Talk:Rani Mukerji/Archive 4

Success 2003-Present

This section looks unencyclopedical. It looks like a magazine, to be precise. What are those design blocks doing in a career section? It looks like a magazine which deals how good she looked in every film, who were her designers and how much fashionable she was, rathen than telling us the direct information on the films.

Here are the unnecesarry information:

• In 2003, her new look in Chalte Chalte opposite Shah Rukh Khan was much appreciated[17]; the film was a hit. Mickey Contractor did her make-up for the movie and took all the deserving credit for her new image. The make-up artist had also previously worked with her in Kabhi Khushi Kabhie Gham.[18] - since when an actress can be appreciated for her look. In other words, you`re saying "her performance was bad and wasn`t appreciated, but her look was"

• She wanted an ethnic look for herself in the movie and so, she hired her friend, Sabyasachi Mukherjee to design her outfits.[27] Their hard work finally paid off once the actress pulled of that look. The saris became a trademark.[28] Later in 2007, one of Mukherjee's sari in Baabul, designed by Sabyasachi Mukherjee, was auctioned off at a charity dinner. The proceeds went towards a home for girls who live on the Howrah platforms.[29] - She wanted that and she wanted that. Fine, but who cares? it is not a part of her career, and it`s not a magazine here.

• the actress has gone for a fringe haircut this time. Mukherjee will be sporting a modern, up-market and slightly sexy look in chic western outfits for the first half of the film.[34] She had to go through intense training to slim down and be suitable for the role.[35] - why don`t you write more about the role, the inspiration from her mother etc. rather than talking about her look?

sporting a modern, up-market and slightly sexy look in chic western outfits - POV. You can think she is sexy there, I can think too, but another one could think she is not.

Please discuss. These lines ruin the page as well as the career section. Best Regards. --Shshshsh 14:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe it is good to add in details about the roles and relevant details about the character she played, as well as reaction of notable film critics to the roles. While some of the added details would definitely be an asset to the article, some of them most definitely should not be there. I'll have to take a closer look to be able to say anything.

Well pointed out, Shshshsh. Regards,xC | ☎ 15:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. The details are an asset to the career section. It's stupid to just say that the movie was a hit or a flop and then if it was either critically acclaimed. The details on what the actress' role was in the movie and what she did as research are a plus point to denote the hard work put into it. Assets can be referencing her interviews at that time when the film released. So, when you look at the article ten years from now, one can know who the actress was working with, what her look was in the movie, how did the public think of her, etc. It's all beneficiary. But I just need someone to rewrite the career section in more toned writing and with top-notch vocabulary to set it apart from other articles. And please no repetition in the structure of sentences to make it appealing. I just add information. The other editors are more than welcome to word it differently. Thanks. And by the way, by employing the word 'sexy', we're not saying we think she is sexy, it is just worded in a way to say that her role was to portray a sexy modern woman, and thus, her hair-do is different and that's why she had to slim down and lose weight to fit for the role. But yes, some may say she has not done a good job, whereas we're saying that is the role she was supposed to pull off. It doesn't say she is sexy in the movie. Plz read it again. And Xc, it's the media spotlight section on Lohan's page where Nicole Richie and Paris Hilton are mentionned. I'm just saying it would be okay to add at least one name in personal life section. And Ash fits the best in that category. Three sentences is all we need to talk on that, it's not going to be the highlight of the page. - shez_15

Ah, found it. Thanks Shez.

Lohan's page, those three are mentioned in reference to her hard partying and the criticism she faced for it. They aren't referred to as her friends. In fact, nowhere on the page are friends mentioned. I've looked through all the Hollywood FA class bios. Nowhere are friends mentioned.

We are not here to list her friendships. Rai being her friend is not-notable. Consequently, Rai not being her friend is also non-notable.

As of now, I support the additions to the career section, although they do need to be cleaned out a bit.

For example, She wanted an ethnic look for herself in the movie and so, she hired her friend, Sabyasachi Mukherjee to design her outfits.[28] Their hard work finally paid off once the actress pulled of that look. The saris became a trademark.[29] gets a little long-winded. It might be better as On her request, Sabyasachi Mukherjee designed her look[28] and her saris in the movie went on to become a trademark[29].

Shshshsh says -

In 2003, her new look in Chalte Chalte opposite Shah Rukh Khan was much appreciated[17]; the film was a hit. Mickey Contractor did her make-up for the movie and took all the deserving credit for her new image. The make-up artist had also previously worked with her in Kabhi Khushi Kabhie Gham.[18] - since when an actress can be appreciated for her look. In other words, you`re saying "her performance was bad and wasn`t appreciated, but her look was"

Actually, that is not what is implied, nothing is mentioned specifically about her performance. The wording does need to be fixed. Saying the look was much appreciated doesn't seem to add much. This can be easily fixed, re-writing such sentences as per NPOV is simple, like in the Sabyasachi example above.

Shshshsh says - why don`t you write more about the role, the inspiration from her mother etc. rather than talking about her look?. Dear Shshshsh, why don't you add it in? Its apparent you know a lot about it, I'm sure it would be useful if you add details about how she was inspired by her mother, her role, etc with suitable references.

As for sporting a modern, up-market and slightly sexy look in chic western outfits, I've brought this up earlier as well. That entire last portion, in fact, was due for a cleanup and trimming. This was one of the things which had to be fixed.

I believe the additions are valid, they simply need to be shortened. While I'm not surprised that Shshshsh has raised concerns about this article, I would like to request all editors to please not edit war. Whatever you would like to discuss, please discuss it on this talk page.

Whoever wants to add in details in the Career section, feel free to do so. The content is what will make the article better, and bring it up to the level that it should be. Whatever isn't needed, well its easy to reduce, reformat, or remove content, as neccessary.

Regards,xC | ☎ 10:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi guys, I`ve recently changed the page. Please have a look and comment whether you agree with my edits or not. Best Regards. --Shshshsh 11:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Shifting post out of other editor's post.xC | ☎ 17:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
This section sounds like as if the whole editing and review is done by school going kids. Highly lacks reading skills, whoever is editing it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by SilverMerc (talk • contribs)

You're welcome to rewrite whichever portions as you see fit. This is Wikipedia after all. Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages. Regards,xC | ☎ 17:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Polls

Could this section be moved to the awards page because it is just another list and doesn't add a great deal to the main article? I can also see it growing in length in the future. Fay06 22:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I see the article growing in the future. Thus, no need to move as of yet. Thanks. - shez_15 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shez 15 (talk • contribs) 07:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

Actually, since she was awarded the position in those polls and lists, it would make sense to have it on the same page. Shifted it there, if theres any disagreement we can always discuss it here. Regards, xC | ☎ 08:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits

I have removed in-appropriate info on her fashion sense, make-up artist etc. Also removed that Paheli went to the Oscars when in fact it was India's official entry to the Oscars and did not go any furthur then that. Also that info belongs in the film article. Whoever her shoe designer, make-up artist etc is, does not belong in this article. Thank you. -- Pa7 16:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Automatic Peer Review

As per User:AndyZ/peerreviewer - Automatic peer review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
• This article has no images. Please see if there are any free use images that fall under the Wikipedia:Image use policy and fit under one of the Wikipedia:Image copyright tags that can be uploaded. To upload images on Wikipedia, go to Special:Upload; to upload non-fair use images on the Wikimedia Commons, go to commons:special:upload.^[?]
• See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.^[?]
• If this article is about a person, please add {{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.^[?]
• Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honor (A) (British: honour), honour (B) (American: honor), favourite (B) (American: favorite), criticize (A) (British: criticise), ization (A) (British: isation).
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • “In the year [of] 1999”
• Avoid using contractions like (outside of quotations): couldn't.
• As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]^[?]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, xC | ☎ 10:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

comment

Good to see you back. Can you make a wikipedia Commons page for Rani since she has no images on her main article as well as in her infobox. And the name KKHH should be there since it doesn't make it messy and keeps it organized just like KANK. And please ask someone to reverse the filmography chart so it's in chronological order. And we also need to expand on details soon. Thanks. - sheZ_15 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shez 15 (talk • contribs) 01:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

I'll have a look at the commons bit. About KKHH, we should use the full name of the movie in the infobox, for the sake of conformity. I see you've changed the style of the infobox, no problem, both ways works fine. If anyone raises objections, we can always work that out. The filmography bit is a bit tedious...copy-paste and re-arranging required... I'll get it to it asap, a bit busy off WP right now. Take carexC | ☎ 06:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits

• Her next release was B.R. Chopra's Baabul which celebrated the production house’s 50th year in cinema. Mukerji signed the movie upon her parents' request who wanted her to promote the reality of widows in India, an issue the movie dealt with.[34] The director initially wanted Manish Malhotra to design the outfits for the actress, but Mukerji insisted on Sabyasachi Mukherji. She was sceptical about the fact that Malhotra was already doing KANK and perhaps, the costumes might look similar as both movies were to release back to back. Interestingly, the saris became a trademark as her ethnic look in the movie earned many praises.[35][36] Later in 2007, one of Mukerji's sari in Baabul, designed by Sabyasachi Mukherjee, was auctioned off at a charity dinner. The proceeds went towards a home for girls who live on the Howrah platforms. Although much hyped, the movie did not do well at the box office in India[37] but proved to be a hit overseas.[38]

Some of this is un-encyclopedic and is definently not needed. What has B.R. Chopra's production house status got to do with Rani Mukerji, it does not belong in this article. The part that bothers me most is stuff on her fashion sense, that is un-encyclopedic and journo material. The director initially wanted Manish Malhotra to design the outfits for the actress, but Mukerji insisted on Sabyasachi Mukherji. She was sceptical about the fact that Malhotra was already doing KANK and perhaps, the costumes might look similar as both movies were to release back to back. Interestingly, the saris became a trademark as her ethnic look in the movie earned many praises -- This part is written as if someone knows her on a personal level. Stuff about her fashion flair is not needed in this article. I've read the sources which basically says she looks good in the sari's. That does not mean that they have become a trademark! There's no need for that -- Pa7 00:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Forget the trademark. We can just say appreciated. But what about her insistence on keeping Sabyassachi. I think it's necessary. She kicked out Manish. No actress does that. It's a director's film and he can hire whoever he wants. But this comes to show how important Rani's decisions are when it comes to films. She can keep people in a film or kick them out. It shows command. Plus, the fashion part is needed in this movie since the movie had 5 top designers for it, a rare occurence. I'm just asking you to re-word it so as to not make it as if someone knew her on a personal level when writing it. But you're just keen on deleting every single fact. Career as per Hollywood articles include the minutest details. Why not in Bollywood? And it's not like her fashion sense is talked about for every film. Just re-word it and make it shorter. The fact that her parents requested her to sign the movie is very much needed since it shows how her parents are important in her life. She's an adult but she still listens to them. Thanks. - shez_15

Wikipedia:Peer review/Rani Mukherjee

There have been recent suggestions by an editor on the page Wikipedia:Peer review/Rani Mukherjee/archive1. These should be considered as community feedback and incorporated into the article. I'll be going as per the suggestions, and posting notes on the talk page for any substantial changes. Regards,xC | ☎ 07:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I would like to request all editors to please stop naming references unneccessarily. With this edit I had to remove 21 unneccessary names. Please note that refs only need to be named if the same reference is being used multiple times within the article. If not, then <ref>[Details]</ref> is sufficient, there is no need to name every single ref. Thanks,xC | ☎ 07:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Great job!

Xc, you've done a great job. Thanks. We better start the Commons page soon. Or have small pics throughout the page like Hilary Duff or Lindsay Lohan's page. - shez_15 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shez 15 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the kind words Shez. Yes, the article does need pictures... I've gone nuts looking for free images. If anyone can find snapshots from her movies, we can use those in tandem with critical commentary for her role. For everything else, we're gonna need free images only... sigh thesearch continues...xC | ☎ 05:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

What about the snapshot from the Veer-Zaara page? That's the only one I can think of as of yet. - shez_15

BO Impact?

As of 2006, her total box office impact is worth well over Rs. 5 billion.

The given reference for this offers no statement saying this. Whichever editor put this in - did you total this yourself? Or is the ref misplaced?xC | ☎ 05:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Shez put this. I think you should look with more observation. you can see in the table in the very end Total Box Office Impact'. Best Regards, --Shshshsh 14:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thank you Shshshsh. I saw that at the end, I still brought this up, because there are two things wrong with that listing. One, it is incomplete, only 33 movies are shown there whereas her filmography in the article lists more. Secondly, Hey Ram is noted having a gross of zero.

Also, a lot of the films there have grosses which been calculated based on partial collections. Therefore, it is speculation as to what their total collection was.

I'll be looking for other refs instead of this and update the article. Happy editing,xC | ☎ 15:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I know. Hey Ram has been totalled zero. And Veer-Zaara is not included in her filmography which should elevate her net to 6 billion. That's why I wrote well over instead of is 5 billion. - User:shez_15

Exactly, the numbers are definitely off. Thats why I've left in the sentence as is right now, since it would be 5 billion at the least (as stated in the ref) but I'm reasonably sure its more than that... Still looking around for refs, haven't found anything conclusive. Each site seems to have slight differences, and the numbers vary... Lets keep looking, we'll find something eventually. xC | ☎ 05:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)