Jump to content

Talk:Shriya Saran/GA2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Xavier449 (talk) 15:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'll be reviewing this article. The article has quite a bit of contents to qualify as a Good article. My primary concerns here are the sources used. I would like a detailed discussion on why these sources should be considered reliable. Please do not take this in a negative manner. It is quite possible that the sources may be reliable. It's only that I may not know about the quality of the sources. I'll list the sources below which may require review.

These guidelines may serve as a reference.

When in doubt, please do not hesitate to clarify at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Xavier449 (talk) 15:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • IndiaGlitz
  • Andhra Cafe
  • IdleBrain
  • Andhrakaburlu.
  • Upperstall.Com.
  • Cinegoer.com
  • Kollytalk.com
  • Bollywood.allindiansite.com.
  • Nowrunning.com.
  • Indiglamour.com.
  • Radiosargam
  • KeralaDaily
  • Behinwoods.com


Comment: Yes, some of those sources have concerned me as well. Especially that Idlebrain one. IndiaGlitz however, is a reliable source. Google considers it a news source. - Amog | Talk • contribs 16:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guess IndiaGlitz has been challenged a few times. - Amog | Talk • contribs 16:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Amog. I don't think we need to consider a source reliable just because it appears in Google News. You can check Wikipedia:Google searches and numbers#Not all websites are reliable sources. I'll quote the relevant statement for you, "The best way to find actual reliable sources is not via a plain Google search, but with Google News, Books, and Scholar. Even so, this does not mean any number renders notability or that all sources found in the search are reliable either for that article or for any article. Still, sources meeting the criteria are easier to find this way." Yes Google News is a far better than a raw Google search, but still sources there need to be evaluated as per our Wikipolicies. Google News is supposed to include "raw" news which can include corporate press releases, citizen journalism, blogs, off-the-beaten-path political sources, and so on. A lot of these cannot be considered reliable for Wikipedia. You can check a similar discussion Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 38#Google News Archive and advertisements on the RSN. I have also initiated a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Are news sources within Google News always reliable?. I would request you to participate. Xavier449 (talk) 17:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My assertion that it is reliable has been withdrawn, as you can see. I agree that a news result isn't good enough to be considered a RS - Amog | Talk • contribs 17:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Think after checking Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Are news sources within Google News always reliable?, its certainly clear that IndiaGlitz is not reliable just because it appears in Google News. I checked the Site. It doesn't have an "About Us" page. We have absolutely no idea who runs it, where is it headquatered, who are the journalists, how do they get their data. The site is also not covered anywhere in the media. How do we know this site is reliable? Please correct me if I am wrong. Xavier449 (talk) 18:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No argument from me. - Amog | Talk • contribs 06:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: So what must happen here? If we cannot or will not prove the reliability, then I suppose we have to replace all of the citations from these sources with some from more well respected sources, or remove the content, correct? I see that the main contributor to the article User:Pravinraj has not made an appearance here yet to defend his choices; I myself just noticed this review page today. BollyJeff || talk 20:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Such magnanimous changes are strongly discouraged during a GA review. During a GA review, an article is expected to be prepared for GAN and satisfy the good article criteria. However, assuming good faith, if this is possible by approximately next week, then please go ahead. Xavier449 (talk) 13:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Am I mistaken, or are many of these references not even needed at all? You don't need a ref to say that a film was released, or that someone starred in it if the film article itself exists, do you? I think that many of the offending sources are redundant and can be removed, and those that are needed should be replaced with better ones. Two gossip mags that are used a lot and seem to be respected are bollywoodhungama.com and planetbollywood.com Other than that, sites often used in Inidan GAs are:

  • hindu
  • hindustantimes
  • rediff
  • tribuneindia
  • indiatimes or timesofindia
  • boxofficeindia

BollyJeff || talk 13:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please go ahead and hone the article. Xavier449 (talk) 13:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The references seems a bit of overkill. You dont need 5 references to state that Sivaji was a commercial success when the article on the movie can verify that fact. Also idlebrain.com also seems like a doubtful source. [1]- Nayvik (talk) 14:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, you don't need 5, but definitely 1. Xavier449 (talk) 14:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I eliminated about 30 of the questionable sources, and replaced some where needed. There are still a few there that could not easily be replaced though. I got rid of most of the idlebrain, but I think the interview should be kept because it is exclusive info and quotes from her are used. Most of the cinegoer and the others are gone now. There is still some indiaglitz there, but I have seen it used on other GA articles. BollyJeff || talk 13:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As per Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches#Responding to queries about reliable sources, "Saying "It's used in 15 other featured articles": OtherStuffExists isn't a valid argument." The same argument here, saying its seen in other GA articles won't help. Reviewers need to know what sort of reputation for accuracy, fact checking and editorial oversight the website has. Could you establish IndiaGlitz's reliability. I would still discourage using the self-published idlebrain for Shriya's interview, for the fear of running fabricated interviews with identifiable celebrities. Xavier449 (talk) 14:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then I am going to need another day to weed out that content. There don't seem to be many reliable sources for non-Hindi Indian movie content.BollyJeff || talk 15:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, they are all gone, except for a couple refs for award shows that don't have their own working site. I don't think they would lie about who won. It seems a shame to lose all that content. Over 40 references gone. BollyJeff || talk 02:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, the sources remaining seem to be reliable. Behindwoods, Sify, Rediff and Indiaglitz.com are not gossip sites - and the remaining Idlebrain links aren't gossip-related but relate to the coverage of events. Would you say this problem is over? Universal Hero (talk) 18:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do no include Sify, Rediff into the category of IndiaGlitz and Behindwoods. Sify and Rediff are well known media portals. IndiaGlitz is not. I don't mind such low-quality sources being used for coverage of events; however contentious claims, profesional reviews need reliable source. IndiaGlitz will definitely not work for professional reviews. The article has so drastically been revamped that I have started to beleive that some contentious claims are not cited at all. Xavier449 (talk) 15:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll start the content review and list the issues. Xavier449 (talk) 15:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Content review

[edit]
Lead
  • If she is so well known for philantrophy, then I think the lead needs to include some mention of her work there.
  • Details about the poll needs to be rementioned in the article. Normally, the Lead should never contain material which doesn't appear again in the body of the article.
Done
Early life and family
  • Shriya Saran was born in Dehradun - The cited source says she was born in Haridwar. Can you explain this.
Could be that its Dehradun district, which includes Haridwar? Could be that hindu.com is also not always reliable? No source is always reliable. Whenever I read in my local newspaper a story that I am familiar with, there is almost always a mistake. I am trying to find a backup source.
Done; removed Hindu article with mistake
  • Could you spell out abbreviations such as B.A degree. Many may not know it means "Bachelor of Arts"
Done
  • and later became a Bharata Natyam and Kuchipudi dancer as well. - uncited text. Could you cite it.
nope; gone.
Career
I believe that a lot of this section came from the following article on ndtv.com, which is 30 pages long in all: [2]. Is NDTV reliable enough to be used over and over as a source? Does it make sense to do so? Would the article then be relying too heavily on one source? Does anyone else care? I just started this as a favor to another editor; never even saw Shriya before. BollyJeff || talk 01:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From what I know, NDTV is reliable enough. I realize that you're editing an article about a subject you don't know about, and you're doing an admirable job of it. Thank you for your efforts - Amog | Talk • contribs 07:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NDTV is undoubtedly reliable. You can proceed. Xavier449 (talk) 14:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well it has mistakes too; look at page 13; says she won filmfare award which is not true. All other sites say it was a nomination. WP article says winner was Trisha Krishnan. Of course, that's not cited either. NOTHING IS RELIABLE!!!!! I am throwing in the towel. There is no way to get an article about a minor South Indian actor to English Wikipedia GA standards due to lack of credible sources. BollyJeff || talk 01:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I'll have to agree with you. Too much of an uphill task - Amog | Talk • contribs 05:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and welcome to the wonderful world of Indian Journalism! - Amog | Talk • contribs 09:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and removed everything not properly cited. I think its clean now. What say you, Xavier449? BollyJeff || talk 22:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Early career (2001-2003)
  • The video—shot at Banaras prompted Ramoji Films to offer her the lead role of Neha in their film Ishtam starring and directed by newcomers. - Such claims need to be cited.
Done
Done
  • Ishtam saw her receive positive reviews even though the film didn't fare well at the box office, and got her noticed by many Telugu producers and directors. - The self-published IdleBrain cannot be treated reliable for professional movie reviews. Secondly, claims such as "the film didn't fare well at the box office," and "got her noticed by many Telugu producers and directors." needs citations.
  • " The film garnered poor box office returns and failed to propel her career in Bollywood, after which she re-focused herself on South Indian films." - All claims here need to be cited. Seems like original research to me.
  • "The A. R. Rahman musical became a moderate success at the box-office, failing to gain her more projects in Tamil." - Again, citation required.
Ups and downs (2004-2007)

Please note all statements claiming "the movie was a box-office success", "received an overwhelming response", "became one of the biggest hits in her career" need to be well cited.

  • After a fairly quiet 2004, Saran had ten 2005 releases, nine of which were Telugu films. Balu ABCDEFG opposite Pawan Kalyan, an average grosser in India, was the first Telugu film to be released in South Africa after 40 years and received an overwhelming response. - Cittaion needed
  • After her next four Telugu films were average at box office, her film Chatrapati opposite Prabhas, became one of the biggest hits in her career, earning her first nomination for the Filmfare Best Telugu Actress Award - Citation required.
Cannot find citation for the nominations - similar article GA Genelia D'Souza has 5 listed nominations and not a single citation.
And the right place to raise such concerns is Talk:Genelia D'Souza, not here. Anyway, I had asked the citation for "became one of the biggest hits in her career", not for the nomination. Xavier449 (talk) 15:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Recent work (2008-present)

The film was a hit at the box office - Are you sure Mission Istanbul was a hit

done
  • Could you please remove the unnecessary sub-section "Obscenity charges"
why? another editor said without any negatives, it looks like a fan page
Thanks. It has already been done. What I meant, only the section Controversies is sufficient. The sub-section is not required. Xavier449 (talk) 14:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you format Reference 4 like add proper page numbers (International Business. p. Aswathappa.)
done

Second opinion requested

[edit]

I have requested another reviewer for a second opinion. While there are no more reliability issues now, but I beleive that the article is no longer broad in its coverage, after the edits. My main concerns are:

  • Broadness issues: Her Career section doesn't establish herself as an actress. Most of the the section just mentions "She has acted in this movie; or the movie was successful." I think more professional movie reviews from reputed organizations are required, atleast for some of her superhits like Sivaji, Kanthaswamy, Pokkiri Raja. The Career section is too. short according to me. I am unsure whether it meets GA criteria; that's the reason I have requested for input from a subject expert. Thanks. Xavier449 (talk) 07:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've given this a look and the flaws as Xavier says are immediately obvious to me. Whilst the early life/other work sections, although rather sugary, are comprehensive enough for a GA, the career section is weak. Good articles are supposed to have some degree of comprehension and some chunky paragraphs of an actor's career which include a critical commentary from critics, occasionally background plot info, more analysis of their roles and characters and the way they were received by critics. The career section equates to little more than "She has acted in this movie; or the movie was successful." as Xavier has said. Excellent observations Xavier. One line paragraphs aren't GA standard I'm afraid. If the career section was expanded fully to incorporate all of these points it would be just about there I think. But I'm also not convinced that she is much of a philantrophist, it is also extremely common for Indian actors to have endorsements for fashion companies/beauty products and other products and equally as common for actors to at least do something towards charity, but I'll accept that she has done some notable good work for the blind. I'd recommend that the career section undergoes a hearty expansion and then it can be reproposed. Regards.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Dr. Blofeld. The career section is very weak. We need some quotes or comments about her acting from well-known critics or publishers. Also, some details about her role in the movie needs to be mentioned. Xavier449 (talk) 09:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Final analysis - Fail

[edit]
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    Not much concerns here. Xavier449 (talk) 09:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    After the first phase of the review, reliability issues have been resolved. Xavier449 (talk) 09:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    A big fail here as per above. We need atleast some critical commentary from critics about her acting, her role in the movie, etc.. as per User:Dr. Blofeld and me. Xavier449 (talk) 09:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    Fine here.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    I don't think so. I checked the talk. There, User:Pravinraj complains that he was not satisfied with the massive edits made. I think there was a lack of consensus on the edit. Was there a dispute? If there was a ongoing unresolved dispute, how can it be stable?
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    File:Leadactors sivaji.png doesn't satisfy Non-free media use rationale. We don't use movie screenshots for actresses. Movie screenshots can only be used for movie articles in question. Xavier449 (talk) 09:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
At this point of time, the article is not ready for a GAN. If you disagree with my decision not to list this article as GA, then please feel free to request further opinions at WP:GAR. Expanding the career section, adding commentary from well known critics will surely take it closer to GA. I suggest referring Category:FA-Class biography (actors and filmmakers) articles, Category:A-Class biography (actors and filmmakers) articles and Category:GA-Class biography (actors and filmmakers) articles Let me know in case of any concerns or doubts. Good luck, and I hope to see this article back at GAN very soon. Xavier449 (talk) 09:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • Was it really a copy edit. The Wikipedia article on copy edit says, "Copy editing, also written as copy-editing or copyediting, is the work that an editor does to improve the formatting, style and accuracy of text. Unlike general editing, copy editing often does not involve changing the substance of the text." You had made significant changes to the article, like removing text, etc...You had made changes to the substance of the article. Though definitely good faith edits, but not copy-edits. Those were general edits and massive. Such major edits often require discussions and consensus.
  • Wikipedia:Stable versions (though inactive) says, "Stable articles are not final, but rather indicate a consensus that a particular version of an article meets a standard as judged by those marking it as stable." I can't find where Pravinraj, who happens to be a significant contributor to the article, has agreed. If he has, then the article is stable. If he hasn't, I doubt it's stable as per the policy. Youe Wikileaks article is an example of gigantic unstability. Xavier449 (talk) 10:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mea Culpa. Perhaps it can't be labelled a copyedit. Nonetheless, the fact that pravinraj did not refute the replies to his complaint, and continued to edit the article without reverting the edit can be taken as acquiescence. Note that pravinraj has had no problems with reverting changes to the article in the past. - Amog | Talk • contribs 11:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NFCC#8 states, "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." And look at the related sentence in the Shriya Saran article, "In 2007, she beat other top actresses for the much coveted role opposite Rajinikanth in S. Shankar's Sivaji: The Boss, which was the most expensive Indian film at that time." Have you mentioned anything about her acting, her role, in this article. To make this image satisfy Fair usage criteria, you need to expand details about her acting in the movie in the Career section. Only then will it satisfy WP:NFCC#8. Currently, it violates it. In other FAs, if they have included movie screenshots, then they have even mentioned details about their acting in the movies. Xavier449 (talk) 11:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then the problem is that there isn't enough text there. Not the presence of the image itself, as you say in your review. - Amog | Talk • contribs 11:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A tricky question. A very recent FFD discussion Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 November 4#File:Deol95.jpg might shed some light on this, where it was argued that this image violates NFCC in the Bobby Deol article, but satisfies in the Barsaat movie article. Be wary of consensus anyway on this in the future. Dunno when it might deceive you. Xavier449 (talk) 11:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Perhaps NFCC#8 is a little flawed in these cases. Removing the image here is not detrimental to understanding at all. Nor does the image contribute significantly to it either. It still makes the FA what it is. Sometimes, you just have to IAR - Amog | Talk • contribs 11:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at this version from before we got involved with it. It was much bigger, with lots of plot information about her films. We thought that this was not necessary, as the plots are in the film articles themselves. It also had plenty critical reviews of her acting and the films, and the success or failure of the films. However you deemed all of those sources to be unreliable, so they were removed. What else can be said beside "she acted in movies x and y" with no usable sources? Apparently a GA just cannot happen for this kind of person. If it can, I would like to know how. Would you prefer that I revert back to this older version? I know that some editors would like that, and that is probably where the article it will be heading over time anyway with out a good endorsement from this review. BollyJeff || talk 14:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, plot of all films need not to be mentioned. However, striking professional reviews (both +ve and -ve) by critics/organizations definitely need to be mentioned. You need to mention some quotes on how critics have received her acting. Importantly, the organizations need to be reputed and reliable like The Hindu, The Times of India, Rediff, Sify, NDTV, etc...Most of the reviews were from IndiaGlitz and Idlebrain, whose reliability cannot be ascertained. Even some of her notable roles need to be mentioned. Occasionally, even some of the movie plots need to be mentioned, especially if some of the movies carry a strong social message, or have won the The Best Film Award, or The Best Story Award. Everything is decided by Reliable sources. Additionally, there may be some unwritten expectations. I think Dr. Blofeld, an expert on such topics, has clarified this above. Xavier449 (talk) 15:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About her acting commentary from critics, I had already had it on Shriya's article from prominent website such as Rediff ans Sify but its either Amog or Bollyjeff has delete it and just simply had critically acclaimed, when i refer to them they said its ok!! So some of my hardwork has spoilt by the people!! (Pravinraj (talk) 05:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Then you are free to revert the article back to what it was. All it takes is two clicks - Amog | Talk • contribs 06:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now you show up after its failed, again! We sure could have used your help the last couple weeks. You tried it your way, and we tried it ours. The result was the same, fail. If you think the article was better back then, put it back, I don't care. Just know that it will never be GA unless you follow these guys recommendations exactly, and with good English grammar. But who cares anyway, not all articles have to be GA. It was way more informative before, even if it wasn't completely verifiable. BollyJeff || talk 13:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shriya_Saran/GA2&oldid=1069393955"