Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Rani Mukerji

Rani Mukerji[edit]

This nomination predates the introduction in April 2014 of article-specific subpages for nominations and has been created from the edit history of Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests.

This is the archived discussion of the TFAR nomination for the article below. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests). Please do not modify this page.

The result was: scheduled for Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 21, 2014 by Bencherlite ^Talk 17:50, 10 March 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Rani Mukerji (born 1978) is an Indian film actress. Through her successful Bollywood (Hindi film) acting career, she has become one of the most high-profile celebrities in India. Mukerji has received seven Filmfare Awards from fourteen nominations, and her film roles have been cited as a significant departure from the traditional portrayal of women in mainstream Hindi cinema. Mukerji began a full-time career in film in 1997 and had her first major success with the 1998 romance Kuch Kuch Hota Hai. In 2002 she was acclaimed for her role in the relationship drama Saathiya, and by the year 2004 she had established herself as a leading actress of Bollywood with roles in the romantic comedy Hum Tum and the dramas Yuva and Veer-Zaara. She achieved further success for her leading roles in Black (2005) and Kabhi Alvida Naa Kehna (2006). After starring in a series of unsuccessful films, she featured in the successful thrillers No One Killed Jessica (2011) and Talaash: The Answer Lies Within (2012). In addition to acting in films, Mukerji has been actively involved with several humanitarian causes and is vocal about issues faced by women and children. (Full article...)

Date significance (1 point), Widely covered (2 points), Recent similarity or lack thereof (neutral). 3 points total. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 02:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The article currently has a big ole' full-protect template at the top of the page, indicating instability and ongoing conflicts, see DIFF. — Cirt (talk) 04:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now Given the issues of the current protection template, and that we'll only have a week between its expiration and TFA to judge whether the article will be stable, I have to oppose at this time. Criteria 1E for obtaining FA status is article stability, and it isn't the best show of Wikipedia's best content if a TFA is currently a battlefield and I'm hesitant given the potential of the additional attention from being in the spotlight to increase such edit-warring/content dispute activity. I would encourage the editor nominating this article for TFA to come back after some time and space has passed where we can be more confident in the article's long-term stability.--ColonelHenry (talk) 05:03, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Okay, being the principal contributor to this article, I was not consulted before this nomination. Personally, I would not have nominated it now given the large number of socks at work to destroy the page. Also, the blurb contains inaccurate information that is not a part of the article and seems to have been written from the POV of a fan. --krimuk ⁹⁰ 12:21, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, if you were to view your talk page, you would see a notification from me, apprising you of this nomination. Additionally, the reason the blurb is not identical to the article's lead is due to size constraints. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 03:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. If this article had to be protected for socking, I can only imagine what the sock-fest would be like if this was successfully nominated. buff bills 7701 13:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support now: The socks responsible for edit-warring have now been blocked, and the big template has been removed. I have additionally copy-edited the blurb to stick to facts, and I feel that the article is good to be featured on the main page. --krimuk ⁹⁰ 14:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Update: The page is still semi-protected. The semi-protection is only set to expire a mere four (4) days before this proposed TFA date. Not sure that is enough stability at this time. — Cirt (talk) 17:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been steady since the socks were blocked. If they return, we can seek for an extension on the protection. --krimuk ⁹⁰ 10:31, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Not happy with the way Qatar nominates things without consulting the authors but it would be great to see this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scheduling this for 21st and Mike Jackson for the day before. Jackson has more points but Mukerji has more supports. I don't like holding back TFAs in case of sockpuppetry issues (that seems to be handing the sockpuppets a victory) and many TFAs have run with pre-existing semi-protection anyway. Bencherlite ^Talk 17:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]