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 GrahamColm 10:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

---

Deepika Padukone[edit]

Deepika Padukone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Deepika Padukone/archive1

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

Nominator(s): smarojit ^HD 01:33, 27 September 2013 (UTC) & Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs)[reply]

We are nominating this for featured article because after months of work, I feel that it meets the FA criteria. Padukone has emerged as one of the most popular actresses of contemporary Hindi cinema, with roles in two of the highest-grossing Bollywood films of all time. It has been extensively researched by both Dr. Blofeld and me. Happy reading! smarojit ^HD 01:33, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK (CC via OTRS or website link). Sources and authors provided. GermanJoe (talk) 13:18, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the image check. :) --smarojit ^HD 13:22, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cassianto[edit]

This will come in stages I'm afraid so please bare with me. At first glance this looks like a winner. As usual, the lede will come last. Here are some comments to be getting on with:

Early life and background

• "...Konkani-speaking parents." -- Why is this relevant? Surely their mother country would explain more?

It says something about the caste of the family I think, which in India is remarkable, especially as she's an actress of Hindi film. I think it just says something about her heritage anyway but it can be removed of course if you feel strongly enough about it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True. India being such a large country, I think that it is necessary to know what her mother tongue is. --smarojit ^HD 13:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. But no where does it mention India in the first opening lines of the body. In an age of multiculturalism, anyone anywhere can speak Konkani nowadays. Sorry if this is obvious to you guys, but geography was never really must strong point at school. -- Cassianto^Talk 13:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Do we need to repeat the surname for both parents? Maybe the father, but not the mother.

Done

• "She has a younger sister, golfer Anisha Padukone..." -- Definite article is more preferable.

Changed the sentence to avoid confusion.

• "Padukone was schooled at Bangalore's Sophia High School" -- Avoid repetition of "schooled/school" by replacing the former with "educated" or "attended" or similar. Also, "Padukone was schooled at Bangalore's..." is a bit confusing as we speak of her sister before hand. Can we clarify that we are talking about the subject again?

Done.

• "Through her school life, Padukone continued to pursue a career in badminton and played the sport at the national level championships. She also played baseball for a few state level championships." -- Is there anyway to avoid a repetition of "championships"? Suggest: "Through her school life, Padukone pursued a career in badminton and also played baseball, reaching the state level championships for both sports" or similar?

Changed the second occurrence to "tournaments". --smarojit ^HD 13:52, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Padukone first modelled for a couple of campaigns at the age of eight, following which she concentrated on her education and sporting career." Sounds awkward, suggest "Padukone first modelled for a couple of campaigns at the age of eight while concentrating on her education and sporting career" or similar. Also, do we know of any early modelling success in her early years or who or what she modelled for? Eight does sound awfully young to be a model so this I feel we need a bit of elaboration.

First part resolved. But I couldn't find any sources regarding the work she did at the age of eight. --smarojit ^HD 13:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "She was inclined to pursue a career in entertainment and thus, in 2004 she began a full-time career as a model under the tutelage of Prasad Bidapa." Was was she inclined to pursue a career in entertainment? This is the first mention of this; what sparked her taste for entertainment? Was it the modelling? If so, "entertainment" maybe the wrong word here. I note that she took up a full-time career as a model which reinforces my notion that "modelling" is more correct than "entertainment".

Done.

• "Early in her career, Padukone gained recognition with a television commercial for the soap Liril..." -- How did she gain recognition from a commercial? Most actors in commercials nowadays I wouldn't recognise if they walked past me in the street and slapped my with a wet fish! Was the commercial particularly notable? If so why?

Actually, the Liril television campaign is a very popular one. A similar soap campaign had launched the career of Preity Zinta. Not sure how to incorporate this in the text though. --smarojit ^HD 13:28, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I believe such commercials in India have a much bigger impact in India and they often literally become the "face" of something, not to mention being viewed by more people. As Smaro says a similar thing happened with Preity Zinta. I'm not sure we can really explain it, but things seem to be different in India than in the UK/US. Perhaps it is comparable to Marilyn Chambers and Ivory Snow in that it launched her career and they used it to their advantage in promoting her x-rated career because she was famous for her "pure" role in the ad?♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "At the age of twenty one" → "At the age of 21". Per MOS:Numbers

Done

• "...she shifted base to Mumbai" →Sounds idiomatic to me.

Changed.

• That year she gained wider recognition by featuring in the music video for Himesh Reshammiya's song "Naam Hai Tera". -- How did the song do? Was it because of the songs popularity that caused her to come under wider recognition?

Yes, I can't find anything substantial on it, but I thinks it's fairly clear that the music video was widely distributed on Indian TV or whatever and as a result she became better known in India.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Due to her successful modelling career," -- I wasn't aware of the success? She had only just made her runway debut a few lines ago? What and how did she become successful with?

Reworded, edited this out.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:05, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Film debut and breakthrough (2006–09)

• "Padukone announced in 2006 that she would make her screen debut..." -- I thought she did this with the music videos? Suggest swapping "screen" with "film" or similar.

Done.

• "The film, a romantic comedy, was a remake of..." -- "The film" is redundant and it would work quite well without it IMO. "The romantic comedy, was a remake of..."

Done.

• "Upon release" -- again here. "the film proved a major commercial success" would suggest the film was released.

Removed.

• " 'screen presence' " -- Not entirely convinced that the quote add anything and would work quite as well incorporated into the text.

Done.

• Why do we translate "hasta mudras", when we could easily just use the words within the parenthesis. This of course wouldn't be in question if hasta mudras had come from a quote.

I think it's a formal term used for a form or characteristic of Indian classical dance so it makes sense to use the native name for it and put what it means in English. Isn't that OK?♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Doc. Yes it's better now it has been explained. Again, sorry for my lack of knowing on the subject. -- Cassianto^Talk 13:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• What is "Bollywood Hungama"?

Formerly IndiaFM, one of the leading Indian entertainment portals and their reviews are much respected in India. I agree it seems a dubious source but it really isn't and is used in existing featured articles and most Indian cinema articles.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think an introduction would be good then in this case. To me (and dare I say it other westerners) may not gauge that this is a radio station as it is not obvious from the title. -- Cassianto^Talk 13:22, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's an entertainment portal, not a radio station. Added description at first occurrence. --smarojit ^HD 13:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Easy mixup when you consider "IndiaFM" to sound like a radio station...ok, stop laughing at the back there!! ;) -- Cassianto^Talk 15:52, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hahah, if I didn't know the portal's history, I would have thought so too. --smarojit ^HD 15:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "writer-director Imtiaz Ali" →"the writer-director Imtiaz Ali".

Done.

Career struggles (2010–11)

• "Padukone had five releases in 2010..." -- New para and more importantly new section, so slight elaboration is needed. "Padukone had five film releases in 2010. After all, the title doesn't give away the fact we are still continuing with films.

Done.

• The line "The film released to a mixed critical response and earned little profit at the box office." Will need looking at and fixing.

Changed. I hope it's better now. --smarojit ^HD 16:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "The film was largely panned by critics, including Raja Sen who attributed her poor performance due to her "plasticky expressions". -- We don't need "attributed" and "due" in the same sentence as they essentially mean the same thing.

Done.

• "Later that year, Hindustan Times published that Padukone's role..." -- Not sure "published" is the correct word here.
• Possible OR: "Later that year, Hindustan Times published that Padukone's role in Pradeep Sarkar's Lafangey Parindey contributed in changing the general perception regarding her film roles, with focus directed on her acting prowess rather than her appearance." To avoid the OR label, we should stick this in quotes if we know it, or word it like we are not offering POV statements.

Actually, I couldn't find a direct quote for this. But this sentence summarises the basic idea of the cited article. --smarojit ^HD 16:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Do we need to link "skating"? This looks like a forced link to find out if its "ice", "roller" or something else.

Removed.

• "...she observed the interactions of blind people to their surroundings and rehearsed scenes... ." -- We need a comma between "people" and "to" (unless I'm reading thesis wrongly).

Can't figure why it needs a comma there. --smarojit ^HD 13:47, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like I say, I may have read this incorrectly. -- Cassianto^Talk 15:52, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure that quoting "little research" adds much and would work more than amicably without doing so.

Changed.

• What is an "item number"?

the very common term for one of the song/dances in Bollywood movies, I'm certain most readers would be very familiar with the term, can you think of a different way to reword it?♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:09, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hate this term, but that's what it is formally called in India, and has been wikilinked. --smarojit ^HD 13:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This helps a lot thanks for the link. I know nothing of modern terms around music or Bollywood sorry my fault. -- Cassianto^Talk 13:14, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Trade journalists had high expectations from the film" →"Trade journalists had high expectations for the film"

Done.

Cocktail and beyond (2012–present)

• "Raja Sen of Rediff.com opined and published that..." -- do we need "opined" and "published", or can we take one as read?

Removed "published".

• "During the script narration, producer Dinesh Vijan..." -- I do like my definite articles and I think it should be in use here.

Added.

• "Critics were divided in their opinion of the film itself..." -- Redundant "itself".

Removed.

• "Commercially, the film proved a box office hit in both India and overseas." -- You can't be a hit in overseas?

Stopped at 'hit'. --smarojit ^HD 05:28, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personal life and off-screen work

• "Though she did not mention Kapoor's name..." -- New para should begin with the noun and not a pronoun

Done.

• "This led to wide speculation in the media about the nature of her relationship with the cricket manager.[105] She declined to publicly talk about the relationship; the following year there was speculation about a break-up..." -- Two "speculations" within close proximity of each other.

Reworded.

In the media

• Could we start this section with "The journalist"?

Done.

Lead section

• Definite article when describing her father in first para.

Done.

• "She later left her career in sports..." Why the plural?

Done.

• "She had enrolled for a bachelor of arts degree in sociology..." -- Would work just as well without "had".

Done.

• "...due to scheduling" -- "due to" I consider to be AmEng. Is this the intention?

Yeah, I guess so.

• Padukone soon began receiving offers for film roles..." -- past tense as this has already happened. →"Padukone soon received offers for film roles..."

Changed.

• I consider the infobox to be more of a WP:DISINFOBOX and utterly pointless here. Doctor B knows my stance on these, but I appreciate others would think differently. I see other Bollywood actresses have similar, so this must be the norm so I am in no way insistent on this point. Just chucking this out there as a point of view if nothing else. ;)

I completely agree with you on this. Removed it. --smarojit ^HD 02:11, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – per above resolved comments. A very good article and one which would sit quite happily with Chopra, Zinta, and Kapoor. Nice work guys! -- Cassianto^Talk 19:08, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad you enjoyed it. Thank you once again for your comments, it really helped improve the article. :) --smarojit ^HD 02:11, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cass.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the comments. :) --smarojit ^HD 13:20, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Crisco[edit]

Addressed comments moved to talk page

• Support on prose. Good job everybody, this one looks pretty well polished. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the support, Crisco. :) --smarojit ^HD 01:55, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kailash29792[edit]

I don't have much to say, but the lead reads that Padukone has "written columns for an Indian newspaper" - which paper? Also, is the word "alongside" formal and professional? ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 12:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Kailash, thank you for your comment. She has written columns for Hindustan Times which has been mentioned in the main body. And IMO the word "alongside" is professional; it has been used in a lot of recent FA's. :) --smarojit ^HD 13:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment "She is currently... Farrah Khan's renewal of happy new year" . Replace currently with as of date. Also, why "renewal"?--Dwaipayan (talk) 00:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Dwai, the start of this paragraph begins with the "as of" date, so deleted the word 'currently'. Thanks for pointing it out. :) And "renewal" because Happy New Year was shelved before (it is mentioned in the early career section). --smarojit ^HD 01:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Loeba[edit]

Lead

• I don't think we need to be told about her stint at university in the lead. And after reading the early life section, the baseball isn't significant enough to mention either. In general the lead feels a little overly-detailed...I won't insist on it being trimmed, but something for you to consider (she's only had a 7 year career, after all).

I understand, but I tried to mention something about her background in the lead, so that it doesn't read like a filmography page. --smarojit ^HD 03:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure some background info is required, but it seemed odd to me to read these inessential facts in the lead. I've edited it to show you what it could be like with this stuff removed. What do you think? --Loeba (talk) 11:10, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Infobox. I appreciate if you're not a fan of them, but it's very standard for actor articles to have an infoxbox and I think you'll find yourself constantly battling with other editors over it...it's bound to be re-added all the time. I'm personally a fan of them, and two pieces of information that they provide at a quick glance (not so easily available in the lead) are 1. the subjects age, and 2. the years they have been active. Something else to think about.

Most of us here seem to agree that the infobox is pointless. I understand the enthusiasm for infoboxes on wikipedia but that doesn't mean that this must have an infobox to pass FAC. Looks better with out it IMO.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't suggest that it was necessary, I just said it was "something to think about". I anticipate it causing a fair amount of trouble (I see it has already been re-added and reverted), but it's up to you two. --Loeba (talk) 19:52, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Early life

• A better section heading for this might be "Early life and modelling career"?

Done.

• Is there any reason her family was living in Denmark when she was born?

Can't find any reliable source for that, but it would probably be because her father was participating in a tournament there.

• How long was she at uni for before dropping out? I think it'd be worth adding if possible.

Again, couldn't find an exact source. :(

• "I also played a lot of sport and at a very young age, I played competitive badminton." > I think this section of the quote should be paraphrased. Also, not sure the newspaper really needs to be mentioned?

Done.

• "By 2006 Padukone had established a career as a model after a highly successful print campaign for Kingfisher Calendar" - Awkward, she already had a career as a model. I think you just mean she was considered a major model, or very successful model. Needs rewording.

Reworded.

• "a Ganjam jewellery class he was teaching on the use of jewels with clothing" - Do we need to know the specifics of the class?

Removed.

Film debut

• "By the end of 2006, Farah Khan's Happy New Year was shelved" This was jarring to me: we haven't even been told about this film...

Actually, the film is mentioned in the final sentence of the "Early life" section.

Oops, sorry! --Loeba (talk) 11:10, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "the film was hugely anticipated" - "hugely" is not very encyclopedic.

Agreed, changed to highly.

Sorry to be nitpicking, but we now have "highly" and "high-profile" very close together. That's why I didn't go ahead and change it to "highly" myself. --Loeba (talk) 19:52, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"the film was highly anticipated both nationally and internationally" OK?♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• If she received a Best Actress nomination for Love Aaj Kal, I'm guessing most critics must've liked her performance? So is it appropriate to have that negative review comment? Maybe it is representative, in which case it's fine, but it seemed a bit odd to me.

I know it's surprising but some nominations at Filmfare are given just due to the economic profitability of the film and not for the performance. Very strange, but true. --smarojit ^HD 03:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...I took a quick look at the reviews cited in the film's article, and comments for her performance include "Padukone delivers the best of her four performances so far", "Deepika plays Meera so effectively, you're left wondering who else could have done the role", "Both Saif and Deepika come up with their career-best performances", "Deepika is definitive and strong"...there was only one other negative review, along with the one mentioned in her article. I think the response to her performance is being misrepresented (the lead even claims she "earned little praise" for the performance, which I'm afraid is evidently not true...) --Loeba (talk) 11:10, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, and I apologise for this. Changed it in the main body and the lead. --smarojit ^HD 17:28, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Career struggles

• "The film was largely panned by critics," - not sourced.

Sadly, there isn't a "Rotten Tomatoes"-like website that aggregates reviews for Indian films. It's also impossible to cite a number of reviews for this sentence, hence I had to mention this with a single negative review. --smarojit ^HD 03:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but I'm sure you know that we can't just have a general statement like this unsourced in an FA. Maybe there's an article somewhere that summarises the fate of the film (and the ones I mention below) that you can use? Otherwise, I'm afraid you'll just have to rely on giving one or two critics opinions to represent the critical response, without making a general statement about it (which pretty much has the same effect). --Loeba (talk) 11:10, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the statement, and included a quote from the review about the film. --smarojit ^HD 17:44, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Hindustan Times published that the film contributed in changing the general perception regarding her roles, with focus directed on her acting prowess rather than her appearance." I found this sentence pretty awkward...I quickly tweaked it, but feel like it could still be worded better...

Actually, it sounds much better now, thanks.

• "the Kunal Kohli-produced romantic comedy" - Is the producer relevant?

The producer of the film is more notable than the director, hence mentioned it.

Unless he's REALLY notable, which I'm not getting a sense of from his article, then I'd remove it. --Loeba (talk) 11:10, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

• "While the film generated mixed reviews" - not sourced.

Per above. --smarojit ^HD 03:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will hopefully finish up tomorrow! --Loeba (talk) 16:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking time out to review this, Loeba. Really appreciate it and look forward to the rest of your comments. :) --smarojit ^HD 03:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing, sorry for the delay:

Cocktail and beyond

• "her performance [Chennai Express] received praise" - Not sourced.

Added source. --smarojit ^HD 17:44, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personal life...

• The stuff about the infidelity - I think it would flow better if the media suspicion that she was talking about Kapoor was mentioned before the quote...When I first read that, I was thinking "Why is this relevant? Why was it controversial?" That was made clear as soon as I got to the next paragraph, but I wouldn't have been confused if the connection was clearly made at the start.

I tried changing this, but couldn't find a right way to do so since she didn't name Kapoor in the interview. It somehow doesn't sound right that way. I would appreciate some help in doing this. Thanks. --smarojit ^HD 17:44, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had a go, what do you think? --Loeba (talk) 16:16, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the media

• Nice summary

Thank you. :) --smarojit ^HD 17:44, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know how hard it is to try and string together a comprehensive, nicely flowing biography from 100+ media articles and reviews, so congratulations on achieving this. Thousands of people look at the article every day, so thank you for your hard work here. It's close to FA (IMO), but we do need to sort out those incidents of WP:OR and what seems to be a misleading representation of her work in Love Aaj Kal. --Loeba (talk) 11:10, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. And I apologise again for the Love Aaj Kal reviews. I have changed that now. :) --smarojit ^HD 17:44, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ohh guys, I'm reading through again finding even more instances of OR (I think I initially assumed the comments must have been covered by the sources, but I can see now that they're not) and misuse of sources. I started removing some myself, but I'm just going to list the rest here for you to deal with:

• "Film critics were generally disappointed with the picture and Padukone's performance" (Chadni Chowk to China)

Added a Rotten Tomatoes source. --smarojit ^HD 17:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Critical response to the film was mixed" (Karthik Calling Karthik)

Removed.

• "the film was met with polarising reviews from critics" (Khelein Hum Jee Jaan Sey - source gives no indication of "polarising reviews")

Removed.

• "Critical reaction was largely negative" (Aarakshan)

Found a source.

• "Critics were divided in their opinion of the film, but particularly praised Padukone's performance" (Cocktail)

Found a source.

• "Film critics were unanimous in their appreciation of Padukone's performance" (Yeh Jawaani Hai Deewani - Doesn't seem to be mentioned in the source (which does support the second part of the sentence))

Used the source you mentioned below, and reworded. --smarojit ^HD 17:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Now after putting these, I've come across this article, that is used for her Chennai Express reviews. It seems to be useful in summarising the response to several of her films/roles. I'll leave this to you.

It's a bit concerning how many problems I've found throughout reviewing the article, and you really need to be careful with this sort of thing. Someone less kind than me would have flat-out opposed. I understand that you want to make statements like these because they help understand her career, and they read well, but...If you can't find a source that gives a summary of the critical response, then I'm afraid you just need to accept that this can't be mentioned in the article. It's a shame, I know, but..I wouldn't be doing my job as an FAC reviewer if I let it pass. Next time you prepare an article, make sure everything is covered by the subsequent source, and make sure you have a good understanding of each element so that you aren't misrepresenting it (as happened w/ Love Aaj Kal). --Loeba (talk) 16:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, I've found another poorly sourced statement lower down: "several media publications began crediting her as the most successful contemporary actress in India." - This is a bold statement, and the source given really isn't a sufficient support for it. It says she is "the best thing about all her films" and "striking box-office gold", but that makes no claim about her overall status, and certainly doesn't mention that "several media publications" think this. I'm getting concerned that you don't know how to use sources very well, meaning there could be more problems that I haven't found... --Loeba (talk) 16:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I wrote that because the article calls her the "Number 1 heroine" in Bollywood today. That means that she is the most successful actress, right? There are many other sources that mention the same. I can add those if you want. --smarojit ^HD 16:24, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you need to add a couple more. --Loeba (talk) 16:27, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added two more sources. smarojit ^HD 16:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it comes down to more the problem with fully sourcing those claims. It would be unfeasible in my opinion to cite up to 10 sources for one claim (which would really be needed so as not to make it seem OR). The way to do it might be to strengthen each claim with a couple of reviews which support the statement indirectly, but the problem lies in the fact that no source says anything like "The film received a mixed reception but Padukone was praised". So it's difficult to source and verify because of the nature of the reviews.. Given that few or no credible sources to date have made an encyclopedic evaluation of her films and career as a whole, I'm not sure how this is really avoidable Loeba.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:13, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, so it means that the statement can't be made at all. You just have to find a review that is representative of the critical response, and leave it to speak for itself. --Loeba (talk) 16:19, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But occasionally you can find a source that gives a summary, ie the one I linked above has "Critics saw immense potential in the actress", "Critics went gaga over the lady", "Cocktail got her noticed in the critics circuit once again", "Her portrayal as Naina got her critics' praise once again." Things like this are perfect. --Loeba (talk) 16:23, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think a balance is needed, I think it would be damaging to remove all of the statements but where possible if a few multiple sources inside one ref template can be used which at least provide some form of argument backing what is said or if a source which gives a summary can be found this would be ideal. If no sources can be found to offer a glimmer of light on the matter then it should be removed of course.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:52, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to do my best with the lack of concrete sources. --smarojit ^HD 17:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's one of the drawbacks/frustrations of working on contemporary actor articles. There were many times while I was writing the Moore article that I would have liked to say "her performance was widely praised", or whatever, but I knew that I couldn't if there wasn't already a source that said as much. Nevermind, it's still possible to give a solid overview of a career (as I like to think we both have!) --Loeba (talk) 18:10, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that is indeed frustrating, but yes, we seem to have overcome that hurdle now. --smarojit ^HD 02:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Right, all my concerns have been addressed (it was unreasonable of me to suggest there may be further problems with the sourcing, I am going to WP:Assume good faith that there is not) and this is a well-written, thoroughly researched article. Great job. --Loeba (talk) 18:10, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it's one of those things which is difficult to really fully demonstrate with sourcing because Indian cinema really lacks a general encyclopedic and professional critical analysis which can be used directly to support such statements. Unlike older Hollywood for instance when you could find tons of different sources saying that John Wayne's role as a Mongol Emperor was seen poorly by critics or for other single performances! I've encountered similar problems on other Indian actor articles and I believe it was always addressed by citing one or two sources which say the film/role was a success or failure and it is usually taken in good faith to be true and that the author knows what they're talking about. Technically you are right though that if the source doesn't directly say it then it can seem OR. Disputes can potentially come about on deciding whether something was really acclaimed or badly received as a lot of reviews tend to be mixed. I'm glad that you've spotted what you have but I would sincerely hope that there are not many further problems with the sourcing. Anybody else here feel free to make random spot checks. Thanks Loeba, greatly appreciate your input and time put in here and support!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Loeba for you support and giving us such a thorough review. :) --smarojit ^HD 02:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dharmadhyaksha[edit]

• "Bachchan played the revolutionary leader Surya Sen and Padukone played Kalpana Dutta, his lover and confidante." is sourced to a film review article. That is good enough to state what role she played but a poor one to state that Dutta and Sen were lovers. Even if the film showed them such, we should get better sources to say that.

Added another source. --smarojit ^HD 10:53, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The new ref added says:- As far as the romance between Surya Sen and Kalpana Dutta is concerned, the actor explained that the film doesn't dwell too much on that. "We realized that we could not possibly deal with something that we aren't sure of...". And she says it rightly. For calling them two as lovers we would require a non-film related source, something historic. If its difficult to find, which am pretty confident it is as probability of it being non-existent is high, then its better rephrased. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:13, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the controversial use of the word "lover". Okay? --smarojit ^HD 12:48, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Her next film was Prakash Jha's melodrama Aarakshan,". Melodrama for Aarakshan seems a bit odd. Maybe "social drama" or "socio-political drama".

Changed.

• "A practicing Hindu, Padukone considers religion to be an important aspect of her life and makes frequent visits to temples and other religious shrines". Should the temple be linked to Hindu temple?

Linked.

• "... tattoo of his initials on the nape of her neck." Thats what nape is, of neck, right?

Nape of her neck. that's fine, yes.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:33, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "hasta mudras" can link to Mudra or even better to List of mudras (dance).

Done.

§§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:24, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments Dharmadhyaksha. :) --smarojit ^HD 10:53, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dwaipayan[edit]

• "In a 2010 interview, Padukone made a comment ..." folowed by a long quotation. Then, "Kapoor initially denied the allegations, but according to The Times of India, he later admitted to the infidelity." Is this long quote really needed? That sounds like gossipy to me. Staffs of page 3. Yes, we can surely state that they broke up, and Padukone told about infidelity. (and may be that Kapoor admitted later). That i smy preference, please think hard if this long quote is really needed. If you remove the quote, are we missing something ?

I understand your concern, but I think this quote gives a much needed insight on a celebrity's personal life which is such a well documented event. This isn't mere gossip, but a direct quote from her. A lot of readers of rhis article will be much interested in reading about this. So I think this is very much needed. I would try to trim it though, if it is a major concern. --smarojit ^HD 15:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• In the first paragraph of "In the media" section, I have a preference that each and every reference to a newspaper or book or magazine should have a date (unless approximate time is guessable from the content). For example, in stead of "The journalist Vir Sanghvi describes Padukone as...", I'd prefer "The jouranlist Vir Sanghvi, in 2010, described Padukone as...". This might make reading more halted, but at the same time, it will be more time-proof. What if Sanghvi describes her as something else later on? Just like we do not like "currently", I feel here we should have time-stamps. I'd listen to any counter arguement.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:39, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like Nice point. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 15:06, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Added year for Sanghvi's quote. But the rest of the quotes in the paragraph are from 2013 too, so I don't think there is a need to repeat that. Is that fine? --smarojit ^HD 15:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Bollywood Dreamz[edit]

• "Following much media speculation, the director Farah Khan..." and "During the script narration, the producer Dinesh Vijan offered Padukone..." Is the 'the' really needed?

Actually, this was included due to Cassianto's comment on the review above. :)

• "On working with Shahrukh and Farah Khan, she said, "I've grown up watching Shah Rukh and always..." Which one is it? Shah Rukh or Shahrukh - please maintain consistency.

Changed.

• "She followed this success with the role of Gayatri (one of star Ranbir Kapoor's love interests)..." Is the word 'star' really needed?

This one was included due to Crisco's comment above.

• "In early 2013, Padukone performed at the 2013 Zee Cine awards". Please avoid the repetition of 2013. If we said that in early 2013 she performed for the ZCA, isn't it obvious that it would be for the 2013 award ceremony?

Done.

Support Overall, a well-written article with just a few minor suggestions. Congrats to the writers! :) -- Bollywood Dreamz ^talk 15:00, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much Dreamz. :) --smarojit ^HD 15:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mr. Dreamz, I gather that's a support then?♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SchroCat[edit]

A couple of minor bits from me; I made some small changes while going through: please revert if you don't like them.

Film debut and breakthrough

• "to imbibe their body language": I'm pretty sure it's not possible to drink body language, so I'd go for something more encyclopaedic.

Changed to "read". Is that better?

I changed to "study", which is what she was doing; "watch" or "examine" would also work well, if you don't like study. - SchroCat (talk) 13:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "a colossal economic failure": colossal is hardly encyclopaedic, so I'd opt for something else; "financial" is probably better than "economic";

Changed.

General

• Not sure we need "US$" for each reference: WP:CURRENCY suggests we don’t need it for every occurrence.

Since I am using the currency conversion template, this is listed automatically. I am not sure how to change this.

Me neither! Leave it as is - it's only a minor point, and the conversion is the more important aspect. - SchroCat (talk) 13:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Refs

• FN37 has an inconstant date format

Corrected.

All rather minor points in a very good article. - SchroCat (talk) 21:34, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much SchroCat. :) --smarojit ^HD 01:06, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: all good for me. - SchroCat (talk) 13:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Schrod!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:54, 12 October 2013 (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. Graham Colm (talk) 15:12, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Graham!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:45, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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