Wikipedia:Peer review/Fawad Khan/archive2

Fawad Khan

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I intend to take it to FA. Last year it was promoted to good article but wasn't promoted for FA and subsequently it was demoted as GA. The article has since then been copy-edited and I also resolved issues mentioned in FA nomination. Thanks, Amirk94391 (talk) 15:15, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Should immediately point out that you should never use the tabloid Daily Mail as a reference. They have a reputation for poor fact checking. I'll look at this more, and don't know if there are more unreliable ones (acting is not generally my expertise on Wikipedia), but I'll give it a look. It appears you've done a good job citing most everything in the article, just need to check reliability and the status of the links. dannymusiceditor ^oops 17:03, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

The article had only one reference to Daily Mail which I've replaced with a relaible source. (see here) Amirk94391 (talk) 19:03, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

You forgot to change the author and work. It still looks like a Daily Mail reference until you click the link. dannymusiceditor ^oops 19:10, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

• One other immediately obvious thing. Some of Khan's awards are missing citations. If it's covered by a reference you used earlier, repeat the ref tag. dannymusiceditor ^oops 19:14, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

@DannyMusicEditor: I've fixed it.Amirk94391 (talk) 19:45, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

From Tim riley

You asked me to comment. The topic is far outside my areas of expertise, such as they are, and I can only offer general observations.

First, I think the article is well structured and well written. It is also, praise be!, not too long. 3,000 words may be generous for someone still only in his thirties, but the length is copable with. (Some Bollywood articles are eye-glazingly long and over-detailed, which you have avoided here.)

A few typos caught my eye

• labeled (unless you prefer AmEng spelling)
  •  Done
• jounalist
  •  Done
• busines
  •  Done
• at box office – missing a definite article?
  •  Done
• september – needs capitalising
•  Done
• labled
  •  Done

Sourcing: not surprisingly, you have had to rely on press reports. Nobody could reasonably object to that for a subject like this – there is hardly going to be a 400-page authorised biography in the near future – and I assume the publications you have chosen are respectable and responsible ones, fit to be classed as WP:RS, rather than fanzines or sensationalist mags. Clearly The Times of India is as respectable as can be, as are some other papers cited, but I did raise an eyebrow at seeing something called Bollywoodlife (or Bollywood Life – two words – in another citation). I'm not objecting to it: I don't know the facts. I merely flag up that to an outsider the title doesn't reek of gravitas. As long as you are happy to defend it, and all other publications cited, that's fine.

That's all from me. I wish you well with the progress of the article. Tim riley talk 22:08, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

@Tim riley:  Done Well I've removed all references to bollywoodlife and replaced them with reliable sources such as newspaper or newschannel. I also removed all references to india.com.Amirk94391 (talk) 05:17, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Looking good. Best of luck with the article. Tim riley talk 19:45, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments from TheJoebro64

I'll leave some comments in a bit. Please note that I don't have much experiences with BLPs, so if I'm wrong on something please correct me. JOEBRO64 19:32, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

From a quick glance:

• My first comment is that it seems like there are a couple of big paragraphs that could benefit from some line breaks.
  • I've broke second paragraph of Bollywood; debut and recognition (2014–2016) into two and also In the media section now contains three paragraphs. Apart from them I don't think there is any other lengthy paragraph that can be split. If you think there's still one. Let me know.
• which is ranked among one of the highest grossing Pakistani film of all time—typo: "film" should be "films".
  •  Done
• ...Khan told that he looked out for a marketing job but couldn't find one—"couldn't" should be "could not" per MOS guidelines.
  •  Done
• Are the subsections in the music career section really needed? Both are only a paragraph long.
  •  Done
• Some bits of the article are written a bit informally, like The film did decent business at the box office in the Bollywood section and Khan went through a body transformation and gained a lot of weight in the upcoming projects section.
  • The film did decent business at the box office while the second sentence that you've mentioned seems to be alright to me since it tells about about preparation for a role. If you think there are others sentences like these, please mention themAmirk94391 (talk) 07:53, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I'll leave more comments soon. JOEBRO64 20:25, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• Based on Razia Butt's novel titled Bano—"titled" is typically unneeded; readers can make the connection that Bano is the title of the novel.
  •  Done
• where he essayed the role of Asghar, an unambitious guy who wants to marry one of his cousins—is "played" a better world than "essayed"? Also, calling someone a "guy" on an encyclopedia seems a bit informal; I'd change it to "man".
  •  Done
• Could the single-sentence paragraph at the beginning of the Bollywood section be integrated into the following paragraph? If my understanding is correct MOS discourages them.
  •  Done
• Why is In January 2016, Khan had a cameo in Asim Raza's coming-of-age Ho Mann Jahaan in the Upcoming projects section?
  • Moved it to previous sub-section, Now it seems we are chronologically taking about his film career.
• In August 2016, Ranbir Kapoor said Khan has open the door by playing a closet and that now he was comfortable playing such roles—typo: "open" should be "opened". Also, I'd unlink Ranbir Kapoor because it's been linked before.
  •  Done
• On of the most popular celebrities in Pakistan—typo: "on" should be "one".
  •  Done

Overall this looks good. With a little more work I don't think it'd fail at an FAC. JOEBRO64 19:28, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Nauriya

The lists of article: None of the list in the article matches the criteria of FAC, so I have following questions and comments on it:

First

• why is the filmography section contains all of his work in a single table? It doesn't have to be, separate them into simple sortable film and TV tables.
  •  Done
• Also the blue background separation in table are not for the biography articles.
  •  Done
• Same goes with table in award section, each awarding body name is in bold face which should not have to be and the table columns should only contain: Nominated work, Award, result and Refernces - if the awarding body does not have any wikipedia article there is no need to mention at all or if it is important that it should not be bold and full category should be mention.
  • I've made some modifications to it, have a look, I hope you'll like it now.
• Also the discography table should contain columns: Song, Work title/Album and Reference.
  •  Done I also've the coloumn Year, I guess its fine, but if you think it doesn't comply with FAC, please let me know.
• All the projects that are in pre-production should not be included in the table.
  •  Done Albela Rahi was in pre-production so removed it.
• The film awaits release must be colored with official yellow ribbon.
  •  Done
• In references, sources with same names are linked more then once, they should only be linked once.
  •  Done now a source name is linked on its very first occurrence only. Amirk94391 (talk) 05:24, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I will review it more for now much work is needed before it could be eligible for FAC. Nauriya - Lets talk 00:35 June 26, 2018 (UTC)

Second

• Lead section could be reduced to reasonable four-size paragraphs and some of the claims need references, e.g "250 shows", and last paragraph.
  • References are present for everything but inside prose.
• In lead some of the sentences are laborious and terms like "commenced", "cinematic", "critically praised" can be written simply like "debut", "film career" and "further acclaim or noted".
  •  Done
• The "Results" column of awards and nomination table, uses rowspan template, which is not necessary, each win or nom should listed separately, there is no need to join them even if the results are same.
  •  Done
• Early life section is also a big paragraph try splitting it.
  •  Done
• When you place two or more references, use break to avoid using extra space in column.
  •  Done there were two such cases, fixed them.
• See also section should also contained links related only to the subject, mentioning other actors is redundant.
  • I've removed this section as it wasn't necessary.
• In the Media section generally goes before Awards and nomination section.
  • I think you've read it when there was only paragraph in whole section, Now I've split it into three paragraphs, first tells about media's response to his acting, second tells about how media covers topics about his looks, and the final one is about his popularity.
• Discography table needs evaluation one song is italized, under work title one section has only one parentheses, instead of writing coke studio 2010, linked it like that "Coke Studion (season 3) | Coke Studio" simply.
  •  Done
• From Coke studio performance, Pepsi battle and to the Music video appearances section should be under discography, title "Other appearances"
  •  Done
• I was reading in general, the writing stye is bit off, e.g in personal life the starting sentence looks vague, whereas you can an simply write "he married Sadaf Khan after seven years of relation" or he begin relationship with Sadaf Khan in (????) and married in (????)" can write about his wife a bit, so it can make proper sense, write we don't know who Sadaf is, as an individual.
  • Well I fixed those word corrections you suggested and now I'll describe Sadaf a bit is well.
• He developed diabetes, can be written simply "he has" or reason if sourced.
  • Since we've to tell he got diabetes at 17, so developed'd be batter, I mean saying "he got diabetes at 17", is a bit awkward for wiki.Amirk94391 (talk) 16:30, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
    • You can simply say "at the age of 17 he was diagnosed with diabetes".

Try using simpler words and sentences, or read FA articles of similar biographies to have a idea how they are written. I will breifly review references shortly. Nauriya - Lets talk 16:15 June 27, 2018 (UTC)

Third

• You have lots of quotes from sources which are directly copied into the article, rather pasting them here as a whole, rewrite in your own words and then cite them. Also avoid writing like a review, e.g "writting for A, B found" because it is not a review for some ceremony/event, rewrite them to make it a prose.
  •  Done
• In the infobox section, mention "Labels" and "associated acts" as well under musical career.
  •  Done
• Under acting career section, in second heading why there is a semicolon after Bollywood? and omit Pakistani films because upcoming projects covers everything apart from anything that is different from acting.
  •  Done
• If you are creating awards and nomiation table then there is no need to mention again in notes section of his television or film works.
  •  Done
• Also, in awards table rename the Film column it as "Work" because in the table his television work is also nominated not just films. You can move the film column to the last because some of the awards are given directly to him not for his work, so you can use colspan/colrow to skip mentioning it, rather then writing "none".
  • Renamed the Film column to Work and instead of None, I left those cells empty because moving Work column to last doesn't look well. On some articles including Priyanka Chopra that you suggested I found the name of the artist where the artist was given award directly. What is your opinion on it?
• Though the awards section is not adequate to be split into separate article, you can still a short summary of his achievements.
  • I guess its fine. In major FAs I found a table of awards.

Again I would suggest to read the other FA bios to have an idea how they are written. Even if we try to evaluate this article at the moment for such improvements, the writing style for this article need to be improved. It's not grammar I am talking about - of course we will correct along the way but in general the way it is written, you can compare with articles such as Meryl Streep, Priyanka Chopra, Kalki Koechlin, Elvis Presley - and these article subjects are widely popular and very much detailed as compared to the Khan's, but still you can have an idea how to improve. Nauriya - Lets talk 19:53 June 28, 2018 (UTC)

• Today I've read about 4 FAs, I've a list of 14 FAs that I'll read thoroughly tomorrow and get idea from them about writing style.Amirk94391 (talk) 18:52, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

• "He was diagnosed with diabetes mellitus type 1 at the age at the age of 17 after an accident" - at the age is used twice
  • fixed it.
• reference no 40 is invoked
  • fixed it.
• The Priyanka Chopra awards and nominations list is long and they are listed separately for each ceremony. But for artist with fewer, the are mention like this Ruth Negga - the reason work is listed last because sometime, artist is awarded without his work being nominated, so instead of leaving a column empty colspan/rospan is used to cover the empty space.Nauriya - Lets talk 23:00 June 28, 2018 (UTC)
  •  DoneAmirk94391 (talk) 02:40, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments from SN54129

As of this version.

• as judge on > "as a judge on"?
  •  Done
• Pepesi > "Pepsi"?
  •  Done
• Fns #12, 34, 35, 52, 116, 170 > missing archive link.

—SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 12:28, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I've requested to take a deeper look at the sources; I shall. However, the mandatory disclaimer that I know little of sub-continental media, if I can call it that, so I may very easily be mistaken in my suggestions. I wold certainly recommend a second opinion, but should also point out that when at some point this does get to FAC, it will recieve a dedicated source review which should pick on up anything I or others here may miss.

• Good sources:Pakistan Today, The Express Tribune, Daily Pakistan, The Indian Express, Times of India, Daily News and Analysis (probably), Forbes India (probably), Deccan Chronicle, Aaj News, Dawn, Gulf News, Samaa TV (probably), NDTV (possibly), ARY News, The Economic Times, The News International, Daily Times, The Hindu, The Times of India, The National, Hindustan Times, IBT India, India TV, Khaleej Times, PTV Global,Huffington Post India, ARY Digital.
• Sources I would want more convincing qualify as a RS: Mid Day, The Quint, Firstpost, iDiva, Bollywood Hungama, Zee News, Rediff.com, Vogue India, Dunya News, News18 India, SOS Children's Villages, Geo News, Filmfare.
  • Those I left are prominent newspapers or newschannels or sources that FAs contains in abundance. So, I guess they are fine.
    • @Amirk94391: Well, that's rather my point; that's a good answer for me, here, but at FAC, someone will ask you, directly, "What is it that makes X-source reliable?" and the onus is on you to explain why it is reliable for your candidate. Don't rely on how they're used elsewhere or—guess  :) ttfn. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 19:02, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
• You seem to list Dawn twice; the second occasion links to the Rising Of The Sun  :)
• Is DAWN Images a subsidiary of the above?
  • Yes
• Times of India is also listed twice (as India Times)
  • Sorry My mistake, actually they are same the paper name is Times of India while website is timesofIndia.indiatimes.com
• Is ARY Digital anything to do with ARY News?
  • No they are different channels of same news network.
  • Any queries I have with this second group are generally based around their substance, which I can't quite ajudge at first glance. In some cases, they appear tabloidy, or blogs; in other cases, they seem to have been involved in so much controversy that it is difficult to imagine they can achieve NPOV  :) and in at least one case—an NGO almost certainly can't. On the other hand, it's very much dependent on precisely what and to what breadth the particular source is being used for: so you don't have to convince me, just those editors who know the material. In any case, I note that you actually use most of the "questionable" sources relatively sparsely.
• Hope this helps. Cheers, —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 13:35, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Giants2008

• "which is ranked among one of the highest grossing Pakistani film of all time." Grammar in this sentence isn't great at the moment, and it's a bit wordy. Consider "which is one of the highest-grossing Pakistani films of all time" as a replacement.
  •  Done
• "Both of whom earned him the Lux Style Award for Best Actor - Satellite." This is a sentence fragment that would be much better as part of the previous sentence. Also, "whom" should be "which", as the films are not people.
  •  Done
• Early life: "In his early 20s, he faced hardships in getting job." Another grammar issue here: the last word should be the plural "jobs", or you could alternatively say "getting a job".
  •  Done getting a job sounds a bit more sophisticated.
• In the next sentence, the contraction "couldn't" should be spelled out, into "could not".
  •  Done
• Entity Paradigm (2000–2012): I presume that the bands Entity and Paradigm merged into one at some point after the Jutt and Butt collaboration, but the article doesn't make that clear. It would be worthwhile to add a sentence or two explaining this, as I was confused at first and imagine I wouldn't be the only one.
  •  Done
• "and made it to the finale of the show loosing it therein to the band Aaroh." Is "loosing" Indian English or a typo?
  • Sorry its was a typo, changed it to losing.
• Debut, breakthrough and television success (2000–2013): I see Jut and Bond in the first sentence here, and Jutt and Bond in one of the previous sections. Which is it?
  • Its actually Jutt and Bond, Jut was typo.
• "The series was one of the most critically acclaimed one." Last word should be "ones", but more importantly what is the sentence referring to? Pakistani television history or something else? That isn't clear right now and it should be.
  •  Done Amirk94391 (talk) 05:49, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
• In general, my feeling is that the article couldn't pass at FAC without receiving a thorough copy-edit from a third party. There are several talented editors who have worked on actor bios (including some from Bollywood) that have become FAs. Perhaps one of them would be willing to help out.
• My other major suggestion is to work on the In the media section. This section is one very large paragraph which could stand to be split. More importantly, the whole section is basically proseline. It's a bunch of loosely connected facts that don't flow well together. We have stuff about his image, followed by placings in "sexiest man" polls, followed by some interesting content about his Kapoor & Sons role, then stuff on awards and more "sexiest man" placings. It feels like this section would be better if it was made into multiple paragraphs, each on a different topic. The whole section would flow better, and not feel like just a place for content that doesn't have a natural home elsewhere. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Now I've split it into three paragraphs, in each of the paragraph the sentences are well connected, first paragraph is about media's reactions to his acting, second is about recognition in the media due to his look, finally the third one tells about his popularity in media in short all three of them collectively describes his media image. I hope you'll like it now.Amirk94391 (talk) 08:04, 27 June 2018 (UTC)