Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by KNM (talk | contribs) at 17:08, 7 November 2007 (→Zinta gadbad: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shahid is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Zinta

Rewrote? Major neutrality?? I lost all the hopes I had. See the diff. It says it all. All the copyedits I have made, are now reverted by you, except that "infrequent visits". Anyways, good luck. Thanks, - KNM 03:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Boxoffice

Sorry, was tied down with work. Yes, the Boxoffice.com address can be considered to be reliable. Create a Wikiarticle on the website. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Question?

Lets go question FA Lage Raho Munnabhai for its refs. Apparently its refs are non-RS sources. What say? xC | ☎ 06:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

There is something fatally wrong with this "wiki system of hierarchy" if an article can pass GA and even A with flying colours and be approved by many who regularly view such articles and have significant experience in this area and the article winning some 25 supports even at FA for it to then suddenly go back to a B class after weeks of effort in the GA process. A clear waste of time and I fear the article will now degrade considerably if quotes and whatever else are removed just to hide her success. All it may need is a few negative quotes added and slight rediting to sustain its posiition which if they did rather than plotting around at wiki councils would be done quite easily . I've told it how it is on the "reassessment" page but I really have had quite enough of this as I'm sure you have ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 10:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I can see how they might feel it is written in Zinta's best interest and they have aright to try to demote it but I would rather they put the effort at trying to demote into correcting whatever is wrong with the article. I do think perhaps there are too many positice quotes when I am sure there are negative quotes which could balance the situation. No we shouldn't try to hide her success but I think there are ways of re writing some of the quotes into text so it doesn't sound gushing ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 11:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I am surprised at X centaur here for trying to demote both the FA and A class articles. The only problem with a lot of quotes from selective people is that it can be perceived as POV from one person's view rather than fact. I strongly suggest you remove some of the positive quotes which don't make her appear any more successful than she is. Such as Zinta is bubbly etc

I'm not doubting for a second that Zinta has not been praised highly for her work. Its just if you quickly scan the quotes in the article it can appear as POV. I'd recommend removing some of the quotes but writing it into text to provide the same information but not make it appear as POV ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 11:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It has become apparent that any work I have ever tried to do for Indian film is under threat. Now this same person is trying to delete all Bollywood images. This indeed is disruption at its worst ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 12:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The thing is I don't want to ruin an article just for the sake of POV. And now that my image license is up for the axe I feel like all my hard work over the last few weeks is delibrately being slapped right back at me. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 13:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC) If most of these sources are considered unreliable and POV then I think the task of writing a neutral and rich professional article with many different sources is impossible, chiefly because most online information is from fan-oriented sites. I do think it is important not to rely on fan sites but I feel if we purposefully try to remove these we are left with a sparse number of sources and a basic article. I don't feel I can do anything further to improve it if I haven't got any neutral and professional sources to write it to begin with particularly as I only know of some of her films not anything about her reception. Great articles or FA articles always appear to have an abundance of good sources that can be used -this is what makes them easier to write. The less sources available which fit the "reliable" criteria the increasingly difficult it is to attempt to write one. I don't know if I can do anything else to help you regarding this, I;ve tried to tone it down but it probably makes the article seem worse to you. Each time I go to move on with my work, I hear the news that something worse has happened time and time again and that it not only failed FA but is to be demoted back to B and that the image license is also now being questioned. I was thinking that sources like Times of India are reliable and these are the type of references needed but if this is not regarded as trustworthy then the article cannot develop ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 15:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

What I am saying is that the Indian critics who are commenting on these films haven't any assertion of who they are or their credentials which argue that it is a reliable quote even if they are professional or notable -this is what is being questioned . I believe that some of them are adequate, but it certainly is unfair that there seem to be more prominent American films critics and newspapers which review films and actresses than Indian which makes writing the Jolie article ten times easier. If we could assert that they are equally adequate sources and also prominent professional critics and add some negative reviews to balance it , it could be fixed. I've tried to attempt to save it . Wow this is a stalemate ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 15:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I really think the best thing to do now is to create a list of sources which can be used without question in the article and make a list of Indian film critics who indeed are professional and work for professional bodies and can be cited in the article and attempt to find sources which are balanced around that. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 15:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The thing is I don't see any problems with things such as citing Taran Adarsh from indiaFM.com -I would look at this and think it was fine. This has been made so much more difficult than it has to be!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 15:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I must admit I am finding it a little peculiar that all of the strong objections on this are from Indian wikipedians only. Do they know something about these sources and her reviews that I don't? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 15:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Re:

I would suggest you to remove references to her entire interview, unless you can come up with other third-party sources that say the same, because self opinions will always be biased. I am saying this because if I do not question it, some other editor will question it. Thanks -- ¿Amar៛ 11:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Since you are quoting the Jolie article quite often, if you look at the quotations in Jolie they are from reputed newspapers like Washington Post, Los Angeles Times and by Pulitzer Prize-winning critic, Roger Ebert which provide weight to the quotations. Whereas, I am not sure what standing Anish Khanna of the site Planet Bollywood, Akash Gandhi from Planet-Bollywood, Ashok Nayak and others have and whether their comments are notable and whether they should be taken at face-value. -- ¿Amar៛ 13:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I am responding since you requested me to respond. For the nth and final time, ApunKaChoice, Lakes paradise, IndiaFm and others should go and only then I am open to discussion. Until then, I will find it futile to discuss anything. Thanks -- ¿Amar៛ 15:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

A mention in Rediff, does not make a source as reliable. Even the rediff link that you have provided is a net guide. It does not mean anything and does not add a stamp of reliability on those sites. -- ¿Amar៛ 15:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Re:

At first glance when I'd seen Zinta, I was glad at how the article shaped up, how the content was massively added to, and simply overjoyed at it clearing GA! But I still had some doubts, which I had raised earlier on the talk pages -

• I've never supported random critics' quotes in the article anyway. Non-notable, as well as possible bias.
• I am strongly against sites which have random critics throwing their own half-baked random ideas, as well as which carry gossip, related to films or the actors in it. This belief of mine was in the background earlier, but I've always shown it - its just gotten stronger due to this FAC.
• I still strongly support sites such as askmen, etc which are known to an international audience, which possibly sees the fact that these are reliable reputed sources.
• I am strongly against quoting too much from self-interviews. For example, some interview (it was Mukerji) said,"(laughing) yes, perhaps I am the best actress today" and the interviewer notes that finally so-and-so admits "she is the Rani of todays actresses". and that whole "i am the best actress" was quoted in the article. Personal biases do exist. You might just be sitting there saying "Its mukerji, what do I care?" but I'll say tjat whether it is Mukerji or Zinta, we must keep self-quotes to a minimum, or we fail FAC again.
• Again, like I'd said earlier, I was reading up on the FA criteria and going through previous FACs but hadn't really got the time to get to it myself. And one of the first things that we should have done was, yes, made sure the article got a thorough copyedit. It was our (the editors) fault that we didn't have that fixed.

I don't really have much to say. I'm going to continue working on this article, alongwith Mukerji, and hope that both these articles hit legitimate FA in a few months.xC | ☎ 16:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I am surprised at X centaur here for trying to demote both the FA and A class articles.

I did not mean to support their demotion. But theres no other way to clear FA. Is there?xC | ☎ 16:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Preity

Yeah, I will write a message. Also please keep the discussions on editing in article talk page. This will help other editors in following the discussions being made. Also it will keep all discussions at one place. Gnanapiti 17:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Unnecessary quotes in the middle of a paragraph hinder the flow of the article. I'll rewrite the quoted sentence to include her terrible experience but will not bring back quotes. As I've said before, I'm not interested in what some other article looks like. It's the responsibility of those editors to make the article readable. I'm only interested in this article and will make whatever I can to make it a better one. Gnanapiti 18:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit Summary

Hello Shahid
Can you please provide more useful edit summaries than just a plus symbol (+) ? That way it would help other editors, also serves the purpose of having edit summary feature. Thanks, KNM 17:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem, well done. I usually write (+)es when I mak minor edits. Shahid • 18:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You have to keep going

Hi! The very act of editing in wikipedia sometimes leads to immense stress. I can well understand that. I have seen several instances and myself suffered from a few minor instances. Especially FACs sometimes prove to be very stressful. I have one medicine :) Just step back for a while. Give it a short break. Do other staffs, your real life, or, maybe some other articles/random articles in wikipedia. Meanwhile, let the article evolve, let it take a new shape whatsoever. However, do not forget to save the present format of the article (or a version that you like) in your user subpage (or anywhere else).

After a few days, return to the article. See what are the changes, if at all. Compare with your stored version. Then, again keep going. During this break, just do not revert anything in the article (except blatant vandalism or typos). Even better, you can collect some sources which will not be contested for reliability (newspapers etc).

Listen, I have experience of a few FACs. Usually, all the comments are very healthy for the article. And regarding GA review, personally I don't pay any heed to the GA staffs. My recommendation would be not to get worried over the GA review. If it fails GA review, so be it. The article will soon be ready for FAC again. GA is not a necessary prerequisite for FAC.

So, just keep going. And have good faith that all the comments are meant for improving the article, notwithstanding whatever personal reasons you believe may be involved. Believe me, the article is in pretty good shape. I can predict a succesful FAC soon :)

Due to extremely busy schedule, I am unable to edit the article frequently. I shall try my best. Keep it rolling, man...Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Zinta gadbad

In "Early life and background", it says Zinta took admission in St Bede's College in Shimla, opting for English Honours. In the next paragraph, it says, Zinta completed school at the age of eighteen and enrolled at the University of Mumbai. She initially planned to study for an English honours major, but later decided to pursue psychology.

Once she opted for English honours in Shimla. Again she took admission in univ of Mumbai, and discarded English honours. There is something gadbad either in timeline, or, the construction of the sentences. Please attend to it.

Meanwhile, I am doing moderate-to-harsh copyedit of the article. --Dwaipayan (talk) 15:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I don't know if apunkachoice or planet bollywood are reliable. Yes, we may need to add/remove several things afterwards. Let me first have a full go at the article today (I have some time today). I will notify you when I will be done for today. Then you can modify. But again, it is better to dig up better (the reliability of which will be less disputed) sources, such as filmfare, stardust, rediff, Indiafm, TimesofIndia or other newspapers.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Hello Shahid,
Can we please discuss the article related issues in the article-talk page. So that, other editors can also add value to the discussion. Thanks, - KNM 17:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)