Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Shah Rukh Khan/archive1

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 04:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC) [1].

---

Shah Rukh Khan

Nominator(s): BollyJeff | talk 02:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

This article is about a man who is arguably the biggest film star in the entire world. Since it reached GA in August, I have further improved it significantly, and had it copy-edited by the GOCE. I am confident that it is now FA quality. Khan is turning fifty in about a year, and I would like to see this as TFA at that time. Please enjoy reading about this highly admired actor. I would also like to acknowledge and thank User:Dr. Blofeld for the contributions that he made after starting his review. Thanks, BollyJeff | talk 02:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Dwaipayanc

Comments I did not read the article properly during peer review. I am giving some comments here as I read it:

• the very first sentence, "... is an Indian actor, producer, television personality and philanthropist". Philanthropist is not a profession, at least not his profession. I think that word should be deleted. Other opinions are welcome.
• IMO, you should add "film" before "actor", as he is primarily a film actor (as opposed to theater actor). What is the usual practice for articles on film actors?
• " His eighth Filmfare Best Actor Award put him in a tie for the most in that category" I feel not significant enough to be in the lead.
• "Khan later earned wide critical acclaim for his portrayal". IMO, remove the word "wide". Just "critical claim" conveys pretty much the same meaning.
• "the family was often living in near poverty in a rented apartment" Is that what the source say? they were in poverty? I mean , living in rented apartment hardly establishes poverty in Delhi. His schooling in St Columbus also apparently goes against being poor. I am pretty sure his father was not below the poverty line (if there was one such thing at that time).

The source says "hovered at the edge of genteel poverty" which is a bit of an oxymoron. How to translate that, middle class?

Yes, I think middle class is appropriate.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Done.

• "The death of Khan's parents at an early age affected him greatly. He described these events as a motivator for his own work ethic" The first sentence sounds rather melodramatic/not having any worth. Can be removed I guess. Now, how come deaths of parents motivates work ethic? the work ethic/working style/lectures of a parent can influence work-ethic, but death?

The source says "was very attached to his parents as a child and describes their early deaths as a turning point in his life and as his biggest motivation for hard work." I just report what the sources say; I am not making this up.

Yeah, but you have to weigh the weight of each source! a photogallery in IndiaTimes is a pretty poor source in general. Plus, we don't even need this. IMO, not worth the space in this pretty big article.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I agree. Done.

• "a Punjabi Hindu" needs wikilink(s).
• "She never fully recovered from the shock of her parent's deaths" That sounds un-medical. The shock/grief from family member's death are normal events and last for weeks-months. Non-recovery from such grief is completely abnormal, and suggests underlying psychiatric disorder (depression, personality disorder, or whatever). Any clues on that? Otherwise, this sentence reads like emotional Bollywood movie, honestly, and can be removed.

I am sure that you are correct about an underlying psychiatric disorder, but I have not yet found sources that dare to say it in that way, so again I lightly paraphrased what was written. I will look for a source with more direct language.

Or even can remove the " never fully recovered from the shock" part and just say that she lives with SRK family.

I added some more direct language from another source.

--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:42, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, all of the above has been resolved. BollyJeff | talk 19:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

*Umeed, Wagle Ki Duniya, and that English TV film needs years of release.

• "Khan had travelled between Delhi and Mumbai during this period, and was not interested in film acting" Okay, this needs some background info for those who do not know that those serials were made in Mumbai, and that is why he needed to travel between his residence in Delhi and workplace in Mumbai. Otherwise, for those who do not know, the inclusion of this sentence in the biography does not make any sense. Or, you can entirely remove this sentence. The very next sentence discusses his permanent move to Mumbai anyway.
• " Also released in 1992 were Chamatkar, and Khan's first films as the male lead, Dil Aashna Hai" But Chamatkar released before Dil Aashna Hai, and Khan was the male lead in Chamatkar.
• " The Encyclopedia of Hindi Cinema said "he defied the image of the conventional hero in both these films..." In this particular use, the year of the publication of the Encyclopedia is needed. The encyclopedia said this in 2003, ten years afterwards, which helps establish the historical significance of the comment
• " In a retrospective review, Sukanya Verma called it Khan's best performance" Needs year for the review.
• "Khan's performance as a young NRI who falls" NRI needs full term.
• Can the description of Dil Se be slightly reduced? It occupies a large number of words, compared to other films of similar significance of the same time (say, Dil To Pagal hai)
• "Ironically, Khan became a romantic icon without ever actually kissing any of his co-stars" The word "Ironically" appears editorialized for an encyclopedia. You can use quotations; otherwise, this needs rephrasing.
• "starring the handsome debutante actor..." This spelling of debutante something else.
• "Khan's next release was Mansoor Khan's action drama Josh" Since it is a new paragraph, it's better to include the year in this sentence.
• "The film was screened at the Venice Film Festival and the 2001 Toronto International Film Festival to a positive response, but it performed poorly in Indian box offices, and losses continued to mount for the production company, forcing him to close srkworld.com, a sub-company that he had started along with Dreamz Unlimited" A long, convoluted sentence. Please consider splitting.
• 10 Filmfare Awards (including 'Best Scene'): Best scene is a category? Even if it is, it does not need to be mentioned.
• "Because of Khan's spinal injury from 2001, he was in acute pain while shooting" The term acute for medical illness is used to denote time/duration, and acute means of short duration (see Pain#Duration). This needs to be changed. --Dwaipayan (talk) 18:17, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

All of the above has been resolved. Thank you, BollyJeff | talk 17:21, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• "..told the story of two unhappily married couples in New York who have an extramarital affair. " Shouldn't it be "have extramarital affairs"?
• "whose love for his accidental wife Sharma" Accidental wife? This needs to be re-phrased.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:52, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Done. BollyJeff | talk 23:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Ssven2

First of all, great job on expanding and writing so much details about one of the world's and especially India's most famous persons. It is a privilege for me to read this article.

• Can you empty the references from the lead section as per WP:LEAD and explain about the sentences with references in later sections. (For example: There is repeition about the Los Angeles Times refernce. You can remove the reference from the lead section and place it in "Popularity and wealth" section.)
• "one of the most successful leading actors of Hindi cinema" - "leading" can be removed (even though it is true, it does sound a bit like an honorific. )
• "a co-owner" can be rephrased as "the co-owner".
• "Media often label him "Brand SRK" because" - Can you add the word "as" in-between "him" and "Brand SRK"?
• "Newsweek named him one of the 50 most powerful people in the world." can be rephrased as "Newsweek included him in their list of the 50 most powerful people in the world." (If it is only their list. If the list from newsweek is used by all newspapers and magazines, then leave the sentence as it is.).

• "Shahnaz continues to live with the Khans in their Mumbai mansion." - Can it be rephrased as "Shahnaz continues to live with her brother and his family in their Mumbai mansion."

• Can you find a better alternative word (a synonym) for "loverboy" (other than "Romantic Hero")? (Section : 1995–98: The Romantic Hero.)
• "top-grossing production" can be rephrased as "highest-grossing production"
• For the film Duplicate, the source (Box Office India) states that it is "Below Average". Just wanted to ask if "Below Average" is considered as a "commercial failure"? You can also re-write the sentence as "did not perfom well at the box office."
• "candyfloss romance" - Can you re-write it as simply "romantic film" and wikilink it?

• "Ashoka the Great" sounds like an honorific again and can be rephrased as "King Ashoka" (even though Ashoka the Great is mentioned in the article "Ashoka".) - (1999-2003 Section)

• "ensemble cast" can be wikilinked - (2004-09 Section)
• "It earned Khan another nomination for Best Actor at the Filmfare ceremony." can be rephrased as "It earned Khan another nomination for Best Actor at the Filmfare Awards."
• The source TOI doesn't say it is a "starring role" in Slumdog Millionare. It just says that it is "a role that subsequently went to Anil Kapoor". Can you rephrase it like this?
• The word Filmfare is sometimes written in italics and sometimes not. Can you write it in italics? (Except in places where it says "Filmfare Award for Best Actor" or "was nominated for Best Actor at the Filmfare Awards".)

The only times it's in italics is when referring to the magazine; I think that is correct. BollyJeff | talk 17:15, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

• "For his performance in the film, Khan was nominated for a Filmfare Award for Best Actor." - Can you add the source for this sentence as it is unsourced. (Section : 2010-2013)
• Can you add a little bit more about Happy New Year in the "2010-13" Section as it is already released. Also, I would recommend you to rename the section as "2010-Present".
• Have you already wikilinked Always Kabhi Kabhi? If not please do so. If so, please state atleast a few deatils about the film in the 2010-13 Section.
• In this reference for Anjaam, it doesn't show Box Office India's verdict. Can you find an alternative source that explains the film's performance?

- Ssven2 (talk) 09:49, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I have not found a reliable source for Anjaam, but the fact that it's blank in the provided list means it was not good. Cameos are mostly not mentioned, but AKK is linked in off-screen work section. Except for HNY, which I will get to, the rest has been implemented where appropriate. Thank you for your kind words. BollyJeff | talk 15:14, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

@Bollyjeff: Maybe you could use this source for Anjaam? It states that it was a "below avarage". You can write the sentence, "The film was a commercial failure, but Khan's performance earned him the Filmfare Best Villain Award." as "Although the film did not do well at the box office, Khan's performance earned him the Filmfare Best Villain Award." Ssven2 (talk) 16:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I will use it. BollyJeff | talk 00:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

@Bollyjeff: Please do expand just a little bit about HNY (details like Box Office, Something the critics say about the film.) Ssven2 (talk) 04:34, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

That's all from me. Great job once again. Ssven2 (talk) 16:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Support - Ssven2 (talk) 16:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Kailash29792

I don't think I have anything much to say, but you can try rewriting the section titles (eg: "1995–98: The Romantic Hero" and "Behind the camera") more formally and neutrally. Also, do please balance the usage between "Bollywood" and "Hindi cinema". And I don't think "movie" is a very formal or encyclopedic term (use "film" instead). Kailash29792 (talk) 16:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I would like to retain the phrase "Romantic hero" if possible. It is used both in Encyclopaedia of Hindi Cinema and in the Anumpama Chopra book (possibly others), so it should be formal enough for here. It is an important part of SRKs story. BollyJeff | talk 00:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

A new list of comments:

Lead

• I think Bollywood can be referenced in any manner as a nickname for Hindi cinema.
• "For his contribution to film" - I think this should be pluralised.
• "an autistic man in My Name Is Khan" - I think his disease there was asperger's syndrome, not autism.
• "Media often label him as "Brand SRK"..." - Media who? Outlets or personalities? If neither (or both), it better be "the media".

Early life and background

• "mid teens" - is that not colloquial? Because "teen" is a shortening of "teenage".

Acting career

• "In the critically acclaimed series" - WP: WORDS discourages the usage of "acclaimed". But it may stay with a valid reason given by you.
• I think there can be some de-capitalisation in "The Romantic Hero".
• "Mani Kaul's miniseries Idiot (1991)" - the article reads it as 1992, and is it a single film or a miniseries?

Read the rest of the article. It came as a mini-series first in 1991. I am not now going to attempt a name move. BollyJeff | talk 00:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• "Khan changed his mind about films" - "changed his mind" is idiomatic and clichéd, so it must be replaced with something more literal (how about "changed his decision"?)
• "His performance in Baazigar [...] won him his first Filmfare Best Actor Award." - use the full name of the award as its article is titled. Same applies for "Filmfare Best Villain Award".
• Because Rediff writer Sukanya Verma does not seem to have a Wikipedia article and sources published by herself are used in this article, refer to her by her occupation (eg: Sukanya Verma of Rediff...)
• Reincarnation can be wikilinked.
• Update info on DDLJ's run at Maratha Mandir in present tense.
• "Khan became a romantic icon without ever actually kissing any of his co-stars" - But this feat was broken in Jab Tak Hai Jaan (2012), so do something about this.
• "Kaho Naa... Pyaar Hai starring the handsome new actor Hrithik Roshan, who took the country by storm at the time." - there seems to be some POV here, and I don't think the film literally created a storm.
• "[Hey Ram] was critically acclaimed and was selected as India's entry for the Best Foreign Language Film at the Oscars that year" - use the actual name of the award, not "Oscar".
• "Taran Adarsh of Bollywood Hungama called him outstanding" - put the peacock term within quotes.
• "the adult-drama Kabhi Alvida Naa Kehna" - the film's article reads it as a "musical romantic drama", and I don't think it was an adults-only film. Also, replace the z in "polarizing" with s, to look less American.

More to come soon. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Done up to here. BollyJeff | talk 02:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• The sections "Ups and downs" and "Back on top" can be renamed to something more formal, like "career instability" and "resurgence".

Lol, thanks. BollyJeff | talk 02:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Bibliography and further reading

• Remove "further reading", as the former name is enough.

Comment I looked just at the lead section and did some copyediting; feel free to revert, as always. If you ping me, I'll be happy to watchlist this page and discuss anything in the lead. - Dank (push to talk) 03:41, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Last comment: How reliable is RajTamil as a source? It also appears to be a case of WP:MIRROR. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:32, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I have removed this text and source, and added another comment that is better sourced. BollyJeff | talk 17:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Good. And because I find no other flaws, this FAC has my Support. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments from SNUGGUMS

From a quick glance, I see there isn't very much in the section on his awards. Probably worth adding another paragraph on them, as WP:LAYOUT discourages sections/subsections that don't exceed a short paragraph. Alternatively, the section on them could be removed and the awards/nominations list page be moved to "see also". Additionally, why only include his net worth in American dollars if he isn't American? I'll be back with a more detailed review later on. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The source listed his net worth in US dollars. Is there a converter template from USD to other currencies, and would that even be desired? Also, why did you remove the select filmography. Those were the films that won him certain "best actor" awards. If I rename the section, or add a note stating such, would this be acceptable? I have seen these in other FAs. BollyJeff | talk 00:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, if I remove the one paragraph on awards, I will have to add a bunch of sources in the lead, which is also not desirable. It was a subsection, not a section, before you changed it. BollyJeff | talk 00:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I removed it because "selected" lists are POV (see Talk:Ashton Kutcher#GA Review). If consensus determined not to use crores and lakhs for net worth, then so be it. I would ideally list his net worth in rupees. Anyway, onto the review, with raw article size not withstanding.....

Lead

• "Shah Rukh Khan also known as SRK" should have a comma after "Shah Rukh Khan"
• "numerous accolades" should link to List of awards and nominations received by Shah Rukh Khan
• I don't find it necessary to include his total number of nominations for Filmfare Awards in the lead- that's better for the above linked article rather than here
• "The media often label him as" → "He has often been labeled as"

Then someone will say by who?

Early life and background

• I don't know if "One of his childhood friends and acting partners was Amrita Singh, who later became a Bollywood actress" is needed
• "he commenced studying"..... began
• "but abandoned the course to pursue his career"..... seems incomplete, I'd use something like "acting career" or "career in film"
• "he also values his wife's religion. At home, his children follow both religions; the Qur'an is situated next to the Hindu deities"..... it should be established that Gauri Chibber is Hindu before the "At home" sentence

It is, three sentences earlier.

Acting career

• Shah Rukh Khan filmography would be better to use as a referral link here

The sub-article linked is an expanded version of what is here, but I moved the filmography link here as well.

1988–92

Television and film debut

• Is "mass recognition" the best term to use in "earned him mass recognition"?
• "He earned the Filmfare Best Male Debut Award for the performance"..... it's best to include specific roles/movie names for sentences like these

1993–94

The anti-hero

• I know what "dark roles" is supposed to mean, but it seems POV

1995–98

The romantic hero

• "the following year was an improvement"..... POV
• "The film and his performance in it met with critical appreciation"..... awkward phrasing

1999–2003

Career challenges

• "Khan turned producer in 1999"..... something doesn't seem right about this phrasing
• Not sure if "but more than recovered its costs" is needed
• "he was in great pain"..... maybe severe would be better

2004–09

Resurgence

• "although the critic from Epilogue"..... you need to provide the critic's name
• I don't know about the use of "serious" in "Khan suffered a serious shoulder injury"
• Remove "intense" from "the intense pain"

2010–present

• "effectively" in "Khan effectively portrayed" seems POV
• "One publication criticised Khan's oversexualised superhero"..... "oversexualised" is POV, and the "one publication" should be named
• "Regardless" is inappropriate tone when used at the beginning of a sentence
• "On 7 March 2013—a day before International Women's Day—The Times of India reported that Khan had requested a new convention with the name of his lead female co-stars appearing above his own in the credits"..... no quotes on request or reasons doing so?
• "As of December 2014, Khan is filming Maneesh Sharma's Fan, in which he essays dual roles of a superstar and his fan. He has also signed on for director Rahul Dholakia's next film, entitled Raees, produced by Excel Entertainment and co-starring Nawazuddin Siddiqui"..... I would include scheduled release date(s)

Other work

• "which is not common for Bollywood actors" from "Khan has occasionally done playback singing for his films, which is not common for Bollywood actors" is not really necessary
• "which became popular on the music charts"..... I'd give specific chart names

Humanitarian causes

• "Khan stated in an interview with The Guardian" → "Khan told The Guardian"
• "Khan has pledged to further the cause of child education in India"..... awkward phrasing
• "he teamed up with Amitabh Bachchan and Judi Dench"..... perhaps joined is better

In the media

• While Dr. Blofeld and others did extensively compile the referral article, I personally would've just cut any excess detail and not included a subpage.
• "Khan receives a large amount of media coverage in India, and is often referred" → "Khan is often referred"
• Is "Wealth X" reliable? I've seen it challenged when used for net worth on other BLPs, and don't know whether its credibility has been established or not.
• Not sure if "Several books about Khan were published in 2007, including Mushtaq Sheikh's Still Reading Khan, which describes Khan's family life and features rare photographs, and Anupama Chopra's biography King of Bollywood: Shahrukh Khan and the Seductive World of Indian Cinema, set against the backdrop of the Indian film industry" is needed
• "In 2007, Khan became the third Indian actor to have his wax statue installed at London's Madame Tussauds museum"..... it would probably help to mention those who preceded him

Filmography and awards

• One paragraph isn't very much for his awards, given how many Khan has recieved. Even though there is a separate article for his awards, it's worth adding another paragraph on his achievements.
• This should really focus more on his awards
• "has likely garnered him more awards"..... borderline WP:WEASEL

References

• FN3: Should just read Good Morning America
• FN4: International Business Times shouldn't be italicized since it is only and online publication

It is italicized in its own article, but I will take your word for it.

• FN's 5 and 7: YouTube tends to be discouraged as a source, and can potentially go against copyrights

FN5 is not available elsewhere, FN7 is the YT channel of the interviewer, so no copyright problem

• FN15: Twitter is discouraged as a source when high-quality secondary sources are available

It would take a lot of sources to cover that one sentence

• FN27: "Daily Bhaskar" should read Dainik Bhaskar
• FN71: Has a HARVref error that needs to be addressed
• FN96: Should just read BBC News

Why? What about 33 and 186/187?

• FN113: Same problem as FN71
• FN136: Should read Film Journal International
• FN175: Unlink Red Chillies Entertainment since it was previously linked in FN174
• FN187: Same as FN96
• FN198: Should read "Business of Cinema"
• FN199: Not sure this is FA-worthy

HuffPost, really?

• FN213: Should read Yahoo! Movies
• FN222: reliable?
• FN234: should read "Indian Television"

That seem too generic, and the .com is in their logo

• FN238: should read Madame Tussauds

Bibliography

• The following all have HARVref errors:

• Byline by M. J. Akbar
• Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge: (The "Brave-Hearted Will Take the Bride") by Anupama Chopra
• Bollywood Travels: Culture, Diaspora and Border Crossings in Popular Hindi Cinema by Rajinder Dudrah
• King Khan by Deepa Gahlot, Dipali Singh, and Amit Agarwal
• Hall Of Fame Shah Rukh Khan by Biswadeep Ghosh
• Global Bollywood: Travels of Hindi Song and Dance by Sangita Gopal and Sujata Moorti
• Impossible Desires: Queer Diasporas and South Asian Public Cultures by Gayatri Gopinath
• The Routledge Encyclopedia of Films by Sabine Haenni, Sarah Barrow, and John White
• A Companion to Diaspora and Transnationalism by Ato Quayson and Girish Daswani
• Dispatches From the Wall Corner:A Journey Through Indian Cinema by Baradwaj Rangan
• New Cosmopolitanisms: South Asians in the US by Gita Rajan and Shailja Sharma
• Shahrukh Khan — Still Reading Khan by Mushtaq Shiekh
• Shah Rukh Can: The Story of the Man and Star Called Shah Rukh Khan by Mushtaq Shiekh
• Mother Maiden Mistress by Bhawana Sommiya

My I ask what the errors are? It is not obvious to me. BollyJeff | talk 01:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

You may need to install this script. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

At this point, I'm going to oppose. Snuggums (talk / edits) 08:11, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Some good points SNUGGUMS, thanks for looking at it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Dr. Blofeld

Unfortunately I don't think your ping worked back in November Bollyjeff requesting input at peer review as I wasn't aware of this until recently. Never mind.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• "For his contributions to film, the Government of India honoured him with the Padma Shri, and the Government of France has awarded him both the Ordre des Arts et des Lettres and the Légion d'honneur." I think that would read better at the end of the lede. I think you could also mention the dates that he was awarded those.
• " He is considered one of the biggest film stars in India and has a massive fan following; the Los Angeles Times described him as perhaps "the world's biggest movie star". " on the otherhand I think belongs nearer the beginning. Don't like the word "massive" here. I think it;s important also to put it in context as calling him the world's biggest movie star might look odd to many of our (white) western readers, many of whom will not really be that familiar with him. For most of us (in the UK) Tom Cruise or Will Smith or somebody would have that title, I'd say a good percentage of the population will not have heard of him. It's due to sheer numbers of fans in Asia and the Indian diaspora worldwide which really account for the bulk of his fanbase and being the biggest star. I've reworded and moved it around a bit myself.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks.

• It's difficult to mention specific Filmfare winning roles given that he's won 14, but as a reader I think it would be good to know at least a handful of the films which he won the most awards for for reference.

In the lead, or how about in filmography and/or awards sections? BollyJeff | talk 13:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The awards section in the main I think could state the roles which he won Filmfare awards for. Personally I think if Filmfare is the most important award then the Filmfare table in the sub article belongs in the main article too so readers can quickly check. In the lede it's difficult to really do it without bloating it. But if there was one or two roles which stand out by sheer merit perhaps mention it there too?♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Early life

• "Khan's father Meer Taj Mohammed Khan, an ethnic Pashtun, was an Indian independence activist from Peshawar, British India (present-day Pakistan), a follower of Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan,[9] and was affiliated with the All Indian National Congress.[10] " -a bit of a mouthful, could split into two sentences.
• "Khan's mother Lateef Fatima was the daughter of a senior government engineer.[12][c] His parents met when his mother was involved in an auto accident, and his father (who is 13 years older than she) " Not sure it is relevant to mention 13 years, but if so it would be better to word it something like "Khan's mother Lateef Fatima, 13 years his junior, was the daughter of a senior government engineer.[12][c] His parents met when his mother was involved in an auto accident, and his father...
• "half Pathan " -is there a link for Pathan or is it another word for Pashtun? I see no previous mention of it.
• "His cousin in Peshawar" -you might mention him by name.
• Fix link to St. Columba's School, Delhi, you might say in central Delhi after it. Do we have years of attendance?

Especially relevant give that you say "His favourite actors at the time " without actually stating the time.

• "He started studying for a Masters Degree in Mass Communications at Jamia Millia Islamia, but left to pursue his career.[23] He also attended the National School of Drama, Delhi during his early career in Bollywood.[24" -again some year mention here would help put it in context.

Acting

• "His initial film roles saw him play characters who displayed high levels of energy and enthusiasm. According to Arnab Ray of Daily News and Analysis, "he came, sliding down stairs on a slab of ice, cartwheeling, somersaulting, lips trembling, eyes trembling, bringing to the screen the kind of physical energy ... visceral, intense, maniacal one moment and cloyingly boyish the next."" -which film does this refer to?
• "He received a nomination for the Filmfare Award for Best Performance in a Negative Role, also known as the Best Villain Award.[50] B" -which film? The Darr/Baazigar does seem a bit jumbled to read. I think you need to get information about the role sorted first. "Baazigar, in which Khan played an ambiguous avenger who murders his girlfriend, shocked Indian audiences with an unexpected violation of the standard Bollywood formula." for instance definitely belongs before the Encyclopedia quote I think.
• "In 2006, Khan considered this film to the best one he has acted in." to be or he compared it to another film which he considered the best?
• "Khan was subsequently credited for "pushing the envelope" by choosing to play such characters, " -by whom?

Romantic hero

• "Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge has grossed over INR1.2 billion (US$19 million) worldwide.[59] " Doesn't really belong there. If you must mention a figure do so where you say major commercial success. It does seem odd in 2014 terms to see a film earning just $19 mill as a massive success though!
• The flow of 1996-7 paragraph isn't great either it seems like in note form towards the end. Could use a copyedit. The problem continues into 1998 with short sentences like "The film did not perform well at the box office." I don't like keep reading that sort of thing. I think in some cases you don't have to keep saying how it fared at the box office, or at least reword it so it fits into discussion of the film without devoting a sentence to it.
• " These roles," -what roles, as far as I can see you're only discussing Kuch Kuch in that paragraph.
• " romantic icon " -repetition . I believe neutrality is compromised at the end of this section. Needs to be reworded to say the same thing without so much fluff.

Career challenges

• " The critics were very harsh on Phir Bhi Dil Hai Hindustani and Khan himself, saying that he was no match for the younger Roshan." -an example or two of the grilling would be good here.
• "Khan waved his fee for playing this part." -why?
• 2001-3 -good job, reads much better than the earlier section

Resurgence

• Priety Zinta -typo
• ""Top 80 Iconic Performances"" -of Bollywood?
• Paheli was panned yet ""justifies his supremacy in the film world". Yuck, looks like cherry picking.
• 2007 "Chak De! India was a major critical and commercial success in India and abroad." -you could just say successful when you introduce the film.

Television hosting

• Zee Cine, and Screen Awards. -should these be linked or have you already done it further up?
• If you're going to link Perth and Sydney, why not Rotterdam? MOS advises against linking big cities I believe, Sydney definitely falls under that, Perth probably too.
• SLAM! The Tour -no link?

Endorsements

• " At times he was an ever present celebrity, with two or three films a year, constantly running television ads, print ads, and gigantic billboards lining the streets of Indian cities." -vague and surely "ever present" would depend on the context and person.
• "Khan has also been engaged " -best not to start a new paragraph with also
• "For a time, Khan's brand value was thought to have declined slightly because of his status as an ageing superstar. " -according to whom?

Popularity

• "he was able to personify an ambitious, assertive and yet feel-good India." -seems like patriotic puffery
• "In 2014, the firm Wealth X ranked Khan second in their listing of the richest actors in the world" -after who?

Public image

• "Media have said his dimples are one of his distinctive physical features.[273] Khan has also achieved recognition as a style icon in India.[274] In 2011, the British edition of GQ magazine featured him as one of the best dressed men in the world" -See you don't need to say all that. You could simply say "A style icon, in 2011 the British edition of GQ magazine featured him as one of the best dressed men in the world".

Overall, way way too much puffery in the media sections and the bulk of the information about it all I think overshadows your coverage of his actual film career which should really represent 70-75% of the article. I know it's SRK but I really believe it affects article neutrality and encyclopedic quality. There's way too much detail for the main article and reads like a fan piece in the lower sections. I think you should create an article Shah Rukh Khan in the media or whatever and cover from non acting to the end in it and aim to cut down the bulk in this article on his various media assets I'd say by at least 30%. Normally I'd give a straight oppose, but I know how diligently you can work Bollyjeff so I'm going to revisit this later. If you need any assistance in cutting and improving let me know Jeff.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Everything up until this last paragraph is easily fixable, but that really kills it. Are you suggesting to include non acting in the main article, or cut that and everything below? Can you show me another actor's article that cuts out all other work and media except acting to a sub-article as a reference? If I cut all of that, the lead would be nearly empty as an article summary. He is way more than just acting. Shah Rukh Khan except early life and acting?? BollyJeff | talk 15:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I am aware that he is does more than just acting, but you can cover his other endeavours within moderation without so much puffery. Do you really need to say he had fans at an airport in New Jersey for instance... I am suggesting that you find a way to split the bulk of the other work material into an article or two covering it in detail and condensing down the coverage here. I did not say " cut out all other work and media except acting" now did I? I said that I don't think it should be 50-50. High status or not the coverage of his other work here is (in my opinion) excessive to read and I don't believe it reads as well as it would do if you file away some of the puffery. Popularity and wealth, Public image and in other media. Three big sections. Why? I think you could quite reasonably combine all three into one section which reads well and is informative without so much forced down our throats as the reader on how wonderful he is. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:17, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

You said that I could create another article to "cover from non acting to the end". It was, and is still not, clear to me if you meant that the non-acting work would be part of the main or the sub article. The three sections that you mentioned could be pared, but they currently account for about 20%, and I am thinking of criteria 1b - comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context. BollyJeff | talk 18:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I think creating an article on SRK in the media with some of the lower sections is quite reasonable and filing down three big sections on image and success to one would be a good start. "neglects no major facts or details " does not mean we must document everything reported like fans at an airport and smoking in public. Perhaps you'd like some further input from others. I personally find it excessive to read three or four sections on media related material.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I will implement your other suggestions right away, and figure out how to do the rest in a sandbox, but yes, I would like others opinions before making a split and/or paring down 10-20% of the article. Thank you. BollyJeff | talk 20:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I acknowledge that it's appropriate to give his media work and coverage considerable attention but you've got at least 4 sections, Endorsements, Popularity and wealth, Public image and in other media which I really don't think is necessary in a main article piece about him anyway. I think he has had enough media coverage to constitute a detailed article especially on that with his various assets, but not in a main article on him.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Endorsements is considered media coverage rather than work? He earns a large portion of his income from that. What about Humanitarian stuff; where should that go? BollyJeff | talk 23:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Endorsements and advertising are certainly part of his relationship with media and commerce yes. It needs a lot of pruning, and it's not just the media content which needs filing down. I think the acting career section would benefit in places from some production information and better reviews to improve readability and the encyclopedic value, particularly in his earlier career. The 2001-03 part reads very well I thought, and there was a reason for that.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:53, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I've managed to keep all the material together and create Shah Rukh Khan in the media, a 45kb article in it's own right. That can be worked on at a later date. This takes priority for now. "In the media" covers endorsements too I think, it's promotional and media relations isn't it. I don't think you need to trim the TV and stage work much at all, but from endorsements down I think there should be two main sections maximum, Humanitarian and In the media perhaps like the Angelina Jolie article with a main article link. Image, popularity, endorsements and all that I think belong in "In the media". I think I could come up with a condensed version which is more comfortable to read without losing too many important details but I'm going to leave you (and others) to try to see some light in what I'm suggesting.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I think what Dr. Blofeld is rightfully suggesting is we trim down on the three major sections that describe his popularity in the main article. Instead, we can have a brief synopsis of that in one "in the media" section. Also, an "artistry" or "acting style and reception" section will be beneficial. The non-acting work can stay as is. I also agree that more weight should be put on his acting career by including some pertinent production information and critical opinion on his earlier work. The article is almost there, and with these fine-tunings taken care of, I'm sure Blofeld will agree that it meets the FA criteria. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 02:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Spot on dearest Krimuk!♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:30, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for creating the sub article; it looks really good! I still don't see a precedent for this, as Angelina Jolie seems to have everything in the main, unless I missed something. Please have a look here User:Bollyjeff/sandbox for a reworking of this main article to include your sub. If you think it is acceptable (maybe some minor polishing remains), and the FAC delegate thinks it is appropriate to make such a change at this time, I will put it up. BollyJeff | talk 14:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

That's rather drastic!! When I meant condensing I still meant a sizable section or two, just not three or four different sections on media related stuff. The main article has to be as informative as possible of course, just without so much to digest on his media personality. It can't be so short that it affects the quality of information. I think you could make it perhaps twice as long if not a bit more than your current sandbox version. It really needs to be a highly tuned/"condensed" version rather than "cut" if you see what I mean. I think it does need to be fairly substantial, but written in a way which doesn't seem like puffery and informs the reader without even having to read the media article. Two fairly chunky but concise sub sections of "In the media" might be the best way to cover it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:27, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Then someone will probably put a merge tag on the sub article because there will be too much duplication! The link to the Awards sub has only one small paragraph, and the Filmography sub is just a link with no text at all. You obviously know exactly what you want, so feel free to change it, instead of all this back and forth. I would like to see the article make FA any way it can, rather than taking full credit. Concerning the suggestion of an "artistry" or "acting style and reception" sections, they were there prior, but because of complaints from other editors about duplicate information and article length, they were removed and worked into the first two paragraphs of the current "Public image" section. It is hard for one to please so many people with differing standards and ideas. BollyJeff | talk 15:14, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'd say the sandbox version is a significant improvement in terms of neutrality and looks less promotional with a neat summary, but I think you can afford to add a bit more detail. I may have a go later using your current sandbox version. See User:Dr. Blofeld/SRK, I think I've managed to condense it down by 22kb without losing too much. It could still use a trim in some places but I'd need to do that once this is updated here. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:48, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

It looks good. Although I still have not seen another actor's article with this type of setup, I am okay with you putting that up now. Then further refinements can be made on the live article. Thanks, BollyJeff | talk 19:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Done. IMO a few of our current Bollywood actor FAs would benefit with less in the media and image sections but I do think somebody like Khan who obviously has an enormous amount of media coverage a separate article on that is more appropriate. I'll try to give this further attention over the next week.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

This looks to be headed in the right direction now. We could really use some of the regular (western world) actor reviewers to give this a vigorous review but people are away and busy at Christmas. It has been open since 12 November, I wonder why so few have really had a good look at this. I think the 2000s film work needs a fair bit of work still but it's certainly improved.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:46, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, I have implemented all the other suggestions that you made above, prior to the sub-article discussion. It seems a bit ambiguous to say that it still needs "a fair bit of work". What do you mean precisely: additions, deletions, change in tone? BollyJeff | talk 18:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The 2000s section I think could use some reinforcement from google books to try to improve readability and tone yes.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I have made a number of changes over the last couple days to improve the readability. BollyJeff | talk 03:15, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I've made some further major edits and additions this evening (mainly to the 2000s section) which I think improve the overall readability and interest which have addressed the problem I identified beyond what you did Jeff. Perhaps a few more negative quotes might be a good thing for neutrality though. I think this would still benefit from several neutral able "Western" editors on here to fully review this and help copyedit in places but I'm happy now with the overall content and balance and think we're onto a winner here. I would offer my support, but I think I've put enough constructive work into it now to not really be able to give a "support" as a neutral reviewer. I'll continue to look occasionally at this over the next few days.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:04, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Indopug

Comment Please avoid using PR pieces such as this (bizarrely titled "Leading News Resource of Pakistan" in the reference) as sources. I'd also suggest to review the Humanitarian section on the whole; it makes him seem like Mother Teresa, especially because it uncritically allows him to humblebrag, "Somewhere in the Quran it says that if you do charity for a reason, it's not charity."

Please use lakhs and crores for the rupee figures (Western readers use the $ figures anyway); no Indian can understand how much INR1.22 billion is without converting to crores.—indopug (talk) 15:01, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I have replaced the specific source that you questioned, and will consider the rest. I believe that there was a discussion that resulted in a consensus to not use crores and lakhs since they are not really monetary units. BollyJeff | talk 16:01, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

Dr Blofeld has asked me to comment, and it seems to me that this article is much too long and over-detailed. It runs to 131,600 bytes – this for a career of just over thirty years, when recently promoted FAs on actors with vastly longer careers come in at 94,100 (John Gielgud) and 96, 810 (John Barrymore). I have just downloaded the article as a pdf and it runs to 22 pages. That is a monograph, not an encyclopaedia article. It is unreasonable to ask any reader to wade through an article so excessively long. I have no reason to suppose the sources are inadequate or the coverage biased, and the prose suffices, but there is just too much of it. – Tim riley talk 21:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

@Tim riley: If you count the number of on-computer-screen readable pages, up until you get to the references section, Barrymore has 17, Gielgud has 19, and Khan has 15. I think the bulk of the size difference comes because many of Khan's citations are of the fully filled out cite-news and cite-web variety, whereas the other articles use primarily the simpler sfn, or just 'author and page number between ref tag' cites, which take up less space. The readable text is actually more for both of the examples you gave. I cannot easily determine from the article how many films or plays Barrymore was involved with (which I think is a flaw in that one), for Gielgud it is over 60, but for Khan it is over 80. I have also compared this article's relative size favorably against three others on the FAC talk page. Oh, and BTW, Khan has an OPUS with over 800 pages written about him, so we have been brief here. BollyJeff | talk 00:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Based on the above, I think that you and Blofeld have unfairly characterized the length of this one. That being said, what would you recommend? There are already sub-articles for Khan's filmography, his awards, and a newly created one for his media exploits. Does it make sense to split off yet another sub-article only about his film career? What else could you suggest to make it more palatable, yet still be comprehensive? BollyJeff | talk 13:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I haven't " unfairly characterized " the length of anything. It just concerns me that somebody generally as enthusiastic (and capable) as Tim cannot complete and read the article because he finds it unpalatable. I do think though that somebody such as Khan and most of the Bollywood fan readers will enjoy reading a detailed article about him.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I take it back then if your concern was the lack of participation in the review. There were two supports above for the original version with more media info, but yes, I wish that more of the usual reviewers had given it a go over. I did not want to call anyone in and be accused of canvassing. BollyJeff | talk 18:04, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

That's a robust defence and a fair response. I was not opposing, but if I had been I should have withdrawn my opposition on the strength of BollyJeff's explanation of the facts. I don't know enough about the subject to feel confident in adding my support, essentially because I cannot judge whether the article meets criterion 1d, though I have no reason to suppose it doesn't. As I say above, there is no problem with the prose, the sources look excellent, and there is no question about the comprehensiveness of the article! I wish the candidacy a fair wind. While here, may I add that another editor, Bede735, has an article on an actor – Gary Cooper – up for peer review with FAC in mind, and BollyJeff and any other contributor to this page will, I know, be welcome at the PR should they care to look in. – Tim riley talk 14:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Crisco 1492 What do you think?♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• It would be nice if we could get down to 40k characters, rather than the 48k we've got now... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with Tim and Dr. B, this article is far too long. It's a shame that a good, comprehensive article such as this is being overlooked by people who are put off by its length. Cassianto^Talk 19:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you think that B's proposition of breaking it up into multiple sub-articles is the way to go? Or rip out text just for the sake of getting the size down? Or leave it as is and renominate later? Give up? I am looking for solutions here guys. BollyJeff | talk 19:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Generally I wouldn't advise on entries like media of and "Film career of" of people, but I do think that for somebody like SRK it is appropriate to have really detailed articles on things like that, given that this gets over 2 million hits a year and attracts many who will want to read it. I did a Film career of Grace Kelly a while back (which has some issues and needs toning down in some places as I didn't write most of it) but might be worth getting to GA. That was to avoid bloat in her main article. Film career of Audie Murphy already is a GA and is a perfectly valid article for somebody who had several high profile careers. I really don't want to lose too much on his career as I do think some of the details I added on themes especially in places improve readability and comprehension, but I do agree with Crisco's suggestion of trimming the readable prose by about 8kb. What I'd suggest is splitting the current version into a main article and a bit of a trim of the career without losing too much, but is at least within the realms of acceptability for readers like Tim and Cass. Then I think a main article on SRK's film career you could fully expand that with far more biographical details and include many more reviews and production info etc, although I'd guess a number of editors wouldn't be too fond of it. I'm certain there will be editors interested in that and it will be worth it, thousands of visitors daily will be looking for something super comprehensive on SRK. Above all what I really want on this is an article in which our regular actor editors on here with much experience will be willing to offer their support for this and a version in which anybody is going to approve of, even if not familiar with Bollywood. Like Jeff though I don't want to eat too much into it so that it affects comprehension and interest, but I do think we could file it down to something more comfortable and move some of more detailed content I added on themes etc to a main article and expand it for those who want it. I'll have a go at this tomorrow.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, I've trimmed it by 7kb, should be more if Jeff or somebody else can kindly take care of the books I didn't remove from the bibliography during the cut. I'm not sure how much readable prose I've removed, perhaps it could still be trimmed slightly in places which I'll look at tomorrow but in comparing it with the film career article I think it looks more reasonable now and comparable to many others. Bear in mind that he's starred in over 80 films I think so it's not going to be short! Any thoughts? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld, BTW, "Humanitarian causes" is duplicated in both "Shah Rukh Khan in the media" and in the main article. Should it be here or there? — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 05:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Another editor was concerned about it. I think its OK, we have similar sections in the other articles. It is possible to condense it to a summary but I think it was really the career section that needed a trim.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

OK we've lost 11 kb, I believe it's currently down to around 43k characters. I think it's already looking better, Tim riley, Cassianto, Crisco 1492? I don't think it's too unreasonable currently. I don't want it to be cut to the point we really start losing some notable details.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The overall length is now actually shorter than the FA on Priyanka Chopra..♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• Chopra's was 40k when it was promoted. Those extra 4k of bloat are in the past year... indicative that the article is facing the same problems this one is. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

What exactly is still the problem with the SRK article then? I'm viewing it on safari and it doesn't look massively long to me anymore. The career is still a fair size but in no place do I think it harps on about the same film, it reads quite well now I think. The summary of most films is brief. What exactly can we now lose from the career section without affecting how comprehensive it is? We could lose mention of some films which won Filmfare actor awards but that would affect its comprehension. It seems he won or was nominated for them for a good number of films. If you remove too much of the discussion of some things it'll read as even more monotonous than when it started. It looks about what you'd expect on somebody of SRK's stature.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry, I meant "was" with that last post. You're at 40.8k now, which is really good. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

@Crisco 1492: I've given the career a full copyedit and managed to reduce it a bit further, we should be near 40 k now. It would be good if a few people could now read this and leave some comments on whether it needs further improvement.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, the article is now at a much reader friendly length. Good work! Cassianto^Talk 11:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Coord notes

I was on the verge of archiving this at one stage in December as it seemed unlikely to gain consensus to promote, but eventually left it as disagreements over length/detail were being resolved. I note from the discussion immediately above that that's continued but we really should've been able to achieve consensus to promote after a couple of months, even allowing for Christmas / New Year. Even without Snuggums' recent oppose I'd be unable to promote this when only two of the eight or nine reviewers (many of whom are pretty experienced in film articles) feel able to declare their support -- I realise DrB and Tim have their valid reasons for not doing so but the issue remains. The fact that DrB feels he needs to recuse owing to the work he's done on the article during this nom is indicative that this has become more of a Peer Review than it ever should have (not the first such nom and won't be the last but it should be the exception, not the rule). Now scanning the outstanding comments I think several could be considered subjective but the fact that some relate to the vexed question of focus on accolades also suggests this article still has some way to go. I am therefore going to call a halt and archive it now, in the hopes that things can be resolved away from FAC and it can return for a fresh nomination after the usual two-week break. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree Ian Rose, I do feel that this should have been fully sorted before nomming, but in fairness Jeff didn't see any problem with the length or neutrality. What I suggest now is to open another peer review and to try to get some of the regular actor reviewers to try to offer some pointers and when it comes to be nominated again hopefully it will attract more interest and confidence.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, 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) 04:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

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