Talk:Priyanka Chopra

Edit request from Soniameloveyou, 8 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

Soniameloveyou (talk) 12:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC) 2011-Saat khoon maaf 2011-Race 2011-Don 2-Chase begins again 2011-Silence 2011-Dostana 2 (special apperance)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. & please provide a reliable source. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 12:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Would this be considered a reliable source? http://popcorn.oneindia.in/artist-upcoming-movies/3/2/priyanka-chopra.html BollyJeff || talk 13:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Or this one? http://in.movies.yahoo.com/artists/Priyanka-Chopra/filmography-10724.html

Don 2 was pretty well documented so I added it already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bollyjeff (talk • contribs) 13:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

From a cursory look, the former seems reliable enough; I've some qualms about the latter, because I'm not sure it has editorial oversight. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 13:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I added a couple more that info available on IMDB, WP, etc; but not all of them. BollyJeff || talk 14:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh well, I tried, but User:BOLLYWOOD DREAMZ says that "the other films are either delayed or indefinitely postponed". BollyJeff || talk 19:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

advertisements

I think it wasn't stated in the article that she appeared in many lux advertisments and number of advertisments she performed. Could someone make a list of them and state more detailed information about them? THANK YOU —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.235.201.176 (talk) 03:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

filmography

is Alibaba Aur 41 Chor still happening? and kunal kohli announced priyanka will be the lead in his upcoming film. any qualms if kunal kohli's next is added to her filmography? thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.60.16 (talk) 16:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

can tweets be considered a source? kunal kohli tweeted about his next film with priyanka chopra and shahid kapoor so can this be added to her filmography?

Reviews

I highly doubt the article's neutrality. The article tries very hard to show Priyanka as a superlative actress. Many reviews are actually by the same critics, and many of them do not reflect the majority view. I challenge the editor who added these reviews to come up with evidence that this is really respresentative. Also, words like "highly" are thrown without consideration. Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Moreover, her performance in Saat Khoon Maaf was not universally praised:

• NYT say, "She’s more conceit than character, and Ms. Chopra, though charming as always, can’t make her cohere."
• Khalid Mohamed says, "As for Priyanka Chopra, she lacks range. Once again after What’s Your Raashee, she can’t multi-task or shade her part at all. If there’s anything to show her alterations of attitude and age, it’s merely in her changes of wigs and cosmetics."
• Anupama Chopra says, "But beyond a point, even she can’t prop up the sagging plot."
• Raja Sen says, "Priyanka tries her best, but is simply not a good enough actress to justify being in a role this nuanced and demanding... she never comes close to being convincing. She turns hints into signals, happiness into hysterics, her every movement an act... she's an actress unworthy of this season."
• The Hindu says, "Priyanka Chopra churns out a rather uneven, inconsistent performance that's further botched up by bad make-up."
• Express India says, "Priyanka Chopra fills out Susanna to the best of her ability, which isn’t spectacular, but is never standard-procedure"

I don't say you have to cite everything criticising her and I know many critics praised her for her turn, but you must somehow reflect it in a quote that is not as gushing or at least by presenting both sides. It's not one or two negative reviews, it's more. And I'm sur there are more such reviews for this film and for others as well. Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

In regard to my previous point, I have a clear disagreement with this chain of edits made by User:Ranbirk. Some of the prose was really badly written and contained several grammatical errors. In addition, the user added many reviews by Taran Adarsh and it was quite puzzling to me. Another gushing quote of much praise without much substance was added and considering my above message, it's not what should reflect the majority view. I do appreciate Ranbirk for trying to make the article neutral by adding some slight negativity, but altogether the article does not really chronicle her career effectively, according to me. I do agree that the article needs expansion, but certainly not in this way. Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The English grammar was very bad. A space should come after a period for instance. I also agree that you cannot have so many reviews from one person, or it stops being neutral point of view (NPOV). The article does not need to be expanded at all, so any expansions must be done in a good manner, similar to other GA articles of living persons/actors. There is a list of Indian cinema GAs and FAs here to model it after. BollyJeff || talk 18:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we should add some of those bad reviews to make it more balanced. I also agree that a section for 1 1/2 years in the middle of the career is silly. Hopefully she has a long way to go yet, and now is still the beginning phase for her. :-) BollyJeff || talk 16:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Definitely. It's quite surprising that despite the fact that she is not considered that great an actress (although she did have some good achievements), there isn't a single negative review. She has appeared in many films and most of them were poorly received, and she had a tough time trying to prove her capability. There is some critical commentary, but I feel it was just added because it was a must, and the article lacks balance. I actually quite like Priyanka, I think she has grown as an actor and she is very pretty and attractive, but I have growing expactations, and the article gives the feeling as if there isn't any higher note to reach for her. That's frustrating. Instead, even for films considered to be her worst (e.g Drona), we see additions of some forced words of praise which add nothing really - like the one which says she has impressive "action heroine skills". Well... it's totally out of context, if you read the entire paragraph. Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Piggy chops

There lacks an explanation of why the above namespace redirects here. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done BollyJeff || talk 12:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Singing

Priyanka Chopra, not only is a Actress and model, but also a singer. She has sung a few lines of 'Right Here Right Now' from the film Bluffmaster and also does a few jingles. She also sang the song 'Tinka Tinka Zara Zara' on Rendezvous with Simi Garewal. Please insert this piece of information into the article as she is very multi-talented. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.194.231.189 (talk) 22:23, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I added something in the 'other work' section, but its hard to find reliable third-party sources for this sort of thing. BollyJeff || talk 00:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Signature

I have changed the signature of Priyanka Chopra from this file provided by Prajwal21 to provided by me, as the signature provided by me is an svg file and has a better resolution among many other criterias. GaneshBhakt (talk) 08:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

You have duplicated the already used signature, which was uploaded by me. Its of same resolution, you have just changed the format and uploaded the same. Stop doing this, it wont be acceptable. Prajwal ^talk 12:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Who says it hasn't changed? I have not only changed the format but also enhanced the image quality, reduced the image size from 28 KB to 10 KB, made it at par with other signatures, and also increased the image size from 140px to a possible 2000px. GaneshBhakt (talk) 13:52, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Guys, stop this useless fight, the images look the exact same. Let it be as it was - it's no big deal. Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The original one looks better on my PC. BollyJeff || talk 15:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Full protected

This page has been fully protected. A fully protected page can be edited only by administrators. The protection has been currently placed till Septembe 8, 2011, but could be removed/downgraded to semi-protection in case consensus on the current signature issue is reached. The "Edit" tab for a protected page is replaced by a "View source" tab, where users can view and copy, but not edit, the wikitext of that page.

Any modification to this page should be proposed here. After consensus has been established for the change, or if the change is uncontroversial, any administrator including I may make the necessary edits to the protected page. To draw administrators' attention to a request for an edit to a protected page, place the {{editprotected}} template on the talk page.

All requests to unprotect this page may be submitted at the page meant for such requests. Please get in touch directly with me on my talk page for any clarifications. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 10:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Move towards downgrading full-protection to semi-protection

This BLP was full-protected due to an edit war over the signature file. After two editors have communicated to me that they should wish the full-protect to be lifted, I am initiating a discussion whose sole aim is to see whether a consensus exists on the signature issue. If I find reasonable discussions (irrespective of the stand being taken) and am convinced that such discussions will continue on this signature issue rather than a repeat edit war, I shall immediately lift the full protection and downgrade it to a semi protection within two days of such discussions taking place. In any case, there is an alternate method for editors to request that protection be lifted on this article or to request edits to this page while it is protected. The same has been described in the section above detailing the full-protection. Moving forward, editors are encouraged to kindly comment/support/oppose on the following options that they would prefer with respect to the signature. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 09:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Option 1: Delete the signature file as this is a BLP and there is no reliable source provided that verifies that this signature is of the individual

• Comment I have placed this option because unless there is a reliable source provided, this signature linking will be deleted subsequently - if not by me, then by any other editor/administrator. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 09:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment What kinds of reliable sources can be used for signatures? BollyJeff || talk 18:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, any source that qualifies on RS. Even primary sources could do, provided they are directly from the actress' website or similar validated sites that are directly controlled by her.

Option 2: Keep the previous jpg file

• (Leave your comments/supports/opposes here)

Option 3: Retain the current svg file

• (Leave your comments/supports/opposes here)

Priyanka chopra

Hi, imnew here... how do u edit a priyanka chopra page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bollybitz (talk • contribs) 02:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

No one can edit it right now; an admin has locked the page due to some dispute. BollyJeff || talk 14:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Extra info

♥ I think we should add more sexy pics of Priyanka, because based on what we have here, it doesn't show much- beside the text to foreignors Also, we should give a bit more info about where she lives... personal life, but not too personal.

check this out- we can add info about this... --Bollybitz (talk) 02:39, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

No, WP is not the place for sexy pictures. Please get familiar with WP policies before you start adding a bunch of stuff on here. BollyJeff || talk 14:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)