Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Preity Zinta/1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Preity Zinta[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment page
Result: List as GA per WP:SNOW and following comments from failing reviewer: “I recognize that this is a very good article. I know many now support it. I think it is GA in many respects. I have no problem if it gets promoted against my fail". ЭLСОВВОLД talk 02:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


I am sort of an uninvolved party here, just starting this Good article reassessment on behalf of the others involved. I had initially provided a sort of "Pre-GA review review" on the article's talk page, I didn't want to review the article myself because I had been requested to do it, and because I didn't want to skip ahead of other GA candidates. My Pre-GA review notes are still on the article's talk page. TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) did his own GA review, put the article on hold, and then failed it, for lack of Western reviews of Preity Zinta's work. (I'm not saying this is right or wrong, just summarizing what occurred). I'd like for some other traditional GA Reviewers to take a look, because a few of the editors who were working on the article disagree with the GA Review. Cirt (talk) 16:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to note. The reviewer asked to add reviews from The New York Times. I added one. But there are no others. He kept on asking for "well respected Western newspapers".
A) This requirement is not supported by the WP:WIAGA criteria.
B) I can't invent them. I found only one NYT review describing her performance in the film Salaam Namaste (which makes its presence on the article) and nothing else.
Apart from that, all the refs are reliable (mostly Indian newspapers, and leading websites), reviews are representative and represent the majority view; there is one NYT review (the only I could find. There are no other reviews. What can I do?) and two reviews from Variety.
Why should I care for Westerners/Easterners? Nobody said that she's an international superstar. She is an Indian actor, not an American one. She works in the Indian film industry. Using reviews from Indian newspapers, is pretty obvious. It is important to present representative comments by critics from well respected newspapers, regardless of what country they are published in. The Times of India, The Hindu, The Tribune, Rediff -- all of them are reliable and well respected, not less than American newspapers. And there are three Western reviews. ShahidTalk2me 17:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't much like your statement "why should I care for westerners". You state many times in the article that certian films were internationally successful and if so you are going to have to include one or two American reviews to try to get an even coverage of it (which you have and as it is I think it is fine, I thought you wanted to remove any whatsoever). The majority though should quite rightly be Indian reviews and the Times of India should be regarded as a sort of Indian euqivalent to a source as reputable as the NY Times. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 17:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I said "Why should I care for Westerners/Easterners?" and by saying that, I mean that it doesn't matter who the reader is. The matter is that there is a reader and he does understand the matter, regardless of what country he comes from. As you yourslf said, would anybody on the Angelina Jolie article expect to see reviews from Indian newspapers?
Secondly, there are Western reviews. Two from Variety and one from NYT, the only I could find.
The fact that several of her films did well internationally, doesn't make them American or Western. The films are Indian, and it is expected to add Indian reviews. But just for the record, Kal Ho Naa Ho, Veer-Zaara and Salaam Namaste (Bollywood's top-grossing films overseas), all of them are accompanied by Western reviews: Variety, Variety and the NY Times, respectively. ShahidTalk2me 18:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I think your're misinterpreting what I am saying and vice versa. I fully agree that the vast majority of sources should be Indian as long as they are reputable sources. I thought you were disagreeing about using any western or eastern reviews at all even for the internationally released films and were thinking about removing them. As I said, as it is, the proportion of reviews is exactly as I think it should be and it would be silly to try to use more American reviews in comparison. I see you were talking about readers rather than reviews of which I fully agree with you and think it is extremely important to not write the article specifically for somebody in the west or east. Wikipedia is global and this view that it should be written for an American is not valid. Sorry to chip in Shahid ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 18:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC).
  • Comment I've always thought the critical statement in WP:V is "The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context". I don't disagree that western sources would be a nice supplement, but if they don't exist, they don't exist. I don't know that we can reasonably expect western sources for an Indian actress. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 18:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
That's exactly what I say. I can't invent them. I found one NYT review and added it. Your note is precise, western sources would be a nice supplement, and that's what I did; I added two from Variety, and one from NYT. What else can I do if there aren't any other? And in fact, she is an Indian actor who works in the Indian film industry, the obvious thing is to add comments by Indian critics. ShahidTalk2me 18:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Elcobbola has hit the nail on the head. Western sources are helpful but not essential in the case of this article. Majoreditor (talk) 19:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I was the GAC reviewer. There were several reasons other than lack of Western sources that caused me to fail the article. The stacked references that you did not address are a big problem for me. There were other issues. They are a way to sneak five or ten refs in for a single point that is not Kosher. I also enumerated an opinion on the article being underlinked in some places where I was not sure of terms (or a reader migth be unsure) and could not quickly navigate to them. I noted 13 NYT articles based on an NYT search for her name. I also found at least one BBC article. I mentioned several ways in which 5 or so of these articles could be included and said that I would consider the Western perspective well represented with 5 well-respected Western articles (not necessarily film reviews). You said you would attempt to do so and did not. I guess about 90% of English WP readers are non-Asian. I think their perspective should be represented. This article has had careful review at WP:FAC, WP:GAR, and WP:PR. I feel that considering the numerous objections in those discussions, a promotion should be handled cautiously. I think if one read those discussions closely, one might review my comments and say "We should be careful promoting this contentious article." In that light I think the things I have pointed out should be addressed. I think both WP:BLP and WP:POV should be considered with respect to Western reviews.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Since the FAC and the GAR the article has seen major improvement, so the point is not really valid. In fact, you were supporting several aspects which were discouraged in the FAC, so what do you expect from me to do?
    • "The stacked references that you did not address are a big problem for me" - Let me repeat your words - "for me". But apart from being a big problem for you, is there any formal prohibition against such format? I saw this firstly when I went through Cillian Murphy's FAC, and it was suggested there. John also said that it was not prohibited. Now, I have no problem to fix it. I can format it in five six minutes, but is it really prohibited?
    • Linking - When User:Sandygeorgia edited the article and helped improving MoS caches, she removed links to words like basketball, saying they were not needed, as it is something very obvious and clear. That's also a minor concern. And again, I can do it. But I need to have a clear explanation of whether it should be done or not.
    • As for the reviews, there are three western reviews. Editors above pointed out that western reviews are not a duty for this article. My explanations are listed above; she is an actor who works in the Indian film industry, so the obvious thing to do, is to illustrate the way she is preceived in her own country. She is not an international star, nor is she an American. There are no other western film reviews with detailed description of her performance. As you said, in the NY Times, there are not necessarily film reviews. And I did try to work on it. I really did. But none of those 13 links except for one, was valid. Please give me a precise link to one film review which can be quoted. But the fact is that there are no such reviews. As for BBC, reviews for Indian films there, are presented in a special Bollywood section led by Indian journalists, so the reviews there are not really western. From my part, I'd gone through the most respected Indian and even non-Indian newspapers to find representative reviews for her performances. A "well respected newspaper" doesn't necessarily mean "an American/Western newspaper". Wikipedia is global and this view that it should be written for an American is, IMO, wrong.
    • Best regards, ShahidTalk2me 21:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • It seems you continue to ignore discussion of the stacked refs.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 07:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Also, you say I disagree with things from prior debates. When reading the article I think a reader might want to see a link on several terms. I listed them. I may have gone overboard, but you did not link a single one.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 07:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't ignore the refs case. I did mention them above. My question is, is there a formal prohibition about using stacked refs? If the points are valid, I will address them. As I said, these concerns are minor. Let me just consult someone else. ShahidTalk2me 11:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I’m not aware of a policy or guideline addressing stacked references. I think Tony’s concern – and correct me if I’m wrong – is that stacked references may disrupt the flow of the article and, consequently, hurt readability (analogous, in a way, to the concerns outlined in WP:OVERLINK). Personally, I’m not bothered by reasonable amounts for contentious assertions (over three and you’re pushing it), but the impact on “clear prose” could be a valid interpretation. Instead of a lengthy debate here, perhaps it’s simplest to go through the article and keep only the strongest, most reliable, etc. references. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 13:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
By saying "stacked refs" - I mean, multiple sources in one footnote. The case is that some sources were cited to backup the same claim, so I collected them into one footnote. I thought, instead of having a [1][2][3] it's better to have only [1]. Please see ref number 7 in the article. So is it prohibited? ShahidTalk2me 14:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I see what's going on. Although I don't know of explicit prohibition, I don’t know of precedent either; it certainly seems to be against “house style”. I think I’m with Tony on this one; it posses certain organizational and consistency concerns. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, I will format. ShahidTalk2me 16:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Done. But it looks a bit loaded (She was ranked second for the subsequent three years.[86][87][88]) Is it really a big deal, putting more than one source within an individual footnote? ShahidTalk2me 17:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Red XN not done. At least two refs remain stacked (with multiple citations in a single ref). There should rarely be as many as three refs follow a single punctuation mark. You may want to reorganize the article. However, since I only see one triple ref point in the article it may be O.K. The fact that you had to unstack some refs means the article as it was was not supported. Thus, this GAR should fail. However, with minor modifications it might pass.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 23:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I continue to believe that the majority of the following words should be linked (this was the original list): single mother (seems to be linked twice later in the same paragraph), heroine, columnist, car accident, Los Angeles (using {{city-state}}), commissioned officer, Indian Army, literature, basketball, boarding school, psychology, criminal psychology, modeling, audition, commercials, catalogs, middle class, fiancee, Delhi, poetry, screen time, lead actress, Killer, critic, prejudice, reporter, protagonist, junta, accolade (transwiki), patriotic, hospital, ensemble cast, affair, Telethon, humanitarian, Blood donation, army base, temple, and paranoia.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 23:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion, stacked references do not constitute a sufficient reason to fail a GAN, when actually there isn't a formal prohibition. I will finish tomorrow. As for the words, I'll ask Sandy for her opinion. Thanks, ShahidTalk2me 00:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Now Green tickY Done! ShahidTalk2me 18:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes the refs are no longer stacked after these edits: [1] [2] [3]. They were part of the fail. Do you have any further comment on the linking which by itself would not be a reason to fail, but which was an issue.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 07:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I just popped over to the article, wondering why it hasn't appeared at FAC yet (I was very involved in the first failed FAC). I was asked to look at it almost a month ago; at that time, it was certainly ready for FAC, and I can't see anything in the article that should hold up GA. As far as I can tell, this article is well ready for FAC, and quite beyond GA standards. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
    • There hasn't really been participation by uninvolved parties. In the absence of actionable !votes, the best we can do is close as "no action" due to lack of consensus. For what it’s worth, I’d pass it. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 02:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • GA - Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • GA. Good (if my vote counts, this article is well beyond GA standards, these editors have been through enough, and objections I saw on the talk page are invalid. The article shouldn't be overlinked, western sources aren't required, and refs are combined in one set of tags all the time.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
    Any editor can comment here, and editors are encouraged to make recommendations such as "List as GA" based on their arguments. However, this is not a vote: what counts is weight of argument and the good article criteria. In this respect, I would encourage User:Blnguyen to amplify his recommendation, for instance by mentioning which comments are convincing, or by refuting the case against listing, or by making new points.
    I would like to draw attention to Sandy's comment about refs combined in one tag. Geometry guy 20:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • GA. I've reverted vandalism on this article once, and thought it was interesting reading. It was difficult to figure out what "stacked references" meant above. At first I thought it meant [1][2][3]. Successive ref marks are mildly discouraged at FAC, increasing with 3 or 4 or more successive ref marks. One way to avoid this is to combine the refs into one footnote. Gimmetrow 06:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
    • So can I restore the refs as they were before my change? I just thought, if two or three different sources are cited here to back-up the same claim, why can't we put them within one individual footnote - it even looks much better. Regards, ShahidTalk2me 07:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I don't think there's anything wrong with combining references in one footnote. That's why I found this rather puzzling. Gimmetrow 07:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • As far as stacked refs goes, I meant multiple citations in a single footnote. I had never seen it before and could not find a policy. Since I had never seen it I presumed it was stylisticly frowned upon. If it is O.K., then pile 'em all in. I generally use separate footnotes for each citation myself. Is there a policy somewhere that I overlooked. Personally I think it looks confusing to see three citations within a ref tag. I may make some changes in the last paragraph at Good article nominee Joanne Gair if it is preferred to have several in one tag.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
    No, there is no policy one way or the other. There have been FACs where people objected to three or more successive ref marks together, and one solution is to combine or "stack" the references, as you call it, so it's perhaps mildly encouraged. I could probably find a FA that has it, but here's Hezbollah at the point it passed GA. Gimmetrow 02:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • As far as overlinking, I missed your reply because you left it on your own talk page. I would have hashed it out with you because I think many of the terms in my list should be linked. I think a term like Indian Army should be linked and is now. I think a city like Los Angeles should be linked and it isn't. I missed your reply which contributed to my objection.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I think the lead is tremendously important. Many readers just read the lead and many of those just read the first paragraph. Part of the discussion said as follows. "Here is my problem with the current lead. All award winning actress WP:FA's except Judy Garland state clearly in the first paragraph a summary of her awards in a manner similar to two-time Filmfare Award-winning actress which would be appropriate in this case:
    Angelina Jolie - She has received three Golden Globe Awards, two Screen Actors Guild Awards, and an Academy Award.
    Jenna Jameson - By 1996, she had won the three top newcomer awards from pornographic film industry organizations. She has since won more than 20 adult film awards
    Bette Davis - two-time Academy Award-winning American actress of film
    Diane Keaton - Academy Award-winning American film actress,
    Vivien Leigh - She won two Academy Awards
    Miranda Otto - Logie Award-winning Australian actress
    Sharon Tate - Golden Globe-nominated American actress
This has not been addressed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the lead is very important, and I expect this is an issue that could be fixed with a single sentence. Geometry guy 20:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
My point is that as a GA reviewer, when I note that this article fails to give a comprehensive explanation of the actresses critical recognition in the first paragraph as almost all other positively reviewed actress articles do, that adversely affected my review decision. I like the article and wanted to pass it. There were too many suggestions that I thought could have been addressed that weren't for me to do so, but I continue to acknowledge as I did in the review that many would pass it with few changes. I am just saying I did not flip a coin and say well I guess I should fail her. There were many things that could arguably be done to improve the article. I still think it remains underlinked, I think the lead fails as noted above. I recognize that this is a very good article. I know many now support it. I think it is GA in many respects. I have no problem if it gets promoted against my fail.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 09:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I am aware an article is not required to have Western refs. I just think they could be easily added.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment on combining references. The relevant guidelines are WP:CITE and WP:Footnotes. The former points out that "Notes" sections combine both general footnotes and citations, and does not anywhere say (as far as I can tell) that there should only be one citation per footnote. It would appear from Sandy's comments that one cite per footnote is not an FA requirement, and my interpretation of the GA criteria is that it is not a GA requirement either. Since the GA criteria are intended to be more permissive about citation issues, I'd be surprised if others disagreed, but anyone is welcome to start a thread at WT:WIAGA.
In my own personal opinion, the solution to this issue, and the related issue of multiple footnotes citing different parts of the same source, is to use separate "Notes" and "References" sections as described by WP:CITE#Shortened notes. This is mildly encouraged by WP:Footnotes#Style recommendations, but is certainly not a GA requirement! Geometry guy 20:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure you are aware of the problem. Separating notes and refs is not the answer to this problem. These are all citations (to the best of my recollection). Think about a single point that is supported by multiple {{cite news}} or {{cite web}} citations. The question is whether it is Kosher to do something like this: <ref>{{cite web}}{{cite web}}{{cite web}}</ref>. I call this stacked refs. I.E., a single ref with citations stacked in it. No one seems to have any policy guidance. I would like to know what is preferred because as mentioned above I have my own concerns with an article I am authoring because if stacking is preferred I have to rework the last paragraph at Good article nominee Joanne Gair.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 09:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I understand the problem, and I believe that "stacking" is neither preferred nor discouraged. Sometimes it is helpful, sometimes not. Concerning notes and refs, I agree that this is not the answer, but it is one approach that can help, as long as the citations have author and year information: your example then becomes e.g. <ref>See (Tiger, 2006), (Guy, 2007) and (Georgia, 2008).</ref> with the cite web templates in the references (or possibly external links) section. But I digress. Geometry guy 09:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
For what it's worth, when the Intelligent design article was recently in FAR, it looks like what had been a string of 6 references, one after another, at the end of a sentence has since been "stacked" into 2, and that the article remained an FA thereafter. So, on that basis, I guess there is cause to say that stacking references isn't a necessary impediment to GA, or even FA, status. And, although my own judgement regarding this article is clearly open to quetion, and I might be counted as an involved party, I can't see any reason not to give it GA status. John Carter (talk) 18:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
There is no "policy" guidance I know of. Named refs cannot be combined, so successive refs are inevitable on a large article with named refs, but having more than two or three successive refs tends to look "unstylish" to some. This has been noted at FAC before, for instance: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Islam/archive2. Gimmetrow 19:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
When you say named refs can not be combined, I think you are supporting unstacking. Please clarify.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment on sources. The real dichotomy is not between "Western" and "Eastern", but between "National" and "International". Zinta is first and foremost an Indian movie star, so it is entirely reasonable that most of the sources are from India. However, to the extent that she has achieved international notability and acclaim, it is valuable to provide international sources. "International" does not necessarily mean "Western", even less, "American": it means from countries other than the country of origin. It is also helpful to readers to provide English language sources: this is the English Language Wikipedia, not the Western Wikipedia; fortunately, of course, English is widely used in India.
I went through the article looking at the sources and tried to find a few more myself. I think the article makes excellent use of English language sources, and provides a good sprinkling of international sources where relevant, but I have a few suggestions. First, there is a large Indian community in the UK, and several of the films have been successful there. It may be that UK based media are a good place to look for international sources. I also wonder if there was any Australian reaction to Salaam Namaste. Having said this, my own search for a UK review of Kal Ho Naa Ho found a New York Times review, and my search for an Australian review of Salaam Namaste found a BBC review! (The latter might be useful: I can probably retrieve the link if you don't find it.) Geometry guy 20:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I have all the links to all the reviews, thank you. The Kal Ho Naa Ho NYT reviewer almost does not comment on Zinta's performance. As for BBC -- all the BBC reviews are written by Indian critics and journalists. It is a special section on the site monitored by Indians. She even once won a "Best Actrerss" poll at BBC film cafe. See her awards page. But the review is poorly written, and there is no detailed comment about her performance. It only says that she and her film co-star played the role convincingly. I also looked for some Australian reviews for Salaam Namaste, but did not find unfortunately, but I added a NYT review so it's great. BTW, Kal Ho Naa Ho, Salaam Namaste, Veer Zaara were the top-grossing Bollywood productions of their respective years in the overseas market. The BBC also comments about:
  • Her performance in Armaan, "Gracy Singh gives a pleasant performance but somewhat gets over shadowed by the superb acting of Priety Zinta." - but I can't add that because it's a bit unfair isn't it?
  • Her performance in KANK, "Preity Zinta too gives her best. Watching her in the scene where she confronts Rani during the wedding reception makes you realise how excellent she is as an actress."
Regards, ShahidTalk2me 22:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
You seem to have it well covered: as I said, my own efforts were rather unsuccessful, but I'm glad if they were a small help! What I really wanted to find was not a review but another profile piece on Zinty in a reliable international source. Instead I found an unreliable UK fansite! Sigh. The internet owes a huge debt to Wikipedia, and it is not paying it! Geometry guy 22:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • List as GA. The article has a number of minor issues which could be improved. In addition to those mentioned above, I think it needs a copyedit for prose style. For example, the last sentence of the lead tries to do too much, and the use of noun phrases leads to some heavy sentences in other places: see this guide.
In my view these minor issues are not significant enough to prevent listing this article as a good article. I hope that the suggestions made by the reviewer and in this discussion are appreciated, and will be considered: this does not mean following all suggestions, but considering them in the light of improving the article. Since the reviewer has indicated that he has "no problem if it gets promoted", I believe that this discussion can be closed fairly soon. Geometry guy 22:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Could you please give more examples of bad prose? ShahidTalk2me 12:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Sure: the following are just my opinion; if you take the article to FAC, you may receive more extensive and professional copyediting advice.
  • The lead: the last sentence of the first paragraph "Following this,..." (what/who was "subsequently credited?).
  • Early life and background: "Zinta, a self-confessed tomboy" (tries to do too much, and may involve a bit of OR by synthesis); "particularly William Shakespeare and poetry" (awkward); "Although she earned a degree" (WP:WTA: implies people with degrees should not become models); I fixed a couple of other minor points.
  • Early career: "canceled" (I saw "modelling" earlier, so I assume the article is written in a variant of English, such as English English, which doubles final "l"'s like this one); "Introducing Zinta,..." (long noun phrase).
  • Breakthrough: "even credited" (why "even"?).
  • Success: "Zinta's next release..." (she didn't release it); "at different award ceremonies" (do you mean "several"?); "and, among other awards..." (separate sentence would probably be better); "a story of two men" (presumably these are played by the co-stars: the sentence could be reworked to clarify this, e.g., "a story set about two men, played by..., who love the same woman." This also replaces the gerundive by a subordinate clause); "cynosure" (I had to look this up, and so will many WP readers; "pivotal role" or something similar might work better); "acting performance" (are both words needed? Anyway, your prose is much better than that of Rajeev Masand!); "after heavily shooting for" (reminds me a bit of Eats, shoots and leaves! I'm not sure if actors and actresses can be said to shoot a film).
  • Columnist: "The column caught the worldwide attention of readers..." (surely you don't mean that! Also, I hope those emails were not only "addressed", but actually sent :-).
  • Humanitarian work: "During her years..." ("film industry" presumably - and several charities).
  • Personal life: "Zinta used to visit..." (why "used to"?).
I hope that helps. Geometry guy 19:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your involvement, help and suggestions. Much appreciated. Please tell me, do you have some idea for "after heavily shooting for" as pointed above?
Also, the prevention of using "her release" strikes me as a bit odd. Does it really imply that she released the film?
As you pointed out, the thirs paragraph in the success section has this "and, among other awards...". Your suggestion is to divide the sentence.. but it doesn't look good IMO. Do you any suggestion please? Thank you, ShahidTalk2me 20:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I made a couple of edits. The first point really requires reading what the source says. For the second one, I'm not sure how flexible one can be about "release", but your fix works well, and I've suggested another fix in the same paragraph. For the third point, don't be afraid of short sentences in an encyclopedia article. This phrase is no more linked to the previous one than any of the other sentences about the film. Geometry guy 20:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • List per G-guy. Majoreditor (talk) 18:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • List This article is so far past a GA it isn't funny. Its ready for an FA and has been for a long time. Even Sandy Georgia thinks so, and I consider her one of the strictest reviewers on here. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 19:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • List per G-guy. Universal Hero (talk) 23:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)