a well reputed source, Rediff.com is used in many Indian FAs and Skjbollywoodnews.com is a website of a renowned critic. -- Frankie talk 04:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support - This article is well-written, well-researched and nice images! Iggy488 (talk) 11:11, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The user is a sock-puppet, who has been indef. blocked. —Vensatry (ping) 13:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Vensatry[edit]

  • Parts of the first two paras (of the lead) are jumbled - the first one gives an intro, talks about the awards, and then suddenly goes to her family. While the second para looks good as a standalone one, it continues exactly from where the first para ends.
  • "The actress is known in the media for her outspoken personality" - Definitely borders WP:PUFF. Also, the bit which talks about her "charity" is WP:UNDUE.
How is it puffery? I have even included her outspoken statements in the media image section and how they are widely reported and sometimes criticized.
This is quite a claim – nowadays, every Bollywood actress is being projected as 'bold', 'outspoken', no? In that case, the article needs to cover examples which justify the claim. —Vensatry (Talk) 12:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the "outspoken" thing from the lead, but there is "known in the Indian media for her outspoken nature" in the media image section, followed by her statements. -- Frankie talk 22:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Her off-screen life is the subject of fervent tabloid reporting in India." - who cares? this is an encyclopedia.
I have found the very same thing in many of the high-quality articles.
We shouldn't base our arguments on WP:OSE at the FAC level. But then, you should quote good examples to justify the inclusion. That said, it's surely not encyclopedic. —Vensatry (Talk) 12:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That was already removed from the article so discussing it is just waste of time. -- Frankie talk 22:19, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. It was merely a reply. —Vensatry (Talk) 11:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Her connection with Sridevi needs to be properly established.
  • "Her paternal grandfather—filmmaker Surinder Kapoor—died in 2011 after suffering a cardiac arrest" - I'm not sure how relevant is the cause of her grandfather's death here.
Maybe you're right but I think just "he died in 2011" will make readers curious to know the cause.
Given his age, it's not quite notable to be mentioned in his grand-daughter's article. —Vensatry (Talk) 12:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, removed. -- Frankie talk 22:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As a child, she was a bibliophile" - Again, this should only be mentioned unless this has had a significant impact in her life later on.
  • "She described herself as a "naughty" and "carefree" child, and she would "bully boys. I would push them, [and] beat them." - I think there is a misplacement of quotes in the last part.
  • "As part of an annual tradition, Kapoor—a practicing Hindu—and her family celebrate the festival of Ganesha Chaturthi each year" - This one is trivial.
I have found the very same thing in Rani Mukerji's biography.
Doesn't matter. —Vensatry (Talk) 12:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When you celebrate something since childhood and it attracts the media attention, it definitely becomes notable. -- Frankie talk 22:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
From an encyclopaedic point of view, it adds very little value. What about Diwali, Christmas, etc.,? Mumbaikars celebrating Ganesh Chaturthi isn't a news; it's quite common in the city. BTW, Tendulkar celebrating GC and Ganguly celebrating Durga Puja are also widely reported in the media every year. —Vensatry (Talk) 11:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For health concerns, she visited Jindal Health Camp in Bangalore." - This one needs clarification.
The source does not clarify so I have removed it.
I never asked you to remove this. Given the health issues she had, this could very well go into the article. —Vensatry (Talk) 11:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it could if the source elaborated but it's not very clear so it should be left out. -- Frankie talk 17:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What exactly was the role of Rani Mukherji in Kapoor's entry to films?
  • "While working on Black, Bhansali expressed interest in casting Kapoor as the lead in Bhansali's [his] next film, Saawariya"
  • "Inspired by Bhansali's confidence in her, she lost 35 kilograms (77 lb) in two years" - Not sure if "inspire" is the correct word in the given context.
  • "Kapoor took acting classes from the theatre personalities Roshan Taneja, Jayati Bhatia and Feroz Abbas Khan.[7]" - Precision needed.
  • Can you replace the Yahoo news ref. (which talks about the Best Female Debut nom) with a better source; the article was authored by someone who works for a horoscope site.
  • "Kapoor has cited actresses ... admiring "their quality of doing different things." The one in quotes is too much vague – in what sense?
  • "In 2015, Kapoor purchased a 7,000-square-foot (650 m2) ₹300 million (US$4.5 million) duplex apartment in Bandra Kurla Complex." - You think this is encyclopedic?
Buying a house worth 4.5 million dollars is surely encyclopedic.
'Kapoor purchased a 7,000-square-foot (650 m2) ₹300 million (US$4.5 million) duplex apartment in Bandra Kurla Complex' – Way too much detail. Consider somebody like Sachin Tendulkar, in whose case we might end up with articles like List of assets owned by Sachin Tendulkar. —Vensatry (Talk) 12:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alright then removed. I have also removed where she currently lives as it's an encyclopedia, not a place to tell the name of the "current" city where someone lives. -- Frankie talk 22:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like you've mistaken me. Place of residence is certainly informative, but not flat name, door no, etc., —Vensatry (Talk) 11:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's already mentioned that she moved to Juhu in the Early life section so mentioning that she currently lives in Juhu would be repetitive. -- Frankie talk 17:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Juhu being a suburb of Mumbai was clarified twice previously.
  • The second para of the personal life section reads like a gossip column; there is no point in including her "alleged" relationship with Punit Malhotra. Besides, you clearly say that it was a speculation by the media. Secondly, the bit is confusing – given they both denied the relationship, where's the point of breaking up? Also, neither of the sources tell the "denial" part.
I am not a huge fan of this bullshit either but I think it's quite an important one. Many of the recently promoted articles have also covered some alleged relationships which have been widely covered by the media.
  • "She is the brand ambassador for Elle Breast Cancer Campaign which promotes breast cancer awareness." - needless clarification
  • The last para of the section reads a bit listy.
  • The 'Media image and artistry' section is bombarded with quotes.
  • The Vogue India quote adds very little value to the article.
  • Who is Sonal Ved?
  • "Kapoor, however, has often been criticised for her traditional Indian dresses which Hindustan Times has opined that she "isn’t able to do much justice to Indian clothes." - Given this statement at the start of the section: "actress is particularly praised for her dress sense and fashion. She attracts wide media attention for her dressing style at public events and film promotions." this one is contradictory. further, the third para says she was "widely regarded as a fashionista" - repetitive stuff.
Does sound contradictory that's why I have added "however".
No, this just looks like being
  • "Kapoor is known in the Indian media for her outspoken nature and for honestly expressing her forthright opinions in public" - Again, borders WP:PUFF; she is no Arundhati Roy.
Replied above.
Per my response above, telling you again, she is no Arundhati Roy! —Vensatry (Talk) 12:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say she is described as a style icon by the Indian media, but the claim is supported by a single ref.
  • "The following year, she jumped to the thirty first position" - Not sure if "jump" is an acceptable word.
  • All three sentences of the last para start with "Kapoor".
  • "Kapoor is the celebrity endorser for brands, such as Colgate, Electrolux, Lux, Mont Blanc, Salvatore Ferragamo S.p.A. and Signature" - You mean she is the only endorser for all these products? Plus, the ref. is dead.
  • "In 2014, she became the endorser for Oppo Mobile,[142] for which she was paid approximately ₹30 million (US$450,000), making her one of the highest paid celebrities for endorsements in India" - the source which talks about the 30 million deal doesn't tell that she was paid by Oppo.
Yeah, I don't know how does it say Oppo Mobile. Anyway, corrected.

All these are from the lead, early life, personal life and media image sections. I haven't really read much of the 'Acting career' section. To summarize, I see a problem of WP:UNDUE with the personal life and media image sections. They are bombarded with quotes and unencyclopedic stuff. The prose too needs a bit of work; it would be largely benefited by a top-to-bottom copyedit, preferably by a native/professional-level editor. —Vensatry (ping) 18:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I have removed some of the quotes from the media image section. I will soon have someone copy-edit the article though I doubt I am that lucky. :D -- Frankie talk 11:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will look at this tomorrow.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2013: "The film tells the story of a young Muslim student from Varanasi who is drawn into Indian politics after the murder of her Sikh lover. The actress was cast as Zoya who is—in her words—"extremely feminine, but she knows her mind."[60" Not clear actually which character she plays. Is Zoya the Muslim student? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what value " "They had a budget and they told me they can’t give money and that’s why I said give Rs11"" gives.

Personal life
  • "Kapoor has cited actresses Waheeda Rehman and Nutan as her source of inspiration.[85] The actress currently lives in Juhu.[86] In 2015, Kapoor purchased a 7,000-square-foot (650 m2) ₹300 million (US$4.5 million) duplex apartment in Bandra Kurla Complex.[87] She is trained in Kathak, classical music and Latin dance.[88] Regarding her religious affiliations, the actress said, "I am quite religious. It's a great way of reminding myself that I need to be thankful for so much."[16] In a 2009 interview, Kapoor spoke about her suffering from insulin resistance; she has since launched an initiative to create awareness on diabetes.[89] While filming Prem Ratan Dhan Payo in Gondal, Gujarat, she was diagnosed with swine influenza in February 2015 and was flown to Mumbai in an air-ambulance. She recovered from the infection the following month.[90][91"

-I'm not sure how you can justify putting that range of content all in one paragraph, a little haphazard,

Media image and artistry -Artistry?? Just media image will suffice

Yeah, for an actress like Kapoor, artistry reads pretty odd. @Dr. Blofeld: Thanks very much for the comments, pretty good ones. -- Frankie talk 11:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Vensatry that it could use a copyedit. If I had more passion towards the project right now I'd help. I'd make some quite extensive changes though which you might not agree with.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be delighted if you make those changes as I know that will be for the betterment of the article. I think I know what to expect. Anyway, I am looking forward to it. -- Frankie talk 21:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cirt, Vensatry, and Dr. Blofeld: Thanks very much for your excellent suggestions. Following your suggestions, I had Casliber and Corinne copy-edit the article. I would like to thank @Corinne: also for raising some concerns at the talk page of the article. -- Frankie talk 11:40, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator's Note - Some problems with the prose remain and further copyediting is needed. Graham Beards (talk) 07:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jim[edit]

In the light of Graham Beards' comment, I made these edits, although I couldn't see much wrong with it anyway (perhaps a comment on my own writing skills). I was a bit concerned about Cirt's phrasing of the request for input from "a few Native-English speakers or Professional-level-English speakers" [sic]. Although there may be infelicities in the writing, I think it is dubious to assume it's because the editor isn't from a country where English is the main language. Millions of Indians speak and write English, and many do so to first-language standards, and I've seen worse text from Brits and Americans. There have now been three copyedits, and if it's still not good enough, I think Graham needs to be more specific Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My comments included "and/or Professional-Level-English speakers", which you left out from quoting me, selectively, above. Please, I politely and kindly ask you not to cherry-pick from my quotes, thank you. — Cirt (talk) 17:55, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for making those edits Jimfbleak, along with some of the changes you have already made, I noticed the following:

:::I've completed 'Cirt' quote above as intended, including the uncontroversial bit. Despite what he/she thinks, I was not deliberately cherry-picking, acting in bad faith or making any accusation against this conscientious editor other than that I thought it was not a good choice of words. If I had know he/she was this prickly, I wouldn't have bothered. I've also apologised on his/her talk page if I'd caused unintended grief, but that was immediately archived Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • "She featured, at no charge, alongside Hrithik Roshan in the music video for "Dheere Dheere", with all profits being donated to a charity." A fused participle
  • "Upon release, film critics were disappointed with the film, with BBC's Jaspreet Pandohar calling it a "misfire on a massive scale". Another fused participle, a possible missing "it's" and a close repetition of "with"
  • "Despite critical acclaim, the film released to poor box office returns". Seems odd.
  • "She has confirmed her presence in a film adaptation of Anuja Chauhan's novel Battle For Bittora". Also seems odd
  • "Born into a family of popular actors, Kapoor appeared in the media from an early age, due to which her entry into films was covered extensively by the Indian media." This doesn't sound right
  • "That same year, she donated some of her clothes and accessories to a website which raised funds for In Defense of Animals". Nick-picky I know, but the "which should be "that", and the first "that" could be "The" to avoid repetition. Graham Beards (talk) 18:47, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jim and Graham for your copy-edit and comments, respectively. I have followed the above suggestions (though I doubt it still satisfies Cirt, never mind). BTW Jim, it's true that I don't belong to a country where English isn't the main language (hell, people barely speak it here), but I am definitely not from India. Just that its film industry interests me. -- Frankie talk 21:04, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I still need to see one or two more declarations of support to establish a consensus. Graham Beards (talk) 21:28, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jim, a few comments on the texts you comment on:

"Critics were disappointed with the film, which the BBC's Jaspreet Pandohar called a "misfire on a massive scale". Can't find where "it's" would go. Agree with your points, but maybe the writer doesn't know about "fused participles" (I don't) – so the better version I've written here might help them to avoid this.

"She featured at no charge alongside Hrithik Roshan in the music video for "Dheere Dheere", from which all profits were donated to a charity." – is that a good solution?

entry into films – entry is the problem.

This does suggest the article needs attention. I found nothing untoward with Cirt's comment about the need for professional/native-speaker input. The English used in en.WP needs to be reasonably "standard", given that the site serves the whole world. Someone from Singapore doesn't want to bump up against non-standard usage that might be fine in Nigerian or Indian acrolects. Tony (talk) 07:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tony. I edited this article on a topic I have no particular interest in because I was asked to do so. A minor comment I made attracted disproportion accusations of bad faith from Cirt continuing even after I apologised for any unintended offence. I've struck most of my comments above, and have no further interest in this article. If Cirt wants to remove the struck comments, I don't mind Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My objections were specifically to the cherry-picking, and the third (3rd) sentence, in particular, from the comments by Jimfbleak, above. I thank Jimfbleak, very much, for striking them. Much appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 07:48, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Unfortunately, I have to agree here with concerns about the writing quality of this article as made by Graham Beards and Tony1, above. Examples of some remaining issues: "One of the highest paid actresses and major celebrity in India" -- is this supposed to be "celebrities" ? We have an imbalance problem in the lede, a tiny paragraph, a larger paragraph, and then closing out with a two-sentence-long paragraph that starts with vague wording "various" and ends with sensationalist style "inspires fervid tabloid reporting" -- not clear how that is encyclopedic, at all, or will be important in 100 years time to the history of this person? We still have may instances of poor wording such as "also", "though", "however", "but", etc, are these words needed in the article at all or are they used to inject POV? I agree with the concerns already raised, above, about WP:PUFF. And the concerns about WP:UNDUE regarding promotional aspects in the article body text. I'm seeing a great deal of quotations that could be removed, trimmed, or paraphrased, bordering on WP:QUOTEFARM, not quite there yet, but certainly a lot of room to avoid that much quoting. Checklinks checker shows over thirty (30) links that could be archived to improve the article's posterity over the long term -- but more importantly, at least three (3) with problem link issues as identified by the tool. The entire section Media image comes across as POV, promotional, puffery, and poorly constructed -- example: 4th paragraph in that sect has five (5) citations after the first sentence, to back up the assertion person is a "style icon". The entire Media image section could be removed, trimmed down significantly, and merged into other sections in the article and that would be a vast improvement right there. The Filmography section is inconsistent with citations -- some factual assertions have in-line citations to back them up -- but others do not. I'm sorry, but this article still has serious problems with writing, quality, style, presentation, and tone. I agree with Tony1 that the article needs more attention to address these significant concerns. — Cirt (talk) 08:10, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I guess so. I would like to thank you for your participation in this FAC. I wish I could have someone to take care of your comments. I don't have anyone else in mind to bother for ce. -- Frankie talk 08:44, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So, can you reach out to possible collaborators on en.WP who might help with copyediting? (Now and in the future ...). It's very much a social process, being an editor. Tony (talk) 08:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think @Dr. Blofeld: said of making some changes above. I'll see if he considers it! -- Frankie talk 17:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Sonam_Kapoor/archive1&oldid=1136095485"