Talk:Kareena Kapoor Khan/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

FA

I'm considering nominating this for FA. If it fails we will have some good advice on how to turn it into an FA. It still needs copy editing and the article isn't the most inspiring on wikipedia but it could reach FA if we get some fresh eyes on it. Another peer review anybody?Dr. Blofeld (talk) 11:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Rahul isn't here, no FAC without the main contributor. There are quite some things in need of addressing before it goes to FAC. I think it should first be discussed on the talk (I'll also present my concerns), then PR, and then we can secure a successful FAC. But first Rahul has to come. Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

FACs are allowed without the main guy, eg Don Bradman the main guy left after writing it up and the others copyedited and pruned etc. As long as the others are up to speed with the development of the article and the generalities of FAC it's ok. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 05:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I've asked Philcha to offer some views.Dr. Blofeld (talk) 12:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

OK. It's great if someone comes to read the article and opine about its level. My concerns are about some very particular problems. But I'll raise them when Rahul comes. As of now, it's great if Philcha reviews it. Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Nehrams2020

I just read through the article and made some minor grammar fixes throughout. For some suggestions, I recommend the following. Consider cropping the main image a bit more, there's a lot of black space above her head. The lead should be expanded to focus also on the other sections in the article including other work, her personal life, and in the media. I don't know if you can get away with the three screenshots at FAC, but it wouldn't hurt trying. Make sure that the FUR is strong for each one (also one of the images needs to be reduced in size so that one of the dimensions is no larger than 300px). Consider including a conversion for the rupee amounts to dollars/euros (since this is the English Wikipedia, a Western measurement may be beneficial). For the personal life statement about her being a vegetarian, I would recommend either incorporating this into another paragraph or expanding on it. The flow of the article would be improved when single sentences don't stand alone. See if there are any other external links that can be included in the article. Add a category for vegetarians, I think one exists somewhere. Before advancing to FAC, I'd recommend ensuring that all of the sources are deemed reliable and updating all of the access dates. I would also recommend a few people copyedit it. I found a few things, but with a quick read, I may have missed some things. Hopefully this is helpful. Best wishes on the article! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Philcha

This is not a subject area with which I'm familiar.Since the editors' objective is to get this article to FA, I'll look for relatively recent FAs about actors / actresses (1 July 2007 onwards; standards were significantly lower before then) to guide my comments - covering "acotrs / actresses only" as hyphenated actors are more complex, and are irrelevant to Kareena Kapoor at this stage in her career. The qualifying FAs I've found at Wikipedia:Featured_article#Media are:
Harriet Bosse - Nancy Cartwright - Kirsten Dunst - Judy Garland - Maggie Gyllenhaal - Cillian Murphy - Sebastian Shaw (actor) - Emma Watson - Reese Witherspoon - Anna May Wong - Preity Zinta. Hmm, interesting gender balance :-)
I think Preity Zinta is probably the most useful here, as she's the only Indian actress,and the article was promoted on May 27, 2008. --Philcha (talk) 12:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Coverage

• Y Seems to have much the same section headings as Preity Zinta, except "Turning point, 2004–present" here is equivalent to "Success (2003–present)" i n Preity Zinta. Looks similar to the section headings in other fairly young actresses such as Kirsten Dunst and Reese Witherspoon. So looks coverage looks OK at the top level, tho I may have comments in indiv sections. --Philcha (talk) 12:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Y I'm struck by the lack of overviews of actors / actresses' strengths & weaknesses, preferred genres, etc. in all the articles I've surveyed. I can see why it may be more difficult than with other subjects such as sportspersons, authors, scientists, etc.: a performance is at least as much determined by the director; performers are eager to stay in work, and may not be able to choose preferred types of role. A section that covers such topics would gain brownie points if it's possible, but lack of it should not be a deal-breaker for FA. --Philcha (talk) 12:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Just noticed this, which suggests a Kapoor family style of acting. this contains more material than you've used. Those brownies point as may be achievable if you find such nuggets in other sources. --Philcha (talk) 13:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I've added a quote from that interview which I believe is important for her career.Dr. Blofeld (talk) 14:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Structure

• Y Similar to other FAs on actors / actresses. That's natural, given the similar coverage.--Philcha (talk) 12:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources generally

(comment) Since this is Indian cinema, many of the sources are in the Indian media. Most en.WP editors & reviewers are from the "old" British Empire (incl USA - wait for the flames :D), i.e. white, from a long line of native English users, with a shared cultural background. I can't commnent on the reliability of Indian sources because I don't know the territory. You might do well to have "defence notes" ready for questions at FAC. OTOH if you make it clear you've researched the reliability of the sources, their unfamiliarity should not be a barrier - I've seen this before in other subjects. --Philcha (talk) 13:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources from the Indian media are used precisely because we cam to a consensus with other FA reviwers and in general that for Bollywood a great of other web content is found in fan blogs and commercial sites which may jeopardize reliability and integrity of the sources. This is why we rely on the Indian media and the two or three mainstream Indian websites which are considered professional. Having a source or two from New York Times for instance on how her films and performances were rated overseas is always good but given that it is about an Indian actress national sources are considered the best. For instance an article about the Indian community in New York we would generaly always use American sources and probably wouldn't even consider using any Indian based references such is the bias. Remember also that many wikipedians on here are Indian too of course although us English and Americans make up the majority.Dr. Blofeld (talk) 14:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Early life and family

• No birthdate, which is in the lead - lead cannot contain info that's not in the main text. --Philcha (talk) 13:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC) I don't think it is required in this section. Upon looking at other FAs, the only place they included the birthdate was in the infobox and lead, and nowhere else. If it is indeed required there, I will add it in but IMO I don't think it is necessary to have it in this section. -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 01:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
• This source is cited for the 1st sentences but supports nothing. --Philcha (talk) 13:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)  Done This source supports the claim that her name was inspired by the book Anna Karenina -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 01:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
• "Bebo, as Kareena is fondly called" is not supported. --Philcha (talk) 13:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC) Done
• This is cited for "her father insisted that she marry early according to Indian tradition and avoid acting" but does not support it. --Philcha (talk) 13:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC) Done This is discussed in the bookDr. Blofeld (talk) 14:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Re "In an interview with Encyclopedia Britannica, he stated that he did not have issues with women acting, given that both he and his brother married well-known actresses as did their uncles. Rather, his concerns arose from the purported incompatibility between acting and the maternal duties and responsibility of women in the family":
  • The source is Encyclopedia of Hindi Cinema; Google Books gives publisher as "Popular Prakashan"; Google Books' author entry say "Encyclopaedia Britannica (India) Pvt. Ltd, Gulzar, Govind Nihalani, Saibal Chatterjee". You need to check the biblio details elsewhere as the "author" item in GB looks odd to me. Getting this wrong so early with such a high-profile book is also likely to raise questions about the reliabilty of your sources generally, as it appears you have done a pooor job of researching the sources (see comments above). --Philcha (talk) 13:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC) Done -concerns unfounded this checks out although I will alter the actual book name in the text.Dr. Blofeld (talk) 14:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Can't check whether it suports the article text, as GB is not showing that page to-day, or not in the UK, or whatever. Reviewers generally WP:AGF in such cases, but that is undermined if what they can see displays the issues that have appeared in just 1.5 short paras so far. --Philcha (talk) 13:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • The sad thing is that this, cited at end of para supports quite a lot of the passage. --Philcha (talk) 13:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• This now "not found", try Internet Archive - see User:Philcha#Links_that_have_died for guidance. Since there is an automated checker, FAC will not excuse this sort of thing.--Philcha (talk) 13:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)  Done I fixed the link; it is now working. -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 01:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
• This supports almost everything it claims to - except what she studied at Harvard.

"Didn't you go abroad to pursue your studies?Yeah, I went to Harvard for a course in microcomputers and information technology. I did it for three months. Then I joined a drama school. That, too, was for a short while. I left studies because I knew I wanted to join the movies. " This checks out completely.Dr. Blofeld (talk) 14:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, reviewer's blindness (only witty comments about this, please) - I should have used my browser's text search. --Philcha (talk) 15:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

In a GA review I'd pause here and ask the editor(s) to fix these and check that every word of the rest of the article is supported by the cited sources, then I'd wait a couple of weeks - so that's what I'll do here, please send me a message when you're ready. You won't get such patience at FAC.
PS this is not me being picky - these are violations of WP:V and the article would now fail GA review. --Philcha (talk) 13:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Karanacs

I knew nothing of this actress before reading the article, and in my opinion it appears comprehensive. I think you are close to FA status, but there is still work to be done.

• The lead seems too long and detailed. Not all of her awards need to be mentioned here, nor do so many of her movies.
• I do think it needs a futher copyedit.
  • The tone is often a little too familiar. "back in Mumbai"
  • Some of the sentences are a little convoluted. They can be reworded to be clearer. Sometimes it helps to use Tony1 guidelines and try to chop out all the words that aren't necessary to the meaning.
    • This is often sometimes due to clauses that don't mesh well. For example "Kapoor was initially scheduled to make her debut in Rakesh Roshan's Kaho Naa... Pyaar Hai (2000), opposite his debnutant son Hrithik Roshan; both had completed their acting training at the Kishore Namit Kapoor Acting Institute" - does both refer to Kapoor and Hrithik, Hrithik and Rakesh, Kapoor and Rakesh? if you diagram this sentence, it ought to refer to the two Roshans, but I know that isn't what you meant.

I think it's pretty obvious it refers to Kapoor and Roshan. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 09:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

example 2 - Under the direction of Sudhir Mishra, Kapoor played a prostitute in Chameli opposite Rahul Bose, which takes the name of her central character - no idea what the "which take the name of" is supposed to be referring to.

Kapoor starred in the film Chameli, Chameli is the name of her charatcer in it and subject, I thought this was pretty clear too. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 09:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• • Sentences don't always flow well within paragraphs.
• " opposite his debnutant son Hrithik Roshan" - I think this should be debutant, and I think that is the wrong word for what you mean here.
• I know very little about Bollywood. Is it unusual that a young woman would have so little trouble getting acting roles? Did her ease at this come because of her acting training or her family name (or both or neither)?
• Kapoor described her debut as a "completely different role," - different from what? her role in the movie she dropped out of? other later roles she took? anyone elses roles?
• Probably need a footnote to tell us whether she is related to her costar Tusshar Kapoor
• You don't need to quote all of the reviews in full sentences. In some cases, it would be better to paragraph/summarize, in others you may just want to quote pieces of the sentence (especially where the prose in the review itself is not so good).
• It's unclear to me whether she was actually being typecast (only offered roles similar to those she had already played) or whether she was actually choosing those types of roles for some reason. The text implies both.
• I think File:Chameli_(Kareena_Kapoor).jpg probably fails fair-use guidelines
• what does this mean - "her first uncivil role "
• File:Kapoor JabWeMet.jpg may also not qualify under fair-use (although the rationale is much better than for the other one)
• I'm a bit confused by the Other work section. We briefly heard that she sang in one of her movies - now is the article saying that she actually performs in concerts? We learn that she won "Kaun Banega Crorepati " but not that she entered or even what that is.
• "was once in the center of a scandal when onlookers with mobile phone cameras filmed them kissing and released it to the media" - may need to explain why this was a scandal. In Europe and the US, this wouldn't have been a blip
• The bit about becoming a vegetarian seems to be trivia, and seems to have nothing to do with this section. I see that this is expanded on later...perhaps the sentence should just be moved?
• All the images are on the right. Perhaps a few could be on the left?
• Much of the In the media section seems to me to be essentially trivia.
• In the references, newspaper names need to be in italics
• I don't know what rediff.com is - is it a reliable source?

I'm not watching this page. If you need more info, please ping me on my talk and I'll come back. Karanacs (talk) 17:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Redundancies

• In December 2008, Kapoor visited Khan's parents for the first time in his ancestral village of Pataudi, in Haryana, the first of Saif’s girlfriends to receive a family invitation.[13] According to Khan, “Yes, Kareena has been invited to Pataudi this December. Our family gets together every winter. Since Kareena is now a part of our family and my parents are extremely fond of her, she has been invited.” - what's so notable about that?
• One Indian television program broadcast an hour-long detailed report on how Kapoor was supposedly making a concerted effort to drive Priyanka Chopra, Shahid's current girlfriend out of his life. Kapoor angrily dismissed the report, stating, "Why am I being dragged into all this? I dont like my name to come up in connection with other peoples lives. I've moved on and I wish Shahid Kapoor would also do so." - First off, Priyanka is not Shahid's girlfriend. Secondly, it's more of a gossip report. Thirdly, it's just a non-notable mini controversy, and Priyanka gave a sharp answer to Bebo about that.

This would seemigly be more relevant than what was there previously, ""I have seen Shahid from his first film to Jab We Met and I can say that there is a marked difference. According to me he is a bundle of talent waiting to explode. I have that much of faith in him as an actor." This article is Kapoor, why is a review of his acting abilites relvant to her biography?Dr. Blofeld (talk) 18:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not relevant, but this one is not relevant either. Again, there is a big misrepresentation of the matter. Shahid and Priyanka are not together. The lovely Kareena, in her very well-known fashion, started complaining about something that does exist and Priyanka answered back properly and that's where it ended. I think saying their relationship ended in 2007 is sufficient. Otherwise it's more of a gossip. Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. My concern was trying to give it more substance rather than dismiss than the parting was completely amicable period. I was also concerned it sounded too much like a gossip columnbut I still think we need to mention the continued conflict reports even if we don't have it in detail. Agreed?

It's not really necessary. This alleged conflict is over. It ended even before it started. Gossip magazines like these stories. Why should we? Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done

• On June 8, 2008, despite a hectic schedule with five films in production and nine endorsements for adverts, Kapoor performed a medley of songs from her films Jab We Met and Tashan at the International Indian Film Academy (IIFA) awards in Bangkok, Thailand. and spent weeks rehearsing for it.[87] According to Kapoor, "Gone are the days when I'd go on stage with just a little practice. Now I want to be my best in every stage performance."[87]However, in January 2009 Kapoor made a last minute decision not to perform at an awards function in which she was due to perform alongside fellow actors Katrina Kaif, Priyanka Chopra, Deepika Padukone and Bipasha Basu. 'The Times of India reported that, "As a policy Kareena has decided not to perform at weddings and New Year bashes and she had made this public too. As for this particular function, she was in two minds for some time but later decided to stick to her decision."[79] - Indian stars always perform on stage at award ceremonies. it's very irrelevant and cannot be considered a part of her "other work". What's more laughable is the fact that she decided not to perform. I mean, please... she is NOT performing, why does this deserve a mention?

Maybe not I was trying to bulk out that section evenly. I guess its nothing special. I'll remove that then.Dr. Blofeld (talk) 18:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)  Done

• As a well-publicised figure in India, Kapoor has attracted a significant number of endorsements with many companies, and is affiliated with brands such as Anne French, Globus, Lux, Boroplus, Vivel and Kurkure snacks and many others.[79]Vinay Nadkarni, the CEO of Globus noted that since they hired Kapoor they have witnessed a 75 percent increases in sales, remarking that, "We observed the way Kareena worked on her new onscreen persona to become popular with the youth," She's a style diva who adds to a brand's value." - very very cocky, and stars endorse different products every year. Ask Aishwarya Rai and Preity Zinta.

Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I've removed the diva part. The Globus one is notable though and for such a large company to experience a 75% growth is huge and worthy of mentioning, not to mention her influence on young people. The diva part I agree sounding unnecessary,Dr. Blofeld (talk) 18:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I still think endorsements are not relevant, whatever they are. Actors always endorse products. Anyway. Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

What happened to the part of the handicapped school?Dr. Blofeld (talk) 18:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

They cancelled the idea. This was an old report and it was just an idea that did not materialise. Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Mm it did look to me actually as if it was a publicity stunt to make her look like she really cares about the needy. I;ve lost count of how many references I've found where her "representatives claim she intends to join the charity" but obviously doesn't follow through.Dr. Blofeld (talk) 19:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC) OK I've cut out most of this junk, now for the diet.Dr. Blofeld (talk) 19:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Not a fan of unconstructive quotes like "She provides the much-needed fun and entertainment in the second half; her performance will be loved by the youth. Playing a cosmetic beauty to the hilt, she is simply adorable". This to me seems irrelevant. I think quotes need to be informative about the nature of the performance rather than saying they are "adorable".Dr. Blofeld (talk) 20:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't write the part about Nargis in the Chameli part. That was Rahul's addition as was the part about the openness with the media and the avoidance of the clear bad review of Chameli. These were errors that would have stopped it becoming even GA if these sources had been found earlier and is was inaccurate!.Dr. Blofeld (talk) 20:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

To be quite honest with you Blofeld, I never found that review of Chameli on Rediff.com. So there would be no question of an avoidance. Out of all the reviews I found, only the IndiaFM one was mixed. Therefore since majority of the reviews were positive, I thought that a positive review should be posted on the article. As for the thing about the openess with the media, all I have to say is that she is always open about her private life. The sources provided in the article clearly indicate so. -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 17:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I found several sources which completely contradicted what was written previously. I had a paragrpah on it writing that in 2008 her family wer eupset with the media coverage of her so in 2009 she promised not to talk to the media about her private life one bit. I had written this previously but Shahid thought it contradicted what was said so I decided to remove it. Anyway what I said was taken out of context, it was more of a response to Shahid rather than yourself that my editing is not entirely redundant and am not responsible for every perceived flaw. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 14:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Ever since she has entered into the film industry, she has always been open about her professional and private life, and therefore a lot of media coverage has been given to these things. Overall, since has been quite frank about these issues, it would be best to add it back. As for her claim about not talking about her professional or private life, I don't think she has stopped talking about these things, with the most recent sources being this this and this. -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 15:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Just think of it like this:

Kapoor has developed a nonchalant relationship with the media and gained a reputation for discussing her professional or private life with the press with few reservations.

That sounds perfectly fine Blofeld. I would just like to add one small part at the beginning of the sentence, which is: "In response to media speculation..." -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 15:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Check the source. This totally contradicts what was said it that she stated that her family were depply offended by the media coverage of her and she has refused to discuss her relationship with Saif entirely in 2009. You'll probably find evidence that she has not kept her promise and still continues to discuss things openly but we just need to be very careful of making sweeping statements like this that's all. That's why I removed it as it contradicted what is written in other sources. Yes she does appear to be open with the media but why is this especially notable? So are a lot of celebrities as they crave the publicity. Is it particularly unusual for an actress or actor to discuss their lives with the press? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 15:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't quite know what to say, because I somehow agree with both of you. Her reputation is somehow unclear. At times she's considered honest, at times a bitch who teases all her costars and contemporaries, at times a snob who does not want to answer any question. Whether to readd or not, I really don't know if it will be correct or not. Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Even though when Kapoor began dating Shahid Kapoor and she openly talked about this relationship, her personal life was not reported as much as it is being reported now. Her family only became upset with the media coverage since the past year as this is when she began dating Saif Ali Khan. During this period, the media blew everything out of proportion, claiming that they had gotten secretly engaged, they were living together, she was interfering in Shahid's life, etc. Anyways, if you feel that it shouldn't be added, I have no problem with that Blofeld :) -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 16:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly why I removed this part as her reputation overall is unclear,. She may do something one minute and then something completely different the next. She may tease a certain actor one minute and then laud them the next and may be willing to tell all about her relationship to one interviewer and then confess it is a new years resolution to not mention a thing about her private life.. She may generally want to discuss her private life with the media but I'm sure there are many things which she is not happy talking about the the media. It is not easy to give a fair evaluation like this in a sentence or two, particularly when sources exist which tell otherwise. and when it starts to get confusing and difficult to evaluate that's when it is best to not mention it. But I'll leave you to judge this. I would be happy if you could find a way to adequately discuss exactly what you said above Rahul. Perhaps you could mention that the ongoing speculation of a marriage affected her previously nonchalant relationship with the media. I did try to do this initially but it needed rewording. If I restore what was there before, can you two find a way to rewrite it so it isn't contradictory and gives an adequate evaluation? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 16:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I'll see what I can do!! :) -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 16:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Here was what I wrote before before I discussed the redundancies with Shahid:

Hailing from a family deeply involved in the film industry, Kapoor faced the media spotlight from a very young age despite not making her acting debut until 2000. As a child, Kapoor attended award ceremonies and events with her mother Babita and sister Karisma Kapoor, and would also accompany her sister on set during filming. In previous years, in response to media speculation, Kapoor had developed a nonchalant relationship with the media and gained a reputation for discussing her professional or private life with the press with few reservations.However, at the end of 2008, Kapoor expressed concern that the media coverage of her personal life was highly disproportional to that of her acting career and that on-going speculations about Saif-Kareena marriage had overshadowed that of her profession. As a result of the concern of her mother Babita and sister that too much media gossip about her marriage could jeopardize her career as an actress, Kapoor made a resolution not to discuss Khan with the media in 2009, declaring, "I don't want to answer any questions about my personal or love life this year. My New Year resolution is to be completely work-oriented. In 2008, there was a lot spoken and written about my personal life, and that has upset people close to me."

Hokay I've restored this to give you something to work with. It needs major editing though to avoid anything contradictory as Shahid earlier raised concerns with it and i mostly agreed with him. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 16:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Better tp go with better statements. The fact that she decided to calm down does not really changes her public image of the past several years. I personally know that she's sometimes described as honest, but also very arrogant and as mentioned, snob, by others. Let's leave the first part for now, will add more later. Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Hokay, I'll leave this article in your capable hands now. Might want to do something about the paragraph structure now as it is inconsistent. Also given that SHahid just found a reference which supports neither claim (I'm talking about Ashoka) either of you should check entirely that each reference checks out first before nominating. Hope to see this at FAC soon. Regards to both of you. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 17:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the second part because it contradicted the first part. But I'm unsure whther the first part is correct. We'll have to discuss this. And better we do it now. Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

"Also given that SHahid just found a reference which supports neither claim either of you should check entirely that each reference checks out first before nominating." - could you please explain? Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Here You found a bad citation which supported neither claim. This is a good thing that you found it but we need to ensure every citation checks out. Is this clearer? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 17:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Well it did say she was previously known for her nonchalant relationship with the media but due to intense media specualtion in 2008 over a possible marriage made a resolution to no longer discuss her private life. If it contradicted it it would have said Kapoor is know for her nonchalant relationship and then said "Kapoor is known for keeping a low profile in regards to her personal life. It wasn't really contradictory, only contradictory in regards to her profile past against present. Rather the latter part showed the weakness in the first part, the main reason why I initially decided to leave this part out. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 17:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

References

Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 15:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Has anybody noticed the contradiction and inconsistency with Kabhi Khushi Kabhie Gham. It says she received predominatly good reviews yet in the next paragraph it says "she repeats her smug act in Kabhi Khushi Kabhie Gham". There also appears to be similar sources which reflect that maybe her reviews for the film were not all that great. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 17:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done I've removed it.

Harvard University people

Bebo is included in Category:Harvard University people. She was there for just three months. I think it is silly to associate Harvard's name with her just because she has done a minor course there. I've erased the Harvard University people category. AdjustShift (talk) 12:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 12:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Reviews from Western sources

During the FAC of actress Preity Zinta, I remember people claiming that reviews from Western sources should be added, such as from Variety, NYT, etc. However, upon looking for them, let me tell you that it is extremely difficult to find reviews on Western sources. Since Asoka received a strong international release and many international critics reviewed the film, I was able to find some for that. A point to be noted is that they do have reviews of Indian films in Western sources, but they mostly talk about the film in general, without commenting much on how the actors performed. -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 16:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC) I did look too actually and I also didn't find anything much about her specificially, otherwise I'd have added it. If anybody raised this issue at FAC then inform them of the lack of specific coverage in American media of her work. OK? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 16:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Is this article the sole property of BOLLYWOOD DREAMZ, Shshshsh, TheRedPenofDoom?

1. One of my edits here about 8-10 months ago which was about Kapoor herself and not her sister or family or someone else, was removed with the reason mentioned "not needed"!

2. The addition of Dus Ka Dum was removed with the reason "Source does not mention anything about donation." Going by the same logic, the Pachvi Paas Se Tez Hai winning amount should be removed because the source does not mention it.

3. The addition of Dus Ka Dum was removed for the second time with the reason "Unreliable Source." How do you define what is a reliable source and what is not? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS - This page documents an English Wikipedia content guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception

4. The addition of Billu to the filmography was removed time and again though the film's article mentioned "Kareena Kapoor in a special appearance" and no attempts were made to remove it from the film's article. Rules should be followed everywhere, not just in one article.

5. Latest edit by BOLLYWOOD DREAMZ. Reason mentioned: I don't think this is REALLY needed here. Please go ahead and delete the following page then if You don't think its important: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singing_actors_and_actresses_in_Indian_cinema

Amol1186 (talk) 18:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

..... Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Amol1186, you cannot just target people who have reverted your edits. I have posted my response to your comments below.

1. I think you are probably talking about her blink-and-miss app. in OSO, which was uncredited. If it is, I already talked about that over here.
2. The other work section is created to talk about the "other work" she has done such as humanitarian causes, world shows, etc. I agree that the Paanchvi Pass source doesn't provide the amount that she won. However, an important point is noted, which is that she donated her winnings to St. Anthony's Old Age Home Bandra. While the amount is not mentioned, there is a separate article for the game show and the amount is provided there. I know that is also a separate article for DKD and it does provide her winnings there but we have no source indicating that she donated her winnings to charity. The first source you provided for her app. in DKD doesn't indicate anything except that she came with her sister on the show and the fact that she had lots of fun. If a reliable source can be found to show that she donated her winnings to charity again, then I have no problem with this new addition.
3. Speaking on reliable sources, I or we did not indicate what sources are reliable or not. Since the topic of Bollywood is unfamiliar to Western readers, there was a lot of debate on which Indian sources were reliable or not. Long time ago, I think during the FAC of actress Preity Zinta, everything was discussed to death. From the discussion, we concluded that Indian newspapers like TOI, Indiatimes, MiD Day, etc, were reliable while other sources like IndiaFM, Rediff.com, BOI were also reliable. So basically as you can see, most of the Indian article need to have sources from these sites to ensure accuracy as well as reliability.
4. Yes... I do agree with this point and if I had found out that Kapoor's name was in the film's article, I would have removed it too. However, I was not the one responsible for removing it from Kapoor's article. When the IndiaFM source came out where SRK mentioned that Kapoor & Padukone were making special app. in the film, I added the source to the article and this can be seen here.
5. Just because I use the word "I", it doesn't mean that I own the article. IMO, I just think that mentioning the fact the she sang a song in the film Dev is clearly avoidable. If you feel that it is really important to add to the article, then go ahead and add it. As for the article you specified, I did not create the article so why should I go around deleting the article. Honestly, I never even knew that article existed. -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 20:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I am NOT targeting people who have reverted my edits. In fact it seems like I am being targeted by a few people. Why? When Shahid reverted my edits about the release date of Kambakkth Ishq here, he also reverted my release date edit in the Kambakkth Ishq article, but did not revert an earlier edit by a user who had changed the release date in the film box. Except for the edit where I replaced "Untitled Renzil D'Silva film" with "Qurbaan", all my other edits to this article have been reverted by someone immediately.

1. I am not talking about the OSO appearance. I agree with you that it makes no sense to list such an appearance in filmography.

2. You were right in reverting my edit about DKD the first time round, but certainly not the second time. See point #3 about source.

3. If BollywoodHungama (IndiaFM), which has films like Jihaad, Lajjo listed under Kareena Kapoor's filmography, is considered to be reliable, indya.com (the official website of STAR television) certainly is reliable.

4. May be you were not directly responsible for removing it from this article. But, Shahid kept removing the film from the article with the reason "See discussion page" where you had decided that Billu should not be added till the film is released. Now if timesofindia is a source good enough for the special appearance of Preity Zinta in Main Aur Mrs. Khanna, why it could not be used here for Kapoor's appearance in Billu is something which I fail to understand.

5. The fact that she sung a song, despite being an actor is an achievement in itself and is clearly not something which can be avoided mentioning, because very few actors have done it.

Amol1186 (talk) 05:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)