User talk:BOLLYWOOD DREAMZ/Archive 19

Reply

Hey friend. Well, both films look nice, but Aiyyaa looks funnier and far more different than the usual fare. IIP seems to have been beautifully shot but the trailer alone does not really appeal to me that much, although Preity alone does. :) I hope it's better than expected. What's your take? You must be eagerly awaiting the release of Heroine. Shahid • ^Talk2me 06:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Kareena Kapoor

Thank you for taking the time in copy-editing the article. Much appreciated! There are just two quick questions regarding your edits that I need to ask you. First: Is there a reason why you put some of the information in brackets such as "...has launched her own clothing line (in association with retail chain Globus)", etc. Second: I noticed that you found something contradictory in the "Performances: technique and analysis" section. Would it be helpful if I added the rest of the quote, which was "She really surprised me with a couple of emotional scenes which we canned in just one take"? Initially I had it that way but I removed it as I didn't find it to be helpful. What is your take on it? -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 15:41, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. I use parentheses to break up long sentences and (hopefully) make them easier to follow, since I find a lot of commas in a sentence confusing. What seemed contradictory to me (as an outside reader) was that Kapoor immerses herself in a role and yet doesn't like to rehearse; including the rest of the quote really clears that up. Good luck again and all the best, Miniapolis (talk) 02:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Kareena Kapoor's Personal life

Dear friend Hello! Hope that you will b fine. I added a new section naming Personal Life to kareena Kapoor's Page and you reverted it saying that these things are already mentioned in the page. Of course you are right but the things about her personal life are not added with such details, references and arranged manner that i have did. In all actor's profiles personal life is a very important thing so i arranged Kareena kapoor's profile in the same way. I think that what i have did is for arranging the page and participating giving the best of mine for a positive purpose so plz in place of encouraging me dont't revert my edits. Just like You i m also a big fan of kareena and i want to participate a little bit from my part to wikipedia. Thanks. (Dr. Shahid Alam)(Talk to Me) 03:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Have a great 2013 my friend. Sad that we've lost Shahid as a contributor and friend, sure you miss him as I do.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 15:32, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

LOL rather belated. Don't do a Shahid on me friend, at least you respond!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Can you replace the main image with File:Kapoor at Gitanjali launch2.jpg or File:Kareena.JPG. Its awful the current one, she looks like a panda caught in the headlights.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Better than the current one..♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 20:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I concur with Dr. Blofeld that File:Kapoor at Gitanjali launch2.jpg would be much better. BollyJeff | talk 20:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I've made 455 edits to the article!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 20:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Re: new message

Great coincidence. I just hit the preview button after an ongoing edit in Kareena Kapoor article when I was alerted about your message!--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I have not read the article yet. But the advantage seems to be lacking a bloated size.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay; please have a look here too. BollyJeff | talk 05:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

This is looking like a peer review. Is this how FACs are supposed to go? BollyJeff | talk 13:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

What are you referring to, Bollyjef? I mean, are you telling that Kareen Kapoor FAC is looking like a pee review?--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I am not very familiar with how FACs are supposed to work, but I thought it was mostly 'support' or not, with only a few comments. Seeing so many comments made me think that it needed a peer review first, and was headed for failure. Do you think so many comments will adversely effect the article's acceptance, or can it still pass? BollyJeff | talk 20:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh yes, FACs may have tons of comment. And t may still pass if those comments are appropriately addressed. The editors who commented may either say that the comments are addressed,or, strike out there comments. Simple oppose or support are actually quite rare, especially during the initial days at FAC.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

That's what I was saying. Since the comments have been addressed, can't the editor strike them out? -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 23:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I was wondering also if it looked more like peer review than an FAC discussion, but I left my support on the page. Good luck and all the best, Miniapolis 02:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank You Miniapolis! As for the FAC, if the comments are addressed and there are a few supports (with hopefully more to come), shouldn't the article be promoted? -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 02:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, now things will be more interesting :) Sandy is probably the best FAC reviewer, and get ready to be grilled, if she continues to review the article. However, she has quit reading after the second sentence for now. In any case, I might do some copy-edits in the article randomly. Please tell if you do not agree with those.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Reply

Hey Rahul. I have often wondered about the same, and it would be good to follow that particular format. The problem, however, lies in the fact that reliable sources will be difficult to acquire for awards other than Filmfare. For example, most of the Screen nominations before 2006 are not known. The other problem is the notability of the ceremony. There are more than a dozen award ceremonies these days, in the last couple of years itself new ones such as Big Entertainment Awards, Peoples Choice Awards, and what not, have been introduced. The notability of such awards can be debated (as they have been notorious for giving awards to the stars who attend the ceremony). --smarojit ^{(buzz me)} 04:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

True, that makes sense. For actors like Ranbir Kapoor or Vidya Balan (who are fairly recent) it won't be that difficult to find sources for Screen, Stardust, Zee Cine or IIFA. But for someone like Shahrukh Khan or Kajol, it will be. For the awards held in 1999, say, I am sure Kajol was nominated for all the award ceremonies for Hum Aapke Dil Mein Rehte Hain. The fact that Aishwarya won for Hum Dil De Chuke Sanam is fine, but who were the other nominees? Just wondering. --smarojit ^{(buzz me)} 04:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Having said that, I am in support of including the "notable" awards, provided we have sources to back them. --smarojit ^{(buzz me)} 04:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I mean sources for the nominations. Because tomorrow some editor might come up and say that Salman Khan was nominated for the Zee Cine Awards for Tere Naam, and we won't know if that's true or false. --smarojit ^{(buzz me)} 04:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure of the other two, but IMO Sansui awards should be included. --smarojit ^{(buzz me)} 05:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

So are you adding these to Kareena Kapoor's filmography? --smarojit ^{(buzz me)} 06:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure, anytime. :) --smarojit ^{(buzz me)} 04:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely, and it's pissing me off! His comments are atrocious and full of double-standards. I really don't know what to say?!?! --smarojit ^{(buzz me)} 18:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, BOLLYWOOD DREAMZ. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 15:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Dwaipayan (talk) 15:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't receive anything bud! -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 03:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Ooops, you did not receive! Then who did I send it to! LoL, my bad, Will try to re-send.

Noted for is better than regarded for. It may be ok.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

May be I sent it to Bollyjeff in stead! Actually I am unable to e-mail you now, as you have not actvated/linked your email to WP account.-Dwaipayan (talk) 20:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments

Hey, these were my comments....."The article is well-written, complete and meets FA criteria. Good work Bollywood Dreamz But, still has some issues." I noticed you mispaced them in Vensatry's I comments. Prashant  Conversation  05:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

the recent change in lead

The recent change that you made to the lead -- I am not sure if that was a good change. Did you want to remove the "widespread" bit? Did someone suggest it? In partcular, the construction of the sentence "Having established... Kapoor is known as,,," does not sound quite good to me. However, you can get the construction checked by some other editor, probably some native English speaker.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

No one really suggested it. It's just that the original version (the sentence "She has established herself as a leading actress of Hindi cinema.") didn't flow properly. It looked like that sentence was just placed there. As for the "widespread" part, my intention was not that. It's just that when I tweaked it to its new version, it had no place; hence, I decided to remove it. What do you recommend? -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 04:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Some very picky reviewer in FAC can point out problem with the new structure. For example:

Potential logical falacy -"Having established herself as a leading actress of Hindi cinema, Kapoor is known in the Indian media for being publicly outspoken and assertive". Do you mean she is known for being outspoken and assertive after having established herself, or, as a result of having established herself as a leading actress? Is there any relationship (temporal, cause-effect or any other ind) between these two parts of the sentence? If not, why combining?

" She is married to actor Saif Ali Khan and is recognised for her contributions to the film industry through her fashion style and film roles." Less problematic. But still, thematically different sentences joined together.

On the other hand, in the previous version, the only problem that you found was the sentence on established herself sticking out. Otherwise the constructtions were good, and more logically joined. ("Married to actor Saif Ali Khan, Kapoor's off-screen life is the subject of widespread coverage in India. She is known in the Indian media for being publicly outspoken and assertive, and is recognised for her contributions to the film industry through her fashion style and film roles" sounds more thematically semilar. Marriage and off-scren life has thematic similarity; known in media and recognised for also kind of go together).

I would suggest not to change the third paragraph of the previous version. I thgink we should go back to the previous version, and think if that "sticking out-ness" of the "having established" sentence may be addressed in some other way. Vidya Balan has a nice example for that kind of sentence, although that may not be applicable similarly here.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Taking into account the suggestions you made as well as User:Wikipedian Penguin's recent comment on the FAC, I've re-written the lead. Please let me know what you think! :) -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 03:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Replied to email. Also, removed "having ..." clause from that sentence in the lead.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

FAC

Hello, Bollyjeff needs your suggestions on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Priyanka Chopra/archive1, as it is currently an FAC. Please help and present your thoughts over the article.Prashant  ✉  12:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, I suppose that I can speak for myself, thank you. BD, your comment "Don't think for a second that I don't know what you're up to" really made me laugh. Sorry that your FAC is getting so messed up; please don't take it out on me (I know you wouldn't). BollyJeff | talk 19:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

You are not alone. Seems like our friend is out to trash the PC FAC as well with this Artistry BS. BollyJeff | talk 19:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

It sat untouched for several days, but just today I got some comments that were not too bad. They want the article to be more stable though. BollyJeff | talk 19:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I got dinged for italics on a concert title. Checking List_of_highest-grossing_concert_tours and some charity events, it seems that these should not be in italics, but I see some in Bebo. BollyJeff | talk 00:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Don't begin with "she" or "her"? A reviewer said don't begin so many with "Chopra" or "In 20xx". What should I begin with then? I am running out of words. BollyJeff | talk 03:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of awards and nominations received by Kareena Kapoor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Heroine (film) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:23, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

New section

Hey, I see a lot of work has gone into Kapoor's article recently. However, I am a bit worried about this sentence in the lead, "..Kapoor's early years in the film industry were successful, including a Filmfare nomination for Asoka (2001) and the melodrama Kabhi Khushi Kabhie Gham... (2001), one of her biggest commercial successes to date." It doesn't read quite well, what say? --smarojit ^{(buzz me)} 05:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, maybe it's just me. But how about something like "...Kapoor's early years in the industry were successful; she received a Filmfare nomination for Asoka (2001) and starred in the melodrama Kabhi Khushi Kabhie Gham... (2001), one of her....". The latter part of the sentence used is confusing. --smarojit ^{(buzz me)} 05:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Haha...no problem buddy. :) The reason for the long duration of Bollywood related articles is non-familiarity of the subject matter. Most of the FAC reviewers have no idea who Vidya is or Kareena is. And hence, the delay. --smarojit ^{(buzz me)} 06:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I do want to work on Aishwarya Rai and Rani Mukerji's article for the FA. Shahrukh's too, but that's far from ready. I would love to collaborate with you, btw. --smarojit ^{(buzz me)} 02:39, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

How about we start work on Mukerji's article first and get serious on that? --smarojit ^{(buzz me)} 15:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Great. Is it okay if I start tweaking the prose, and you begin work on an artistry section? --smarojit ^{(buzz me)} 03:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

[1] is a good source. --smarojit ^{(buzz me)} 06:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Zinta

Not sure I prefer the current image, she looks a bit tired and drawn. I liked the original image we had.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I was looking in google books and found at least 3 or 4 mentions of her weight. it seemed to be a subject very well covered in the INdian media so given that you mentioned those exercise videos I think it's relevant, but I can see why you think that. Kinda amusing to me that you think that's magazine material and "As one of her most distinctive physical features, Kapoor's lips have been identified by the Indian media as her trademark." isn't... As for article expansions during FAC, did you see what I did to Peter Sellers? Just saying...♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 09:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Imran Khan PR

Hey Bollywood Dreamz! I would greatly appreciate if you could offer your inputs here! Thanks GleekVampire | talk! 21:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey bud! I'll try my best to do so! It's just that I'm very busy in real life and due to a certain individual the FAC of Kareena Kapoor has taken longer than expected. On first glance, the article looks good though! :) -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 03:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Sridevi at FF

How do you know that it was a joke, and not an honorary award? Wouldn't it be a bit mean spirited to give her a statue if it's just a joke? BollyJeff | talk 19:32, 1 March 2013 (UTC)