The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 25 February 2022 [1].

---

Katrina Kaif[edit]

Nominator(s): AB01 and FrB.TG (talk) 15:16, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Katrina Kaif's success could very well be the plot of a Bollywood film. Born in Hong Kong, she started modelling in London and impressed a filmmaker who cast her in his disastrous film. She soon became one of the most well-known faces in India. What she lacks in acting abilities, she makes up for by being a fantastic dancer, which is crucial in being a successful Bollywood heroine. In case you forget her name, you can get your answer here; it seems 200 million people did forget it.

I have closely watched this article's progress. Back in 2015, when its main contributor AB01 made it a GA, I felt that with some work, it could become an FA. Fast-forward six years later, it is still at that status. With my recent return to Wikipedia, I did some extensive further research to make it FA-level comprehensive. Sadly, its main editor hasn't been around for about five years, but to acknowledge his contributions, I am including him as a co-nominator. FrB.TG (talk) 15:16, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

Most licensing looks OK, but File:Katrina Kaif and Vicky Kaushal.png is marked as still needing review. (t · c) buidhe 23:08, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the image review. Hopefully, a Commons reviewer looks at it soon although given the amount of images still needing review from January 2021, it is kind of worrying. FrB.TG (talk) 15:37, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on sourcing[edit]

• The article cites some sources rated generally unreliable at WP:RSP (International Business Times and Daily Express). There is also widespread citing of Times of India (see its RSP entry), which I would say is considered minimally acceptable for culture. However, I'm not sure it qualifies as a "high-quality reliable source" per the FA criteria or if there are better sources available. (t · c) buidhe 20:22, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced the IBT and Daily Express refs, but TOI is considered a reliable source when it comes to reporting on the Indian film industry. Not to pull a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST but its usage is also frequent in many other FA-class biographies of Indian actresses. Looking at RSP, it says TOI is biased when it comes to its government but in this case, it is mostly critics reviewing her films. FrB.TG (talk) 20:37, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by ChrisTheDude[edit]

• "These were followed by a series of commercially failed releases" - "commercially failed" isn't valid as an adjective. Just saying "These were followed by a series of commercially failures" would work

Replaced with "commercial failures"; I don't think "commercially failure" will work since "failure" isn't an adjective.

Yes, an ironic typo in my comment :-P -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:37, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "She said her father had no influence on her or her siblings while they were growing up, and they were raised by their mother" => "She said that her father had no influence on her or her siblings while they were growing up, and that they were raised by their mother"
• "On her father's absence in her life, Kaif said although" => "On her father's absence from her life, Kaif said that although"
• "Kaif's enactment of a supermodel" - "Kaif's portrayal of a supermodel" is probably more natural
• "to her unawareness of Indian audience's" => "to her unawareness of Indian audiences'"
• I got as far as 2005 but need to log off now. I'll carry on with this review later...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:58, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I have made these changes. FrB.TG (talk) 18:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

• "In 2006, she appeared with Akshay Kumar for the first of many films in Raj Kanwar's unsuccessful Humko Deewana Kar Gaye" => "In 2006, she appeared in Raj Kanwar's unsuccessful Humko Deewana Kar Gaye, the first of many films in which she appeared with Akshay Kumar"
• "in which Rishi Raj Singh of The Hindu called her performance "marvellous"" => "for which Rishi Raj Singh of The Hindu called her performance "marvellous""
• "The film narrates the story of three friends on a bachelor trip, and how the workaholism of one was overcome with the help of Laila (Kaif)" => "The film narrates the story of three friends on a bachelor trip, and how the workaholism of one is overcome with the help of Laila (Kaif)"
• "reprised the role of Zoya in the Ali Abbas Zafar's action thriller film Tiger Zinda Hai" => "reprised the role of Zoya in Ali Abbas Zafar's action thriller film Tiger Zinda Hai"
• "her second collaboration with with Aamir Khan" => "her second collaboration with Aamir Khan"
• "Kaif is filming the comedy horror film Phone Bhoot" - source is more than 18 months old, is she still filming it?
• That's all I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:35, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review. These are the changes I made in response to your comments. Do let me know if you there's anything else that needs to be done. FrB.TG (talk) 19:50, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:11, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by from CPA[edit]

• There are MOS:SANDWICH issues in the Career section. Please remove these issues. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:54, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thank you. FrB.TG (talk) 17:41, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aoba47[edit]

I would like to start by saying that I have never heard of this individual, but that is unsurprising since I am an American who is 100% unfamiliar with Bollywood. Despite studying film in college, I have actually never seen an Indian film. I will try my best to do a thorough review. I will be focusing primarily on the prose as I do not have the expertise to really comment on the sources. My comments are below:

As a non-Indian myself, I do enjoy the occasional dose of Bollywood entertainment, though I suggest if you start watching a Bollywood film, you should not start with her films. She is a solid dancer though. You might enjoy Andhadhun; it's an engaging thriller.

• Thank you for the recommendation! It is quite intimidating to jump into a completely different culture of film so having a suggestion for an entry point is very helpful! Aoba47 (talk) 16:43, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I am assuming the citation in the lead is used to support the fact that she is a British actress who works in Hindi-language films and that this controversial in some way? If that is the case, then the citation makes sense, but I still wanted to get your feedback as I did not want to operate under assumptions like this.

It's just some fans that keep adding "Indian" to her nationality, but you are right. I have removed the extra source from there and left a comment there to not change it unless it is backed by a reliable source.

• Just to be clear, I did not have any issue with the citation in the lead. I was more so wanting to confirm my assumption. From my rather limited experience with biography articles, I have seen nationality having these kinds of issues (as it is somewhat reminds me of genre wars in music articles). Either with or without the citation works for me. Aoba47 (talk) 16:43, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand but I find it absurd to source that in the lead (when we generally don't do it) just to please some fanboys.

• When you mention her birth in the lead, shouldn't the Hong Kong link be more explicitly British Hong Kong to avoid an Easter egg. I initially thought that this link was for the Hong Kong article.
• I do not think the London link is necessary for the lead as I would imagine a majority of readers are already familiar with the city. This is something touched on in MOS:OVERLINK with linking locations.
• I have a question about this part: While in India, Kaif received modelling assignments and established a successful modelling career. Couldn't it be shortened to: While in India, Kaif established a successful modelling career. I am not sure if the part I removed is entirely necessary.

Agreed.

• I think it may be worthwhile to link Bollywood for readers like myself who are not very familiar with that film industry. I can see how this could be seen as over-linking, but I still wanted to make this suggestion.
• The ALT text for the infobox image calls it a head shot, and I do not think that phrasing is entirely accurate. Whenever I hear the word head shot, I associate it with a more specific context of using it as part of a resume for either modeling, acting, or some entertainment-related field. I would not describe a photo of a person taken at an event as a head shot.
• In the "Early life" section, you link to Hong Kong and not to British Hong Kong.
• Be consistent with either using the Serial comma or not. This listing uses it "named Melissa, Sonia, and Isabel" while this one does not "named Stephanie, Christine and Natasha".
• While I was reading the subsection on her early life, I was wondering if Kaif was ever part of a larger discussion on biracial actors in Bollywood. You did a wonderful job with the prose about her heritage, but it did make me wonder about the industry as a whole. It may not fit this particular article, but I still wanted to ask about it.

There is some commentary on her finding success inspired many future foreigners to debut in Bollywood. I have added an analysis from the book Indian Film Stars: New Critical Perspectives in career section, i.e. she was cast in her first successful film mainly due to her biraciality.

• Thank you for adding this information to the article! Aoba47 (talk) 16:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The "Early life" section says Kaif did not grow up in London (i.e. only spending three years there), but the lead makes it out like she did grow up there or at least spent a more significant amount of time there (at least in my opinion).
• For this part, "after an Asian friend suggested they take a trip there", I am guessing we do not have more information than just "Asian" for the friend?

Unfortunately not.

• That is what I thought, but thank you for the confirmation. Aoba47 (talk) 16:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Boom should be linked in this part, a role in the English-Hindi erotic heist film Boom. I understand that this would cause a sea of blue, but the film should be linked in the prose so I would revise this part to avoid having so many links close together.

Boom is already linked in early life section and I though re-linking it would be OL.

• You are correct. That would be over-linking. I somehow missed the original Boom link in the article so apologies for that. Please ignore this suggestion as I was incorrect. Aoba47 (talk) 16:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I am uncertain about how this sentence is worded: Although Kaif was offered a number of modelling assignments, filmmakers were hesitant to cast her because of her poor command of Hindi. It is operating from this belief that a woman who has an active modeling career would automatically get the attention of filmmakers, which is untrue. In fact, it can be the opposite as some filmmakers may not take models seriously in terms of acting.

I think it might have to do with the fact that a great number of successful Bollywood actresses started out as a highly successful models who won international beauty pageants, but that is just presumptuous and would need to be explained here. I have removed the connection between the two sentences.

• Thank you for the explanation. There are a great number of successful models turned Hollywood actresses, but there are also a great number of successful models who could not make that leap (either do skill or a number of other reasons). I think it was best to remove this connection because while it is possible, it is not as automatic as the original wording suggested (at least in my opinion). Aoba47 (talk) 16:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Do we know what was meant by "inconsistent performer"? Was it in terms of her skill as an actor, her grasp of Hindi, or just her professionalism (i.e. not arriving on set or knowing her lines, et.c).
• I have a question about the Malliswari salary. It comes across as quite a surprise that she would get the highest for a South Indian film actress when her first film bombed commercially and critically and the previous paragraph brought up how filmmakers were hesitant on working with her. Is there any information on how she managed to get this big of a salary?
• I am confused by this sentence: Kaif followed with a small part in her second Telugu film, Allari Pidugu. The Wikipedia article for the film says she is one of the stars. In all fairness, the article is in rough shape, but it seems to contradict the information here. Also, is there more information about her performance in this film?

Well, she was billed as the heroine of the film but she did not have much of a role other than look pretty and do some dancing here and there.

• If she is billed as the film's heroine, then I am not sure how that would gel with the "small part" description. Were there any reviewers that identified her role in the film this way? Aoba47 (talk) 16:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the length of my comments so far. The prose is very engaging and I am very much enjoying the article. These are my comments up to the subsection about her breakthrough. I will continue my review once everything has been addressed above as this seems like a good stopping point for me. I hope this is helpful! Aoba47 (talk) 05:30, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments, I am glad you enjoyed reading her article. No apologies needed for the length of your review; if anything, it shows how thorough you are and your comments are certainly very helpful. Unless I have stated otherwise, I have taken on board your suggestions. I look forward to the rest of your review. FrB.TG (talk) 12:26, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your responses. I only have one question about the Allari Pidugu sentence, but other than that, everything looks good to me. I will post the end of my review momentarily. Have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 16:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I would be more consistent with how critics and publications are referenced in the prose. For instance, there are times the publication is only referenced, like with Sify, and times when the writer and publication are mentioned, like Nikhat Kazmi of The Times of India.
• I am uncertain about this: Before New York, Kaif's voice was dubbed over by voice artists. It seems rather jarring to introduce New York here as it is not until the next subsection that the prose explains what this film is. As someone who is unfamiliar with her career, I thought I might have missed something.
• Would it be worthwhile to link languages of India in this part, "and other Indian languages"? It may be over-linking, but I wanted to ask anyway as I had thought about it while reading this part.
• The article discusses how critics disliked her roles, specifically the inclination to male-dominated films and repetition of glamor roles, but how much of that was really her choice or within her power? Was there any discussions on how she was being typecast by the film industry? I was just curious about this since it seems like the critics are specifically going after her as if it was all her doing.

You could attribute it to Bollywood's sexist portrayal of the leading lady as a mere decorative prop, whose existence lies almost entirely around pleasing the male character. However, with a few exceptions, she has actively and repeatedly sought out such roles, even around a period where more actresses are pushing the boundaries. She intentionally ignores riskier roles in indie films, as they are, in her own words, "morose … which no one will watch". I have added her own response to this ("When criticised for her reluctance to appear..") and a general observation of this sexism, not mainly focusing on Kaif, by a critic ("In a BBC article criticising Bollywood's sexist portrayal of a female character.."), but it does praise her for being an action herione in Tiger Zinda Hai.

• Thank you for the wonderful and thorough response. That clears it for me, and it explains why the critics were directing their criticism towards her in particular. I actually really like her morose comment as there is something a little odd in my opinion that actresses are taken more seriously in less glamorous roles. Aoba47 (talk) 22:00, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I am uncertain of what you mean by "similar isolation" in this part, Having undergone similar isolation because of her skin colour. Would something like "discrimination" be more appropriate?

Yes, that is a much more elegant way to put it. :)

• I am glad that I could help :) Aoba47 (talk) 22:00, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I was confused by the comparison to Keira Knightley's part in Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003). The description of Kaif's role (i.e. an aspiring actress and criminal's girlfriend) does not strike me as remotely close to Elizabeth Swann. Could you clarify this further? Was it less about the character and more so comparing two British actors?

Not sure. The source says, "Kaif's role, shaped by India's top female director, Farah Khan, has been likened to Keira Knightley's breakthrough part in Pirates of the Caribbean." It's unclear what was exactly compared. I did not find anything else on this. If it is too vague, it can certainly be removed.

• I would remove this part as it is not really clear. My best guess is that the source is more so comparing the actresses and not the characters, but since the citation is not particularly clear, I would remove it. Aoba47 (talk) 22:00, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you clarify this part, Kaif was brought up to practise all faiths? I am guessing that she was not brought up to literally practice every single faith that is out there.
• Does she consistently visit Siddhivinayak Temple, Mount Mary Church, and Sufi shrine Ajmer Sharif Dargah before each film? Just curious because that would seem like a lot.

She did at least do it back in 2009. It's been a long time ever since and I doubt there will be any source confirming she still does it. However, it says that the report is from 2009, and at this point the readers should decide themselves if she still does do it.

• Thank you for the response. I agree that keeping it would be best as it does provide insight on her as a person. Aoba47 (talk) 22:00, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not think "several times" is necessary for this sentence: Kaif's personal life has been the subject of extensive media attention several times.
• For the final paragraph of the "Personal life and other work", I would be careful about having quite a few sentences with "In X year" as it can make the prose appear more like a list or a resume and makes it less engaging as a result.
• This is super nitpick-y, but is "nail paint" another word used for nail polish? It was just something that caught my eye and I was curious about it.

There is a small difference but they are almost always used interchangeably; I went with the source which says nail paint.

• To be clear, I was not suggesting you replace nail paint. I was more so curious about what nail paint was as I have not heard of it before. Aoba47 (talk) 22:00, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Do we have any further information on Kay Beauty, specifically how it is doing financially?

Aside from an article listing the prices of her products and her collaboration with Nykaa, I did not find much, at least not anything related to the brand's financial status.

• Then, it should be fine as it currently stands. I was uncertain if there was more coverage (a la Fenty Beauty for Rihanna or Rare Beauty for Selena Gomez) which does not appear to be the case here. Aoba47 (talk) 22:00, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• For these two sentences (She is one of the most-followed Bollywood celebrities on Instagram. and According to a Forbes India estimate, her net worth is ₹2 billion (US$27 million).), I would specify "as of X year" in some way as these items are subject to change in the future.
• For the Instagram sentence, I think it is worth specifying that she is the tenth most followed Bollywood celebrity.

This should be the end of my review. Once everything has been addressed, I will be more than happy to support on the prose. Thank you for all the work you have done on the article. It was truly a fascinating and engaging read that I very much enjoyed. Aoba47 (talk) 18:58, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for such a thorough review. Like always, unless I have stated otherwise, I have done what you have suggested. FrB.TG (talk) 21:13, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for addressing everything! I appreciate your responses and your patience with my review. I am more than happy to support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. I really should work on more biographical articles in the future. I would be mindful about the article's length in the future as Kaif is still relatively young and has an active career (but that should not be a concern for the FAC). I hope you are having a wonderful weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 22:02, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Just a quick note, but there are two films (Tiger 3 and Merry Christmas) that are mentioned in the Katrina Kaif filmography list but not in this article. Aoba47 (talk) 22:04, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your wonderful review and your support. I’ll add the upcoming films. You’re right about the size that it’s not a concern now but might be in five years or so. I hope to see you tackle a biography soon enough. FrB.TG (talk) 22:57, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jaguar[edit]

I'll begin my first read through soon. ♦ jaguar 20:20, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jaguar, how is this going? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:17, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I've been set back due to illness - I'll leave my comments tomorrow. ♦ jaguar 22:46, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "She is involved with her mother's charity" - a description of the charity would be useful to the reader. It is infanticide prevention?
• "Kaif called Shroff's comments "hurtful", and said it is evident she is not 100% Caucasian" - might be better to rephrase this to something like Kaif denied this, calling Shroff's comments "hurtful". The "not 100% Caucasian" part comes across as slightly informal
• "Therefore, Kaif and her siblings were home-schooled by a series of tutors. She says" - this should be in past tense since the extract is from 2010
• "...and appearing regularly at London Fashion Week" - the London Fashion Week (a 'the' is placed before Indian Fashion Week later on)
• "Boom (2003) had its first screening at the Cannes Film Festival, and was heavily promoted at the event" - condense to Boom (2003) had its first screening at the Cannes Film Festival and was heavily promoted,

Made a slight change to "..the Cannes Film Festival, where it was heavily promoted".

• "Kaif also appeared with Mammootty in the Malayalam crime thriller Balram vs. Tharadas" - WP:SEAOFBLUE here
• "She had difficulty filming her scuba diving scene because of her inexperience in it" - condense to She had difficulty filming her scuba diving scene due to her inexperience
• "The film released on Christmas weekend" - on the Christmas weekend
• "She and actor Vicky Kaushal got married" - reads awkwardly after jumping from her relationship with Kapoor. Rephrase to Kaif married actor Vicky Kaushal
• " A life-size, wax figure of her was installed at London's Madame Tussauds" - I think 'in' sounds correct

That's all I have after my read through. Overall the prose is solid and I could find no issues with the sources. ♦ jaguar 22:10, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review, Jaguar. I hope you are feeling better now. See what you make of these changes. FrB.TG (talk) 22:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, it's looking a lot better. I'll be happy to support this FAC based on prose as I have no doubt now it meets the 'well-written' part of the criteria. Well done in all the work you've put into this one, it was good to read. ♦ jaguar 20:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Shahid[edit]

Lead

• A previous version of the lead mentioned that "Though Kaif has received mixed reviews for her acting prowess" - I wonder why it's been removed, because I for one think it's very much in place, considering her achievments are mentioned, including awards and other qualities she is noted for, and particularly because it is prevalent throughout the article and the lead should reflect that. I'd combine it with the sentence "Though Kaif has received mixed reviews for her acting, she is noted for her dancing ability in various successful item numbers."

One editor objected that it is a repetition of the last line of he second paragraph but I would have to agree with you here. Firstly, mixed opinion is not the same thing as criticism. Secondly, the criticism is aimed at only a set of films not all of her films. Therefore, it is definitely not repetitive and is justified there per your suggestion. Added back.

Early life

• "According to the actress" - redundant - it's obvious that every piece of information about her family is given by her and no attribution is needed unless it's very contentious.
• More importantly, please avoid using "the actress" to refer to Kaif, it's very journalistic and non-encyclopedic.
• "Isabelle Kaif is also a model and actress" - first, in the previous sentence you spell her name Isabel, so pick one. And no Kaif is needed to refer to her.
• "On her father's absence in her life, Kaif said that although she occasionally wished for him to be supportive, she chooses not to complain and is instead grateful for the things she does have." - I'm sorry it's a little too much and sounds WP:UNDUE, because she doesn't say anything here other than describe her approach to life in general. It would be notable if she had actually admitted to have been affected or unaffected by his absense but she does neither of the two.
• "Although Kaif is thought to have grown up in London", I think it doesn't matter where she is believed to have grown up. We state the facts.

Acting beginnings (2003–2005)

• Ziya U. Salam -> Ziya Us Salam
• "attributed the weak performances of the film's leading ladies to their inexpressiveness." We don't immediately gather Kaif is one of the leading ladies, and the entire part of attributing a weak performance to... is confusing . I'd write "wrote of the weak performances by Kaif and the other female stars, criticising their inexpressiveness."
• "the highest for a South Indian film actress at the time" - she is not South Indian. I suggest, " the highest for a female lead in South Indian cinema at the time".

More to follow. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:39, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Breakthrough and rise to prominence

• I can't tell you how much I dislike the use of "rise to prominence" (very magazine-like and makes it sound as though she gained political power and won some elections) but it's my personal thing and not the problem - my question is what's the difference between this and a breakthrough? I think one should be picked, and breakthrough is better.
• The same applies for the next section where "widespread recognition" is used - first, widespread is subjective. And what is recognition in this case? Critical, commercial? If it's all about stardom why not just write "mainstream success" instead? Sounds fair and factually sound.

While she gained some critical praise for the first time during this period, there were also some bigger-than-ever box-office hits. So your suggestion to change to "mainstream success" is very good.

• "which marked the first of her many films" - I think I'd switch "many films" with "frequent collaborations".
• "... and tells the story of two like-minded" - you mix past and present tense within the same complex sentence. I'd recommend starting a new sentence because it's just too long.
• "Kaif also appeared with Mammootty" - remove "also" (the use of which should be as minimal as possible) -> "The same year, Kaif appeared"
• If her performance was hailed as "marvellous" isn't it essential to write more about her part? After all, she isn't called marvelous for her every turn and if such positive feedback is provided then the reader should know why and what's going on here.

The only other comment in the source on her performance is, "Katrina Kaif is learning the tricks of acting fast". Do you think it's something worth including?

• "...for her role of a spoilt British Indian" - since this is such a special role in her career and a sort of turning point as the paragraph suggests, I'd mention her character's name as follows "for her role of X, a spoilt...".
• " a remake of Hitch which also starred" -> "which co-starred"
• "minuscule roles" - were they really minuscule or just unimportant?
• "Her performances were also largely criticised." - such a short sentence with that "also" I think you can combine it with the previous sentence if you like: "critics noted that she played minuscule roles in them as they were generally male-dominated,[29][67] whereas her performances were largely criticised".
• Very good section overall; some paragraphs are excellent.

More to follow. Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:27, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the helpful comments, Shahid. These are the changes I made in regard to your suggestions. Looking forward to the rest of your review. FrB.TG (talk) 16:37, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I took the liberty of copyediting the career section myself instead of posting here prose-related comments even for smaller issues. I still have questions, but those will be later. The article is in very good shape now, but I need to read the following sections.

Thank you, I appreciate your efforts.

• Just one quick comment before we move on. For Zero, it says she "eventually decided to 'take the leap', hoping that 'it pays off'". It really says nothing, becasue she doesn't actually say why she decided to take it and just gives us the trivia of what she hopes for (which is obvious and redundant in the text). I tried entering the original recorded interview on DNA but it doesn't work for me. If you can address this, that'd be great. Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:42, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elaborated on it. FrB.TG (talk) 14:46, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Personal life

• General comment - the section is good, but while the part with Salman Khan is okay, the one with Ranbir Kapoor struck me as quite tabloidish ("photos ... were leaked", "the media interpreted"), although I'm really not sure because it is well-sourced, and the open letter seems quite notable. Anyway don't mind me I'm just really sensitive to such reportage on WP.

Normally, I am also against such inclusion. Often times I combine career with personal life because it tends to become gossipy when it's a standalone section. However, the Stardust photographs went viral, and the subsequent open letter addressing this is notable, as you say, so it might be useful to give some background info on this.

• My only comment is thus the repetitive use of "extensive media attention".

It looks like you addressed this point yourself. :) FrB.TG (talk) 14:31, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• More to follow, Shahid • ^Talk2me 08:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Media

• I've made further prose changes. Please let me know if they're acceptable. I need to give it just another short read to see if I have more comments. Shahid • ^Talk2me 00:23, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

I'm afraid koimoi.com is not a reliable source, or not the best available at the very least.

• 15: it doesn't say she "credited her for starting" the trend but merely fitted it.
• 16: OK
• 17: a) Nowhere does it say it's an erotic film. It's called a heist film (the film article describes it as "black comedy thriller film"). b) source does not support "anticipation surrounding her Bollywood debut".
• 20: "reports of a relationship with actor Salman Khan first emerged in 2003" - not supported by the source, not that it first emerged in 2003, and not reports but just rumours.

It might not say that the rumor "first" emerged in 2003 but seeing as the article is from that year. One can assume that the rumor was being circulated at least that year.

• 28: author missing
• 52: books need no accessdate.
• 60: The source does not really support that Masand found her "insufferable and her acting insufficient"
• 72: OK
• 84: WSJ doesn't work; use archive
• 85: OK
• 86: OK
• 95: Page not found; please fix The Telegraph link.
• 102: "one of the most awarded films of the year" isn't supported, although it's true. Either add another source or change the prose.
• 103: OK
• 122: Page not found; use archive.
• 133: doesn't support "critical failures"
• 135: doesn't work (and no archives)
• 147: OK
• 148: OK
• 150: author missing; remove Times of India from the title parameter.
• 161: OK
• 168: use the archive, otherwise good.
• 180: Page not found, use the archive.
• 182: link Vogue India
• 194: Mishra is mentioned in text but missing in ref.
• 197: The source doesn't support that it is her comment on her "outsider image", neither does it support anything related to breaking stereotypes (it actually talks about her being steretyped).
• 200: OK
• 202: OK
• 203: OK
• 214: author missing
• 224: author missing
• Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:24, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for these, Shahid. I believe I have addressed your concerns in these edits. FrB.TG (talk) 18:44, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good, you have my support for promotion. 21:46, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@FAC coordinators: Hi, any status update on this? FrB.TG (talk) 08:46, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We are waiting for the further short read promised by Shshshsh Gog the Mild (talk) 22:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild, he already did and supported here. FrB.TG (talk) 22:12, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I read that as for the source review and not for the general review. Shshshsh, could you clarify? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:20, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild: I support the nomination for promotion based on both the general and source reviews. :) Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:38, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:49, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.