Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kareena Kapoor Khan/archive3

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 list was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC) [1].

---

Kareena Kapoor

Kareena Kapoor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Kareena Kapoor/archive1
• Featured article candidates/Kareena Kapoor/archive2
• Featured article candidates/Kareena Kapoor/archive3

Kareena Kapoor Khan is an Indian actress who appears in Bollywood films. In July 2008, the article reached a GA status, and subsequently went on to have an unsuccessful FAC. Since then, a lot of hard work has gone into improving the article and bringing it to the place it is today. Now, I think it meets the FA criteria. Please leave your comments, and I'll be more than happy to address any of them. -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 02:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Quick comments

TIs is mostly mostly very good, but a few quibbles.

• Rs. 840 million—please use lakhs and crores, else Indians like me will need to do some mental math to understand. Non-Indians have the millions of dollars right next to it anyway.

Done

• since we have an abundance of free photos, why not use more? Around one for every sub-section would be nice. Try to add relevant captions, like about her "trademark" lips in Pubic image section.

To be honest, adding "around one [image] for every sub-section" would unnecessarily increase the size of the article; I've only added images that help contribute to the article in some way. For example, the image of Kapoor with her mother and sister in the "Early life and background" section shows that the two women have played pivotal roles in her life. And this has been confirmed by Kapoor in several of her interviews. (I've added a new image in the "Public image and character" section discussing her trademark lips.)

• surprised there's no mention of her size zero and the ensuing controversy.

There wasn't really a so-called "controversy" about size zero. A lot was written about it by the media but other than that nothing much. Maybe we could say something like: "Kapoor's off-screen life has been subject to wide media coverage in India with frequent press coverage of her weight and diet."

• "would show more a more thoughtful"—huh?

I took that from the source without realizing the mistake they made. Fixed it.

• golden-hearted prostitute—I've heard of a hooker with a heart of gold, but is golden-hearted prostitute a common/acceptable phrase?

The description of her character in Chameli is taken from here; it is pretty much the same thing as "hooker with a heart of gold".

• subject of considerable critical analysis—source doesn't back this, and only talks of intense tabloid interest.

The source states: "While her choice of movies continues to range from interesting to objectionable, Kareena has mastered the art of balancing blockbusters with bloopers". In a way, it is critically analysed, but I'll try finding another source. (A new source was added as well as another one which already exists within the article.)

• total film count? Worth adding in the lead?
• over linking—villain, leading lady, Bangladeshi, Netherlands etc. please review throughout, and just these.

IMO, I really don't think we need to add her total film count; the same might apply to the over linking part. I agree that some of the terms like 'leading lady' or 'villain' do not need to be linked but others like 'Netherlands', etc do.

• Stage performances is just a smorgasbord of actors' names. I suggest removing all and replacing them with a "performing with several Bollywood contemporaries" to the first sentence.122.172.14.75 (talk) 04:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

We can't always say "performing with several Bollywood contemporaries"; it might get a bit too repetitive. As you can see that the section combines both (listing actors' names as well as several Bollywood stars).

Thank you for your comments. If possible I would recommend you to get a username—not only will this benefit me but you as well. -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 03:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments

Just a few initial comments now, more to come.

• In the lead, you should probably say "lesser-publicised independent films".

Done

• "Her melodrama Kabhi Khushi Kabhie Gham.... What do you mean by "her melodrama"?

Tweaked

• In the lead, Kabhi Khushi Kabhie Gham is mentioned as her "greatest" commercial success to date. I don't think "greatest" is the right word to use. Also, I don't see the point of mentioning that, because it was neither her first commercial success nor her biggest.

Tweaked. I agree that K3G wasn't her "first commercial success" but the reason why it is mentioned is because it was her first "worldwide" success. Also, prior to 3I, K3G was still her biggest success to date.

• The quote in the second line of the career section, "it was probably destined that I was not to be in the film. After all, it was a launch for his son. The whole focus was on the boy. Now I am glad I did not do the movie" would sound better if it were trimmed and written as part of the sentence.

Tweaked; removed the last part of the quote.

• In "...but these negative reviews motivated her to improve as an actress by accepting more demanding roles." can be changed to "...but these negative reviews motivated her to accept more demanding roles".

Done

• The sentence " The film depicts an online robbery and the Mumbai underworld in which her character, Neha Mehra, becomes involved." is confusing. What does she get involved in? The robbery or the underworld?

Tweaked

• "Omkara was embraced by critics...", not sure if "embraced" is the right word in this context for a dictionary.

Tweaked

• "Following Omkara Kapoor stopped acting for a short time.." does not sound right. How about "she took a short break" etc.

Done

• "She later described this period as a way of "finally getting to do the things I have always wanted to do"" Is this important? If yes, then it would be useful to elaborate on it. --smarojit ^{(buzz me)} 12:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Removed—now that I think of it, it was kind of redundant. -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 16:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

A few quick style comments Support

• I see very many hacked up modified quotes. For example:

"were never officially divorced ... [but] ... liv[ed] separately."

"[I]n the best performance of her career so far, [Kapoor] leads Mahi's character through the murky labyrinth of ambition, rivalry and self-destructive tricks of survival in the rat race. Though her character is inconsistent [she] furnishes ... [it] with a rare vulnerability and an exceptional inner life"

I think the second one is missing some ... before the [she], but why do this as opposed to either paraphrasing or quoting directly? It may look to the reader that you are trying to bend the quotes to your liking.

One of the main reasons why I "hacked up" quotes was because they were too long. I've made some adjustments (1st quote: Removing the modifications and sourcing it like a regular sentence; 2nd quote: Paraphrasing it and only quoting the last part.)

Good, but there are several others. Please scan the article for more places where the quotes can be simplified. BollyJeff | talk 16:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I've simplified wherever it's needed. Let me know if you have any more concerns! -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 02:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Here is one more: "[Despite having] the worst success ratio among her contemporaries [...] Kapoor is effortlessly honest in her performances". The first and second parts are 6 paragraphs apart (not necessarily related), and the first two words are yours. Looks like it could be a form of cherrypicking, original research, or synthesis. BollyJeff | talk 02:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Rewrote and tweaked it. -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 04:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• This article seems to have a more liberal use of parenthesis in the text in places where I normally see commas. Intentional?

While copy-editing the article, User:Miniapolis felt that using parentheses would break up long sentences and hopefully make them easier to follow. I thought that made sense! :) -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 16:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I also felt in some instances the parenthesis could be removed. Indeed I myself did so in one instance. Minniapolis is a very seasoned copy-editors, so I think we can stick to his/her suggestion unless someone objects.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Following the release of Heroine, Kapoor married Khan on 16 October 2012" There are some other Khans mentioned in this section, but not Saif Ali Khan (except in the heading). His name should definitely be spelled out fully in this spot.

Done -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 04:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• This may seem picky, but there are only 3 quotations that have the punctuation inside the quote vs around 40 that have it outside. According to the rules in MOS:LQ, it is likely that there should be more than just 3 of the former.

Done -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 04:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• All of the awards and nominations after 3 idiots are not covered by the source; I did not check the awards prior to that date. Maybe it is best not to rely on one source for all the awards. This link may help though: newer BH BollyJeff | talk 15:14, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

That was the old BH link and I didn't realize that it didn't cover the newer awards/nominations. I have used the newer BH link to source all her new awards/nominations. -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 02:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

More comments Support

The article is extremely interesting to read, but I am nitpicking on the prose, as it has to be of an excellent standard.

• "Kapoor was initially cast to make her debut" ... doesn't sound too encyclopedic. Also, the quote (as mentioned in the previous set of comments) still doesn't sound interesting. Maybe paraphrasing would help.

Tweaked. As for the quote, I've completely removed it and paraphrased it.

• In the description of Refugee, the part "known simply as Refugee" is redundant. Later, you can write "...girl who falls in love with Bachchan's character".

Done

• For Mujhe Kuch Kehna Hai, instead of writing " A review of her performance in The Hindu noted that " you can simply say "The Hindu noted that..."

Done

• In the first paragraph of the critical acclaim section, "However, when the director again approached her a year later she agreed to do the film; she now viewed it as an opportunity to demonstrate her acting range" can be changed to "However, when Mishra approached her for the second time, she agreed; she viewed it as an opportunity to demonstrate her acting range".

Done

• In the same paragraph there is a line that says "...study the dress and mannerisms of sex workers". What do you mean by "study the dress"?

Tweaked

• Same paragraph, "another reviewer". Who?

Tweaked

• A few paragraphs later, it should be "protagonist of the 2005 drama Bewafaa" and not "in ... Bewafaa".

Done

• The review by Nikhat Kazmi for Bewafaa has no quotation marks.

That's because we have paraphrased the quote and hence it doesn't require quotation marks.

• Last line of the same paragraph, " Kapoor's performance was generally enjoyed by critics". Replace "enjoyed" with "well received".

Done

• In the next paragraph, what do you mean by "portrayed the Desdemona character"?

Tweaked

• " It premiered at the 2006 Cannes Film Festival, and was also selected for screening at the Cairo International Film Festival" ==> " It premiered at the 2006 Cannes Film Festival, and was screened at the Cairo International Film Festival".

Done

• "While shooting Jab We Met, Kapoor and Shahid ended their three-year relationship". Change to "While filming for Jab We..... three-year long relationship"

Done

• "During this period, speculation began to surface that she was dating actor Saif Ali Khan" ==> "During this period, there was speculation in the media that she was dating...".

Done

• A paragraph later, "Set in Los Angeles, it was the first Indian film in history to be shot at Universal Studios and featured cameo appearances by Hollywood actors". The "in history" is redundant here.

Done

• Same paragraph, "... a woman under house arrest after discovering her husband is a terrorist". Sounds confusing. Needs to be re-worded.

Tweaked

• Next paragraph, "On acting with Khan, Kapoor revealed that it was "a dream come true" and stated that her journey as an actress was "finally complete"". This sounds like a fan gushing about a star. I don't see any point in including this.

Removed; you do make a valid point.

• "Kapoor had further success in 2011 as love interest for Salman Khan in the romantic drama Bodyguard". Missing "the" before love interest. And should be "...of Salman Khan's character"

Done

• Same paragraph. What do you mean by the "most popular film of the year"? Unclear.

It means that it was the highest-grossing film of the year in India. If you take a look at the article, it always says "highest-grossing", "one of the highest-grossing", etc. To change it up a bit, I decided to use the "most popular film of the year".

I understand that you did that to avoid being monotonous. But the term "popular" is vague. How and with whom was it popular? --smarojit ^{(buzz me)} 06:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Tweaked; now says India's highest-earning film of the year. -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 01:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• The "2012-present" section begins with "she followed it". As it is the beginning of a new section, drop the "she" and change the line.

Done

• "Witty young woman" has been used to describe her character in both Yuva and Ek Main Aur Ekk Tu. Can be modified.

Done

• The revenue of Ek Main Aur Ekk Tu is unsourced.

I'm unable to find the source that I originally used from BOI for its revenue. However, I found a new source and have modified it to that.

• "Heroine, a drama revolving around the Bollywood film industry through Kapoor's viewpoint as Mahi Arora, a faded star." Not a good sentence. How about "...the Bollywood film industry; Kapoor was cast as Mahi Arora, a fading star". Or maybe something better.

Tweaked

• "Kapoor will focus on familiarizing herself with up-to-date global affair issues and watching several news documentaries" ==> "Kapoor will familiarise herself with the latest global affairs and watch several news documentaries".

Done

As of now, that's about it. --smarojit ^{(buzz me)} 17:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind works Smaro! I really appreciate you taking the time in giving me your inputs! :) -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 23:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment on footnote style There are discrepancies. I see in some newspaper sources, you have mentioned the name of the publisher, while in others you have not. The name of publisher should be present either in all newspaper footnotes, or none (obviously mentioning in none is the easier option). Rediff.com, a website, has not been italicised, but indiatimes, another website, has been italicised (I think most of the websites are not in italics, which is a god style to follow consistently). CNN-IBN, a V channel, should not be italicised. I think Mid Day name should not use the particular style (MiD DAY) of its logo, just mention as Mid Day.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I did list the publishers for all newspaper sources befores but User:Legolas2186 mentioned that it wasn't important to add well-known publishers for some newspaper sources. In the case of websites, they shouldn't be italicised; Rediff.com is a website; the reason why I italicised Indiatimes was because I thought it was a newspaper. -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 01:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Text_formatting#Italic_face, websites may or may not be italicised, and magzine websites are usually italicised. However, what I have seen so far is it is more important to maintain consistency within a given article. Regarding publishers, again, consistency within a given article is more important, since publisher parameter is optional. In the FARC of Kolkata, SandyGeorgia pointed out this. Thi apies for location as well. Also, "well-known"ness may differ among readers. So, consistency is perhaps more important.--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Done. To maintain consistency: a) Rm the publisher parameter for all newspaper sources, b) Left all websites non-italicised, and c) All magazine websites/journals are italicised. -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 03:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Support as a contributor to the article. I've long believed it is FA standard and seems to have been improved further. I'd use File:Kapoor at Gitanjali launch2.jpg as the main image though.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Random spotchecking

• Sentence "According to Kapoor, the name "Kareena" was derived from the book Anna Karenina, which her mother read while she was pregnant with her." Source [2] verifies this; however, source does not indicate this was said by Kareena herself. Also, the sentence seems a copy-paste from the source, it needs to be tweaked.

Replaced back to the original source where Kapoor (herself) says that her name was derived from the book Anna Karenina. -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 20:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• "...on her mother's side she is Sindhi". Source verifies.

• "... inspired by the films of Bollywood actresses Nargis and Meena Kumari.". Source verifies.

• "her mother, who worked at several jobs to support her daughters until Karisma debuted..." Source says, "Mum was always doing something, she single-handedly brought us up. She has a real estate business apart from other small businesses.". I would accept that.

• "...she studied commerce for two years at Mithibai College in Vile Parle (Mumbai), but later confessed that she only studied there because it was close to her family." Source verifies. The word "home' is probably better than 'family" in this case.

Done -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 20:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• "...Several days into the filming, however, she abandoned the project; Kapoor later explained that she had benefited by not doing the film since more prominence was given to the director's son". source verifies this.

Will continue later.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Continuing random spotchecks

• Taran Adarsh quote n Refugee. Source checks out.

• "...drama Mujhe Kucch Kehna Hai, which became one of the highest-earning films of the year." Source lists the film at 9th position in 25 top-earners. So, although the statement in article is true, perhaps some softer statement would be more suitable, such as ,"...became a hit'.

Tweaked -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 21:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• "... with some critics noting a distinct progression from her earlier roles.' (Regarding Fida). Source checks out.

• "...the BBC describing her as "a pure natural". Source checks out.

• "While shooting for Jab We Met, Kapoor and Shahid ended their three-year relationship." Source checks out.

• "...the tantalisingly seductive prostitute, Rosie...". Copied from here. However, it is just a few words, so could be acceptable. At best, this can be put within a quotation, and attributed to the source.

Sourced -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 21:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Talaash eventually emerged as an international success with revenues of 174 crore (US$31.67 million)". Source checks out.

• "...she would be launching her own line of clothing, becoming the first Indian actress to do so" Source checks out.

• "... the book was well received by critics selling 10,000 copies within its first twenty days" the numbers are verified. Well-received by the critics may be acceptable, too.

• "... Kapoor has gained a reputation for discussing her public and private life with no reservations". this source verifies.

So does the other source which is also used to support that claim. -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 21:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Her personality has been open to debate and criticism" Source verifies in detail.

• "she later explained that her honesty and openness was often perceived by the media as arrogance." In the source, she mentions her honesty and openness, but I failed to see that she mentioned her straightforwardness is perceived as arrogance by media.

She explains: "Misquotes and misunderstandings were unfortunate consequences of my attitude, especially when I first entered the film industry [...] But it was a case of forthrightness being misunderstood for a cheeky attitude". -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 21:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Kapoor was recognized for her versatility" Sources verify.

So, overall, spotchecks seem to reveal consistent verification, with only minor problem in a very few instances. Copyvio check by this tool revealed statistically insignificant problem. So far, so good.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Support - A few issues with mechanics and style as pointed out above - but once these are resolved I would support it as an FA. I would take heed of Dwai's comments - as usual they are right on target. Great job all. -Classicfilms (talk) 15:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments on lead

• " During her career Kapoor has been noted for her performances in a range of film genres, from contemporary romantic dramas to comedies, period films to major Bollywood productions and lesser-publicisedindependent films". I am not sure if this sentence is a good sentence. I tend to prefer "During her career Kapoor has been noted for her performances in a range of film genres, from contemporary romantic dramas, comedies, period films to major Bollywood productions and lesser-publicisedindependent films." (the to has been removed). Again, I am not sure about this. Any comment from anyone else?

• "Kapoor faced the media spotlight at a young age but did not make her acting debut until the 2000 film Refugee.". This construction also does not sound very good, the "but did not make" part. So, althogh the family had actors, is she supposed to debut at an earlier age? Plus, the overall negative construction does not sound too good.

• "In addition to film acting, Kapoor is a stage performer and has launched her own clothing line (in association with retail chain Globus). She is known for being publicly outspoken and assertive, and is recognized for her contributions to the film industry though her fashion style and film roles (both of which have made her a trend-setter for young women).". Do we really need those parentheses?--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I've made some adjustments to the lead including the ones you pointed out Dwaipayanc. Let me know what you think! -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 02:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• one more comment on the lead. The lead says, " Kapoor received media attention from a young age.". But the early life section does not mention the media attention that she got from a young age. I think this needs to be changed in the lead. may be, "...exposed to films from a young age" or something like this? This fits with her being born in the filmy family. --Dwaipayan (talk) 02:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the early life section does not mention the media attention; it is just intended to show how she became interested in acting. However, as a child she used to attend award ceremonies with her family and would also accompany her sister on-set during filming (mentioned in the public image section) - this introduced her to the media from a young age. -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 04:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so according to your explanation here, Kapoor was introduced to the media (films, awards etc) world at a young age; but that does not mean media was attentive of her when she was young. So, the article still does not mention that she received media attention from a young age. Either that needs to be changed in the lead, or, info on media's attention/coverage of a young Kareena should be added.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I've removed the bit about her receiving media attention from a young age. -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 20:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Support Since I copyedited the article in September 2012 it's not my place to assess the prose, but I believe this article meets WP:FA Criteria; it's comprehensive, well-sourced, neutral, stable and properly formatted. Images have alt text and acceptable copyright status. It may be a bit too long for its subject, but that's a judgment call. Miniapolis 02:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments: This is very well written and well sourced. I'm no expert in Bollywood, but have read a few arts biographies, so here goes. I have a few thoughts about the prose, some nit-picky.

• A colon over a semicolon works better here: "During her career, Kapoor has received six Filmfare Awards and has been noted for her performances in a range of film genres; from contemporary romantic dramas, comedies, period films to major Bollywood productions and lesser-publicised independent films."

Done

• "Born into a family where her parents, Randhir Kapoor and Babita, and elder sister Karisma were actors, Kapoor faced the media spotlight at a young age..." – (1) "where" should be "in which". Not a spatial relationship. (20 "faced the media spotlight" seems like a colloquial expression. Try something plain and formal, like "received media attention".

Done

There's a problem with the current sentence—"Born into a family in which her parents, Randhir Kapoor and Babita, and elder sister Karisma were actors, Kapoor's career began with the 2000 war drama Refugee."—it makes it seem that her career was what was born into the family, not her herself. That, and that the two ideas are very loosely relation, thus lacking strong coherence. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 20:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Taking into account the suggestions you made, I decided to re-write the lead. Please let me know what you think! -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 03:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• One general issue from reading the lead I've found is the odd logical flow. Connect only related ideas using conjunctions. As a result, I find these sentences awkward:

• "Her film career began with the 2000 war drama Refugee and she subsequently featured in the melodrama Kabhi Khushi Kabhie Gham..., which became India's highest-grossing film in the overseas market in 2001 and one of her biggest commercial successes to date." – the way of connecting the inital idea with the subsequent one with "and she" is odd sounding. I think we may need to break this up with a semicolon: "Her film career began with the 2000 war drama Refugee, after which she featured in the melodrama Kabhi Khushi Kabhie Gham...; the latter was India's highest-grossing film in the overseas market in 2001 and one of Kapoor's biggest commercial successes to date." Also note that I changed that I changed "became" to "was"; otherwise, the we could interpret that the film was India's highest-grossing one from 2001 until today, but it was only that in 2001.

Done

• "Her portrayal of a sex worker in Chameli (2004) proved to be the turning point in her career, and she was later noted for her performances in the critically acclaimed films Dev (2004) and Omkara (2006)." – Likewise regarding "and she". It's poor idea integration IMO. This would seem better as one, single, flowing idea. So try something like this: "She portrayed a sex worker in Chameli (2004), which proved to be the turning point in her career, and was noted for her performances in the critically acclaimed films Dev (2004) and Omkara (2006)." And since this sentence now begins with "She", the subsequent one cannot, so "Kapoor" probably.

Done

• "Her parents reconciled in October 2007[12] and Kapoor explained that they were never officially divorced but lived separately." – more related ideas, but the conjunction doesn't flow well. Just break it up with a semicolon.

Done

• There's also a bit of borderline weasel wording, as we aren't told who makes assertions such as, "She is known for being publicly outspoken and assertive, and is recognized for her contributions to the film industry though her fashion style and film roles both of which have made her a trend-setter for young women." Anything simple to not make these ideas seem so vague. By whom? Critics, authors, the public, heck fans?

Reworded; it now says "She is known in the Indian media for being publicly outspoken and assertive...". I've left the rest of the sentence the way it is. Let me know what you think!

Much better. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 12:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• I've found the "went on to [verb]" wording a little fluffy and never understood why it couldn't simply be written as the infinitive conjugated in past tense. So instead of "went on to play", why not just "played"?

Done

• "Since 2007, Kapoor has been in a relationship with actor Saif Ali Khan whom she married in October 2012." – need a comma after "Khan", since it's a nonrestrictive clause.

Done

• As a general note, I like the lead: it's concise, solid and clear, and just what's expected from an overview.
• A few obvious ideas, such as "Born in Mumbai, India, on 21 September 1980 into the Kapoor film family, Kapoor is the younger daughter of actors Randhir Kapoor and Babita (née Shivdasani)". Of course she's born into the Kapoor family! If you want to say she was born into a film family, just say "a film family". It's less repetitious too.

Done

• I'm not sure how it is done in Indian English, so forgive my ignorance, but I thought "grand-daughter" and "film-maker" had no hyphens and were altogether single words. They might be interchangeable, so I'm not sure.

Initially, I had it spelled as "granddaughter" and "filmmaker"; however, spell check on my computer stated that it was incorrect. TBH, I don't even know what the correct spelling is.

If it's the wiki spell checker, it is bad. It seems to have rather limited vocabulary and doesn't accommodate for other dialects. I'm sure the way you had it spelled is correct. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 12:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Changed it back to granddaughter and filmmaker. -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 03:43, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• "After her parents' separation she was raised in Lokhandwala by her mother, who worked at several jobs to support her daughters until Karisma debuted as an actress in 1991." – the "After her parents' separation" is a bit repetitive following the previous sentence. Begin with a simple "She was then raised...".

Done

• "Asked about her relationship with her father, Kapoor remarked 'My father is ... an important factor in my life. [Al]though we did not see him often in our initial years, we are a family now.'" – need a comma after "remarked".

Done

• Are ellipses in brackets or no brackets when omitting material from a quotation? The latter is recommended per MOS:QUOTE, but either or is fine as long as you use it consistently.

According to MOS:QUOTE, we should use ellipses when omitting material from a quotation. I've added them to remain consistent!

These are general observations from the lead and Early life sections. Bravo on your work; it's well organized and structured, with useful images. What's needed is a fine-tooth comb with which to go over the article, some tweaks and polishing, and we've got the ideal Bollywood biography. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 22:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words Wikipedian Penguin! I've addressed all your concerns. Please let me know if there is anything else that needs to be done. -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 03:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I've struck through most of my comments. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 20:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I've struck through all my comments. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 19:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments

Looks good. I have few comments though.

• "She was then raised in Lokhandwala by her mother..." Is Lokhandwala so prominent that you need a mention and a wikilink? IMHO, No.

Removed

• "...during this period, she became immersed in law books and developed a long-lasting passion for reading." Is "became immersed in law books" really required?

Removed

• "Later that year Kapoor played the female lead in Santosh Sivan's period epic Asoka, a partly fictionalised account of the life of Ashoka." need a comma after 'year'. Also, prefix Ashoka with "an Indian emperor of the Maurya Dynasty". Not everyone knows Ashoka.

Done

• "To prepare for the role, she visited several of Mumbai's red-light districts at night" You may want to link 'red-light districts' to Kamathipura, which is more specific to Mumbai.

The reason why I linked 'red-light districts' in general was because of the word "several" in the sentence. Kapoor didn't specifically visit one red-light district area; she visited "several".

• "The film (and Kapoor's performance) opened to predominantly positive reviews by critics..." Parentheses not required.

Removed

• "Kapoor is featured in the third chapter as Oberoi's love interest (Mira, a witty young woman)." 'a witty young woman' probably not required but I am not sure of that.

I see no harm in having it. 'A witty young woman' is used to describe her character, Mira, in Yuva.

• Too much of Taran Adarsh everywhere and all he says is good-good. Can we have any positive-negative reviews/comments by any other critics?

The article is completely neutral and contains a "balance" of positive/negative comments by a variety of critics from different sources. Taran Adarsh's review is only used 3 times: Refugee, K3G and Dev.

• "After graduating from Welham she studied commerce" need a comma after 'Welham'
• "Kapoor then appeared in the Abbas-Mustan thriller Ajnabee." need a comma after 'thriller'.
• "Kapoor was cast for the first time as a villain in the thriller Fida." need a comma after 'thriller'.
• "During the filming of Fida Kapoor began a romantic relationship..." need a comma after 'Fida'.
• "Although the film was unsuccessful at the box office" need a comma after 'box office'.
• "she was cast as the protagonist of the 2005 drama Bewafaa." need a comma after 'drama'.

I have checked till "2007–11: Jab We Met and commercial success". Rest will check later. - Vivvt • (Talk) 16:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Why are all those commas needed between the descriptors and film names? This article was copy edited, and another article that I am working on was recently copy edited by someone from the GOCE, and no such commas were deemed necessary. BollyJeff | talk 16:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Comma not only is used for separating the clauses, it also indicates where you should take a small pause when you are [loud] reading the article. - Vivvt • (Talk) 16:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

A comma may help, but I don't think it is required. My point was why are we second guessing the Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors? You want to tell them that they are not doing an adequate job? BollyJeff | talk 16:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

GoCE has always helped us in writing the articles in better way. However, there is always a chance for improvement. Also, I am not saying or dont want to say what you've said above for GoCE work. Hyderabad, India has failed four times at FAC, in spite of GoCE edits. That does not mean GoCE did blunders there. A reviewer probably still sees some improvement scope for the article. Obviously, for the betterment of the article. - Vivvt • (Talk) 16:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not saying that; just wondering if that's how you felt. Okay BOLLYWOOD DREAMZ, it seems as though you will have to do what Vivvt suggests if you want his support here. If another reviewer comes along and says that there are too many commas, then I don't know what to tell you. BollyJeff | talk 17:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure about this particular comma issue. While speaking, we give a pause on those instances; however, do we always need to use comma in writing? I am not so sure. Moreover, there may be different school of grammar following different ways. Do you have a grammar or some Manual of Style, Vivvt, that recommends such use? Its beyond my knowledge of English. Bollyjeff, you can ask Miniapolis or someone else to opine here. I am sure there will be differing recommendations! --Dwaipayan (talk) 17:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

@BollyJeff: My alone's support or oppose would not matter anyway because article is strong enough to pass for itself. The changes should not be done to please the reviewers but strictly for the betterment of the article. The main contributor need not follow all the review comments, if he/she does not agree to it.

@Dwaipayanc: Ideally, the punctuation matters for the narrative. I believe, we need to have it in the writing as well. However, I may be wrong here and elsewhere. I do not have any guidelines or MoS with me to prove my point. Again, experts may clarify the things. - Vivvt • (Talk) 17:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

As for the commas, I honestly see no harm in having them. While writing the article, I had them, but Miniapolis had decided to remove it when he copy-edited the article. -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 03:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm surprised to see so many supports with a prose issue evident in the second sentence:

During her career, Kapoor has received six Filmfare Awards and has been noted for her performances in a range of film genres: from contemporary romantic dramas, comedies, period films to major Bollywood productions and lesser-publicised independent films.

"During her career"? When else would she receive awards? I didn't read further. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

If lets say an actor/actress retired, then sometime after their retirement, they receive a lifetime achievement award or something of similar honor. At best, that could have been clarified as "During her film career" as maybe at somepoint she decides to quit film making and move on to a career in broadway or music. --JDC808 ♫ 22:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, what do you mean by "surprised"? Everyone has the right to his/her opinion; some may "suppose", some may "oppose", whilst others may just choose to comment. Ultimately, it is your own prerogative on what you think of the article. I also believe that JDC808 made a good recommendation; will be changing it to "During her film career". -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 04:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment "n 2008 Kapoor performed in Shahrukh Khan's Temptation Reloaded 2008, a series of concerts in a number of countries. The show (which also featured Arjun Rampal, Katrina Kaif, Ganesh Hegde, Javed Ali and Anusha Dandekar) was staged at the Ahoy Rotterdam venue in Rotterdam, the Netherlands". The first sentence says it was a multi-city tour; the second sentence says it took place in Rotterdam?--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• Indeed the level of details for all these stage shows seem quite trivial, and seem not to follow any specific criteria. You have mentioned some of the shows, but probably not others. So what was the selection criteria? I don't see mention of any shows that took place in India (unless the world tours included India as well). I have a feeling this section needs tremendous trimming.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Reply to your first point: I meant that "the show [...] debuted at the Ahoy Rotterdam venue in Rotterdam, the Netherlands".

Reply to your second point: IMO, details for all these stage shows are not trivial; all of the shows specifically mention where they took place similar to that of Zinta's article. As far as mentioning the shows that took place in India, the "stage performances" section is intended just for her world tours/shows that took place abroad. If we were to list all of her shows in India, it would unnecessarily lengthen the article. -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 04:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• I did significant copyedit in several parts (including the lead) of the article, addressing content and language. IMO, the off-screen activities, particularly the stage performances, are detailed unnecessarily and without any pattern or criteria. The three subsection of that section could be merged into one unbroken section, and excessive details about the random stage shows removed. A sentence like, "she performed in many stage shows in India and some concert tours across the globe, including x (2001), y (2004)" and so on. Please opine.--Dwaipayan (talk) 23:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

To begin with, thank you for taking the time in copy-editing the article. I agree with most of them, however there are a few of them which I don't really agree with. I'll be changing some of them. As for merging all her other work into one unbroken section, it wouldn't really be a good idea; it would end up looking like a bunch of random activities/thoughts put together. As I mentioned above, her stage shows are listed in chronological order and just mention where they took place. I honestly don't see the harm in having it. -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 04:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding concert/stage shows: in that case, the article should explicitly mention that only non-Indian tours are listed. Also, are all the non-Indian tours mentioned (just a query)? In any case, then the paragraph should say that she has done many stage shows in India, and the global ones are mentioned here.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

All her non-Indian tours are mentioned. BTW do you think it would help if we changed the section title? -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 06:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we need to change the subsection name.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

More on reference style in general, the titles of the references are in sentence case. There are some discrepancies though. Please read this section and follow the sentence case consistently. The first letter of a word should not be in capital after a colon, for example. Another reference title is "The Most Powerful Actresses in India". This is in title case, not in sentence can. This should be "The most powerful actresses in India". In a given article, one style should be used consistently, irrespective of the different styles used in the actual sources.--Dwaipayan (talk) 00:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Today's featured article, Bastion (video game), uses the same case as the sources. Just saying. BollyJeff | talk 01:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Ya, I see that article has mixed sentence case and title case in its source titles. Well, perhaps we are demanding very strictly :) Actually, during a previous FARC, Sandy pointed this out. I believe this is a good thing to follow, for the sake of consistency in a given article, although views tend to differ in this regard, it seems.--Dwaipayan (talk) 01:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe that the tool that helps build citations, Reflinks uses the source case too. BollyJeff | talk 02:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I am retracting this comment for now (sentence case versus title case issue), unless some other reviewer comments on this.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Quick comments

• USD and crore overlinked in many sections.

During Kapoor's first FAC, it was recommended that we put in the Indian rupees converter to avoid confusion for non-Indian readers. By putting the currency converter, it automatically links USD and crore; e.g. ₹200 crore (US$25 million).

• PDF references needs (format=PDF) filled in.

Done

• The notes section in filmography section should be unsortable per WP:FILMOGRAPHY.

Done

• Link genre in the lead.

Done

• Link the first occurrence of The Hindu in refs; same for "Box Office India".

Done for The Hindu. I see that the Box Office India article is currently nominated for deletion; once the issue is resolved it'll be linked.

• Pipe-linking "a film family" to Kapoor family seems like WP:EASTEREGG.

Removed

• Paragraphs shouldn't start with pronouns. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 10:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Changed -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 02:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Support –No issues for me. The article meets the criteria. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 15:32, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Quick comments The article is well-written, complete and meets FA criteria. Good work Bollywood Dreamz But, still has some issues.

• "after which she acted in the melodrama Kabhi Khushi Kabhie Gham..., one of Kapoor's biggest commercial successes to date"

Why it is important to use a long sentence which could be replaced by a single word "Hit" or something like that. Since, it is not one of the highest frossing film right now. Then, Bodyguard and golmaal 3 should also be mentioned.

That is because K3G was her first worldwide success. I agree that there were other films of hers like Golmaal 3, Bodyguard, Ra.One that earned more than K3G, but when adjusted for inflation, it has earned more than these films. That is why it is still one of her biggest commercial successes to date.

• "Refugee was the fifth-highest-grossing film in India in 2000"

So what, the film is 5th grossing film but it is widely considered as critical and commercial failure. Don't you think you are showing it like a blockbuster.

"Widely considered" by whom? The BOI source shows that it was a moderate success and managed to recover some of its profit. No one is "showing it like a blockbuster"; you are just assuming that. All it says that it was the fifth-highest-grossing film of the year.

Change it to moderate success or something like that.Prashant  Conversation  05:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Mujhe Kuch Kehna hai, a romantic drama opposite Tusshar Kapoor, which became one of the year's most successful films"

It was just a "hit" nothing more so, why "most"?

Changed to hit.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• received her first Filmfare Best Actress nomination -> received her first nomination in Best Actress category at Filmfare or something else. No need to use just "Filmfare Best Actress"...a bit confusing, use original name.

Changed to official name.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• "She was in six films"

she was in six films? Maybe "starred" or "featured". It seems these films where unsuccessful because of other and she has no role to play.

"Starred" is reasonable. Changed.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• "It was the second Bollywood film with a North American release by a Hollywood studio" why this is important?

Dwaipayanc removed it. I'm fine with that! Maybe if it was the first Bollywod film to get a North American release by a Hollywood studio, then I would have left it.

• "However, Golmaal Returns was a financial success with international revenues of 79.25 crore (US$14.42 million)"

so what was its domestic gross....you are saying that it is the international gross so where is domestic? Sounds confusing.

Dwaipayanc changed it to say "global revenues".

• Box office reports says Kambakkht Ishq was commercial failure in India, Why no use complete information.?

What box office reports? You're talking as if I didn't use any sources to support the information. BOI shows that the film was declared "above average". How is that a commercial failure?

Use moderate success or something like that.Prashant  Conversation  05:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

How is that necessary? The film doesn't say anything about the film being a success. All it says that it grossed x amount. If it said that it was a commercial success, then that would be a different thing. -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 05:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• Reviews says that Kurbaan received "mixed" reviews but I see positive. WHY?

Not according to this. Plus if you take a look at the reviews listed on Kurbaan's article you'll see majority of them are positive. Just because a film receives some negative reviews, doesn't mean that it received mixed reviews. If majority of the reviews are positive, then we can say that the film received positive reviews.

7 Khoon Maaf received 80% positive and 20% negative; it is described as "mixed". Kurbaan's ratio is about 40 positive and 60 negative. I can give you the links.Prashant  Conversation  05:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I've conducted an analysis of the reviews Kurbaan received by film critics over here. You can see for yourself! :) -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 18:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• "For her portrayal of the tomboy Daboo, Kapoor received Best Actress nominations at various award ceremonies"

But, I could see only three.

There are definitely more than three (Apsara, Big Star, Filmfare, Global Indian, IIFA, Screen, Stardust, Zee Cine).

• You should include Bodyguard received mixed to negative review.

Done by Dwaipayanc

• Any critical analysis for Ra.One (reviews) ...why her critical acclaims are highlighted and critical failures are covered under garland of "commercial success".

If you take a look at other FA's, you will see that it's not necessary that we have to add a critical review of an actor from every film. No one is highlighting her critical acclaim and covering her critical failures. If you look at the section, you can see that there are negative reviews mentioned as well (Tashan, GR, KI, Bodyguard). Kapoor's role in Ra.One was similar to that of Zinta and Chopra in KMG and Krissh respectively (in which the actress didn't have much to do).

• "was an economic success, earning 42.17 crore (US$7.67 million) internationally." any domestic datas? Are you saying the film generated good revenues internationally alone?

Tweaked

• Many reviews says Kapoor received "mixed to negative review" for Heroine but, I could see only praise. Again, why her acclaim is so highlighted.? and criticism has been covered?

Again, we are not hiding anything. Majority of sources (1, 2, 3) show that although the film received negative reviews, Kapoor's performance was well received. These sources are good enough; however, if needed I'm willing to put together an analysis of all the reviews she received for the film, something like what I did for her other films.

I can show you, how she has been criticized. Here's are the links showing "mixed" response from critics for her performance in Heroine [3], [4], [5], [6], [7].This says it all, she got some positive and some negative, which means "mixed". I think it is clear now.Prashant  Conversation  05:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I just don't know what to say. Barring the one from OneIndia and to some extent NDTV, the other three are positive. As I said for the analysis of films, which pretty much can be applied to the analysis of her critical reviews, some mixed reviews doesn't mean that the overall reception was "mixed". I think I will have to list all the reviews for you to see. -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 05:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I've conducted an analysis of the reviews Kapoor received for Heroine (including the ones you mentioned) over here. You can see for yourself! :) -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 06:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok...it has been resolved. .Prashant  Conversation  09:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• In many places, readers are made to be confused..whether the revenues are from international markets alone or worldwide. That should be used properly. Same for Talaash.

They were changed.

• Again, you should correct "talaash received mixed reviews."

The word "predominantly" was used. As I said before, just because a film receives some negative reviews, doesn't mean that it received mixed reviews. Plus if you take a look at the reviews listed on Talaash's article you'll see majority of them are positive. Two other sources: 1 & 2. -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 03:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm ok with talaash. You may use talaash "generally" received positive reviews.

Prashant  Conversation  14:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

More comments

• Again, I can't help myself to point it again. This sentence is misleading the readers over the film performance of Refugee. "Refugee was the fifth-highest-grossing film in India in 2000".

Tweaked

• This is too much, last time it didn't got my eyes..."Kapoor portrayed Kaurwaki—a Kalingan princess, with whom Ashoka falls in love—and received her first nomination for Best Actress at the Filmfare Awards.[19] While the film received generally positive reviews". Positive review for Asoka, Check the link was a commercial and critical failure.

This shows that film received a 100% rating. I know that wasn't the case completely so I changed it to generally.

• Her Performance and analysis says ...Despite the least success rate among her contemporaries....[...], I see a complete reversed version as all her hits here, are tagged with "one of the years biggest hits or success". Why it is important to say "one of the years biggest". Can't you use "was a box office success", "major success". Use "one of....." only in the major success's like Golmaal 3.
• Same for Jab We Met, "The film was received favourably by critics and became one of the year's most successful films, with a domestic box office of 30.25 crore (US$5.51 million)."

Tweaked

• Again, The film earned over 84 crore (US$15.29 million) worldwide, but was a critical failure. So, Don't tell what it sounds like.(like a blockbuster which was a critical letdown).

It may sound like that to you. As I said before, all it says that the film grossed x amount. Anyways, I just don't know to say anymore. Tweaked

• The film (which marked the directorial debut of Rensil D'Silva)....who?(Is the director has won 10National Award and is regarded ad India's best director). Every second Director Debuts with first film, doesn't mean...we should highlight.

What? Kurbaan was his directorial debut; your comments don't make sense at all.

• During her 2010 appearance in the NDTV Greenathon -> on the NDTV Greenathon Prashant  ✉  10:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Done -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 18:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Support As I said earlier, the article is well-written, complete and neutral. Hence, I support it. Congratulations to Bollywood Dreamz for his work on the article. Cheers!Prashant  ✉  03:07, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• Random note: I am appalled by some of the comments that are being posted here. Where is this nomination going? --smarojit ^{(buzz me)} 18:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
• Why makes Onindia and Boxofficeindia reliable sources? Have there been any changes since the last time the article was nominated regarding the high quality of these sources? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The reliability of boxofficeindia.com was established after a long discussion in reliable source noticeboard.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

After the last FAC, all of the unreliable sources were replaced with reliable ones. All of the sources used in the article are well-known and reliable; they are newspapers (The Times of India, The Telegraph), reliable websites (Bollywood Hungama, Indiatimes), magazines (Forbes, Filmfare), etc.

As far as the reliability of Oneindia.in is concerned, it is a mainstream Indian news website operated by B. G. Mahesh, one of the pioneers of the Internet and on-line news in India. TBH, if its reliability is questioned, I don't mind replacing it with a more reliable source. -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 02:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I would recommend removing it--while I'm still iffy on whether BoxOfficeIndia meets the "high quality" threshold of an RS it's evidently treated as such, but I'm not seeing anything to convince me of OneIndia's quality. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Replaced the OneIndia source. I had originally used another source to support the worldwide gross of EMEAT. However, unable to find it, I decided to change it and used the gross from OneIndia. -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 03:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Some comments inpite of earlier support. Again, the article sounds like a too much for FA.

• After making her acting debut in the 2000 war drama Refugee, Kapoor's early years in the film industry were successful; she received a Filmfare nomination for Asoka: But the below section of initial years says her initial years were average. Lots of failures and few or 2-3 success. Do this shows her sussess?
• Getting a nomination at filmfare is what ? She only got this nomination and it doesn't make any thing a success.

If you would you have cared to read the rest of the sentence then you would know what I'm talking about. It later says that "this was followed by a series of commercial failures and repetitive roles, which garnered her negative reviews." By early years, I meant 2001; if you take a look at the sources from BOI and Rediff.com, you can see that the statement is correct. As far as the Filmfare nomination is concerned, the reason why I mentioned it was because it was her first nomination for Best Actress.

But, this is encyclopedia, leave all this but you should also mention her first supporting nomination. No? I'm just saying for the benefit of the article. Look at Balan's page. Its prose is well written.Prashant  ✉  08:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes! I know that this is an encyclopedia. The lead of the article "serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects." We are not listing all her nominations there; she later received nominations for Omkara, Kurbaan, etc. Are those included? NO! As I said before, the reason why I mentioned it was because it was her first nomination for Best Actress. -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 19:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• Again, the positive reviews for Asoka are giving me a nightmare. The Indian reviews says that the film was worst of the year. I think rotten tomatoes just shows average of foreign reviews.

Please show me the reviews that say "the film was worst of the year". We can see that all the foreign reviews were positive whereas the ones from Indian film critics were mixed. For that reason I used the word generally.

• Although a poll (conducted by Bollywood Hungama) named it the most anticipated release of the year,[48] the film was a commercial and critical failure. Why this is important to mention. Reality is Tashan is a critical and commercial disasters. Every third film with multistar cast attracts viewers interest but most important is the results which is Disaster.

Yes, and that is mentioned!

My point is why it is necessary to mention about poll? It sounds like the film should have been Blockbuster but it bombed.Prashant  ✉  08:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

That's precisely my point! -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 19:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• believed the screenplay was derivative, concluding: "There is nothing particularly new about a suspicious wife keeping tabs on her husband, and there is nothing particularly new in the way Kareena plays. Why this review is important, she received negative reviews....i can show you. Earlier, you said its not important to mention negative reviews for financially successfull films and then then you are crossing it yourself.

What are you talking about? The review provided is negative.

But, you mentioned she received mixed reviews?Prashant  ✉  08:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Please take a look at the analysis that was done back in 2008. -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 19:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• Bodyguard received negative to mixed reviews, though became a financial success ....it received negative reviews. What do you mean by mixed?

If you take a look at the film's article, you will notice that the film had a mixed reception. The critics didn't praise nor did they criticize it too heavily. I know that the film did receive negative reviews too and hence I decided to say "negative to mixed". Okay! I've now changed it to say that the film was not well-received by critics. -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 19:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I know she is your favorite actress, its not mean that you start writing only good things about about her. Sounds like fancruft to me. Prashant  ✉  11:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

TBH Prashant, sometimes I don't even know what you're saying. It's funny how you contradict yourself. You mentioned before that it was "well-written", "neutral" and "meets FA criteria". And now you go on to say that it "sounds like fancruft" and there are "only good things about her". Don't think for a second that I don't know what you're up to. -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 18:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it may be funny to you but I wanna tell you that I'm also a kapoor fan and Chopra fan too but from last few months i Learned that this is encyclopedia and not a blog. I didn't even touched this article because you have handled it so nicely from past few years. But, its no that we should write only garlands and flowers. Also, I supported the article because it is well written and I'm not denying that. You should appreciate other reviewers that they are helping you in FA and not criticizing them.Prashant  ✉  08:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

To begin with, I did not criticize you. I just stated how you always contradict yourself. -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 19:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Please move your argument to the talk page, it has no place here. As for supporting and then making those comments, sorry Prashant but that makes your input here a lot less credible.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

My comments came in only because the article's many part was changed suddenly. I guess it should have been stable. When I looked again, it was changed. So, I made my points and hence they are resolved, I'm satisfied with it. I had supported and will always support the article. Congratulations and best of luck. The article don't don't have any oppse, so I guess it would be an FA soon. My points were only for the betterment and not for anything else. Cheers!Prashant  ✉  03:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Support (for most of the criteria). I am not qualified to judge the article for criterion 1a (prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard), so not commenting on that. The article meets other criteria: 1b (comprehensive), 1c (well-researched, claims are verifiable per the random spot-checking), 1d (neutral, although some comments above questioned this, for me the article is neutral), 1e (stable); also meets criteria 2, 3, and 4. --Dwaipayan (talk) 16:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Am I the only one here who would rather dates formatted as 18 February 2013 rather than 2013-02-18 ?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 20:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

No, you are not. BollyJeff | talk 21:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Seems informal, like note form to me, not to mention backwards, I'd rather it be in writing.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 22:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

But it's probably okay as is. The article should rest and not have so much change now. BollyJeff | talk 00:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Template:Cite web initially had you format the dates 2013-02-18 as opposed to 18 February 2013, but I now see that it is the other way around. I see no problem in leaving it the way it is. If it's absolutely compulsory then I will change it. -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 01:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

No, it is not as such necessary. The key is consistency within a given article; in this case, that date style has been consistently used.--Dwaipayan (talk) 01:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Bill william compton has formatted all the dates as 18 February 2013 citing WP:MOSNUM. I guess it was important then! -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 03:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Support - a very good article, constantly up-to-date thanks to the on-going, tireless dedication of this wonderful guy, Bollywood Dreamz, who keeps a close eye on the proceedings and insists on keeping it neutral and well-written. I congratulate all of you guys who've taken part in improving it over time, well done. Shahid • ^Talk2me 23:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words Shahid! I would also like to take the time to thank each and every individual who participated in this FAC. Thank you for taking the time and offering your inputs; the article has only improved since it was nominated! Cheers everyone! :) -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 01:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Wow, surprised Shahid turned up...♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 17:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Delegate comment -- Quite a few duplicate links; some are for currency, and others might be justified by the amount of prose between them in a decent-sized article, but pls review in any case. Use this script to check for them. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:36, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for introducing me to that script Ian! I've removed the unnecessary duplicate links. As for the currency, it was automatically linked when I used this template; I never knew you could add the following parameter ("|nolink=yes"), which would then help unlink it. -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 23:17, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Tks Bollywood. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 03:17, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.