This article is about an Indian actress who was recently seen in the Hollywood blockbuster Tenet. Many people who saw her for the first time in this film didn't know this lady has quite a career behind her. It's hard to find high-quality articles about Indian actors from her era owing to the limited coverage found online compared to publications in the west. This is this article's second go at FAC; last time it actually had a fair share of support, but it ended up becoming a mess. But it proved to be good for the article; I've spent time to improve it, digging in the archives to find the best sources available, including books and scholarly journals, adding more information, and polishing the prose, as recently done with the help of an independent copyeditor from GoCE. I think it is much better now. Needless to say, I'll be happy to address constructive comments. Best regards, Shahid • Talk2me 23:20, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.
Lede
Lede sentence should cover the main aspect of the article. I think her place of birth is important here. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs) 20:03, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
she married the Indian actor - "the" is superfluous. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs) 20:03, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This was a request by another reviewer who said British English requires articles. I applied it across the board. Let me know if you suggest removing it anyway. Shahid • Talk2me 21:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The lede seems a bit all over the place - just seems to be a shortened history section. I'd much rather see that she won X many awards, and then a summary of her media image, etc Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs) 20:03, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The media image is incorporated into the summary of her career - namely her initial roles relying on her beauty, mention of her sex appeal, and her desire to expand her range and prove her mettle as an actor. The lead is a summary of her career and it is a chronological one because honestly she is hardly even known for anything other than her film career. When not acting, she is not known for engaging in any special off-screen activity and is not in the public eye. I agree that in some cases the mention of awards is better off summarised in one line. It's just that in this case the awards fit really well into her career description, and there aren't that many of them, like in the case of, say, Meryl Streep, where it's almost impossible to make a readable lead with all her individual awards mentioned. Shahid • Talk2me 21:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
She took on more serious parts of troubled women in films ranging from mainstream to neorealist parallel cinema, and received acclaim for her performances in films including Kaash (1987), Drishti (1990), Lekin... (1991), and Rudaali (1993).[2] - I don't think this is contentious enough to warrant a citation in lede. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs) 20:03, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Was requested by another reviewer before. If someone else suggests to remove it, will do so. Shahid • Talk2me 21:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the lede needs more on her standing in the industry, rather than a list of things she was in. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs) 20:03, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(Update from the 14th of January: Hi, Lee Vilenski - I've expanded the lead now to include better description of hr roles, reception of her work, and so on - the lead is still rather chronological because everything fits just fine into this structure, but I think it is more representative and gives the readers a better sense of her work and standing in the industry) I was very careful not to make it rely on too much puffery and have a balanced lede where everything is within context. Her status as a leading actress of Hindi cinema, her beauty and critical acclaimed roles are there, but attached to her work. From my experience with FAs on actors, it is better to let the achievements speak for themselves, and that's what I tried to do here. Shahid • Talk2me 21:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gujarati businessman Chunibhai Kapadia and his wife Bitti, who was known as "Betty" (1939–2019 - why is her details important? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs) 20:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
She is the only one whose details exist. Removed anyway. Shahid • Talk2me 21:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agha Khan - our article is at a different title. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs) 20:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Linked and clarified. Shahid • Talk2me 21:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As an infant, Dimple was given the name Ameena (literally, "honest" or "trustworthy" in Arabic) by Aga Khan III, although she was never referred to by it. - what does this even mean? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs) 20:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
She is the eldest of four children; her siblings—all of whom have died—are sisters Simple (also an actor) and Reem, and a brother, Suhail. - were. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs) 20:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
marriage was her "biggest high" during this period - what does this mean? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs) 20:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified, since this is a quote this should be clear now. Shahid • Talk2me 21:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kapadia retired from acting after marriage and gave birth to two daughters - you haven't actually mentioned acting up until this point. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs) 20:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Revised to "despite not having reunited". Shahid • Talk2me 21:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dimple Kapadia filmography being a see also seems weird. Why don't we have a section on this in this article? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs) 20:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is the standard now on FA articles, if you insist I could add another section anyway. Shahid • Talk2me 21:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It starred Kapoor's son Rishi Kapoor as Raj Nath, the son of a wealthy Hindu businessman, and Kapadia was given the title role of Bobby Braganza, the teenage daughter of a Christian fisherman from Goa. The story follows the love affair between Raj and Bobby in the face of his parents' disapproval of their relationship due to class prejudice - I don't see how this has anything to do with her. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs) 20:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since this was the first role of her career and to this day perhaps the film she is most associated with, we thought there was room for more detail of the plot. This version was actually worked out by several editors in the previous FAC - since the core issue of the film is class prejudice and a love story between a Hindu and a Christian, we thought it was crucial to mention the other star's role to the understanding of her character. Shahid • Talk2me 21:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
by which time Kapadia was married. - at this stage, it's been noted she was married to death. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs) 20:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In 2008, the web portal Rediff.com ranked her performance in Bobby as the fourth-best female debut of all-time in Hindi cinema: "An elfin little girl with big, lovely eyes, nobody quite portrayed innocence as memorably as Dimple in her first outing. She was candid, striking, and a true natural ... here was a girl who would redefine glamour and grace, and make it look very, very easy indeed." - web portals don't talk. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs) 20:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A review by Asiaweek appreciated the film for its "polished narration and masterly technique" and labelled Kapadia "a delight" - newspapers don't speak either. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs) 20:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rediff.com noted, "Dimple, caught between a friend and lover, performed solidly and memorably, grounding the two male leads and making the film work." - similar. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs) 20:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Other films released before Saagar include Manzil Manzil (1984), Aitbaar (1985) and Arjun (1985). this should be mentioned before Saagar then. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs) 20:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the delay - I've had another read through - the only remaining thing I have a question about, is that you have a title under: Media image and artistry - what does artistry mean in this context, and what does it have to do with media image? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs) 13:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lee Vilenski, thank you very much, Lee. The section covers both her public image in the media (hence media image), career development, and artistry in terms of her role choices, acting style and prowess as seen and analysed by film critics. That's why I believe it is related. I believe the title pretty much represents what the section says. I could change it to "Publc image and artistry" or "Public image and reception". Shahid • Talk2me 14:26, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the thing is "artistry" doesn't mean "role choices", I think "public image and reception" if we are talking about what the media say is a much easier concept to understand. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs) 15:03, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It was requested by a past reviewer because these are strong claims. Shahid • Talk2me 10:22, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The word 'picture' sounds informal. Why not replace it with 'film'?
Done, although I'm not sure it's informal. Shahid • Talk2me 10:22, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
'At age 15, she agreed to marry the actor Rajesh Khanna.' This sentence is a bit unclear. Was it an arranged marriage or love?
It wasn't an arranged marriage, that's why I wrote "agreed" and concluded with "after a short courtship" so readers know it was fully voluntary. Shahid • Talk2me 10:22, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
'Movies' should be replaced with 'film' since the former is pretty informal.
Changed across the board except for cases where it's called for, like road movie. Shahid • Talk2me 10:22, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this is not a spot check; only a review of the sources. Can you please explain why the following sources are reliable? This may help if you want to know what I mean.
Open
Rediff
Indian Times
Mumbai Mirror
The Tribune
Firstpost
Hindustan Times
Mint
Mid Day
Bangalore Mirror
IBN Live (link is also dead; swap to archive)
NDTV Movies
Param Arunachalam
Some notes on ref formatting:
Chopra, Anuprama and Chopra, Shaili share a citeref (Chopra 2014)
I think "K. Jha, Subhash" should be "Jha, Subhash K." (few fixes for that one)
Rediff.com is a popular web portal, and many of its articles related to film (here we have mostly film reviews) are written by notable authors (wikilinks exist for most, I believe). So are Firstpost and IBN Live, which are owned by Network18 Group (the latter's international coverage is provided by CNN), and NDTV is a well-known Indian news website - its two channels have received Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Awards. Most of these are used for film reviews, interviews, which are written by leading film writers.
Indiatimes (The Times of India), Mumbai Mirror, Bangalore Mirror are newspapers published by The Times Group; similarly, The Tribune (Chandigarh), Hindustan Times, Mint, Mid Day -- all leading and frequently cited newspapers which have been in print for decades (if not over a century). I cared to use only articles with bylines and proper attribution. The great majority of them are used to support either very basic information on films (which could be supported by other reliable sources), and again, mostly columns, film reviews and interviews. Claims found more contentious were referenced to books. Acutally, the best sources available were used for each claim.
Param Arunachalam is actually the name of the author of the book BollySwar, which is mostly used for very basic information on films like year of release, director.
Fixed the archived link, the shared citeref, and the Jha instance.
Hi ImaginesTigers, are you satisfied with the responses to your source review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:52, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with all except Rediff.com. The website doesn't strike me as broadly usable, with most of the writing being tagged to "Rediff staff", mostly clickbait journalism, with titles like "Guess who's in this photo!". Following up with what Shahid said about most of their names being wiki-linked, that is either not true or they haven't been wiki-linked. This is not especially journalistic to me, and doesn't speak to a reputable, large outlet. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 13:38, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ImaginesTigers, let me try to change your mind about this one as well. :) Rediff.com is used mostly for interviews and reviews exactly of the kind that you've cited and, as you probably know, film magazines/websites sometimes use lingo which is not particularly journalistic. Google books shows books citing Rediff.com on numerous occasions; just a quick check shows similar results from The New York Times, where the website is used as a source several times. Your link above is attributed to Raja Sen, a film critic who writes today for Hindustan Times. The other references from Rediff on the article include writers like Dinesh Raheja and Sukanya Verma and all but two other instances provide proper attribution with full author names. Just to elaborate a little more on the site, author Mira Kamdar (herself an award-winning writer, also writing for NYT, among other things) called Rediff.com "the number one Web portal in India" in her 2008 book Planet India: The Turbulent Rise of the World's Largest Democracy. Scholar Madhavi Mallapragada wrote similar things in a 2018 chapter for The SAGE Handbook of Web History (p.393). The journal Trends in Information Management took note of its importance and made interesting obervations about its impact (link). Another scholar, Vijaya Thyil, calls it "one of the premier worldwide online providers of news, information, communication, entertainment and shopping services to Indians worldwide" (link, no online version exists but you can verify the quote online). Shahid • Talk2me 00:19, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Paging Nikkimaria for someone with more experience in this field! If Nikki is good with this source, it’s a support from me. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 00:59, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see that many of the references used are from the site's early period; what was its editorial policy during that time? I also see that while some of the Rediff sources are written by noted film reviewers, eg. FN20, others have no author credited, or credit authors without wikilinks. Can you elaborate on these in particular? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:25, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria. I can't see its editorial policy in the archives, but just looking at its list of commentators from as early as 1999, you can see some of the leading and high-profile writers and journalists in India. In 2000 and 2001, the site received two Online Journalism Awards for exceptional reporting (link). I forgot to mention that Rediff.com also owned the NYC-based newspaper India Abroad up until last year. As for the two sources where no authors are mentioned, both are merely film reviews with no contentious information, and it's used exactly in that context on the article (and I'm not sure it's a necessity when the source is reliable). That most other journalists and reviewers have no wikilinks actually says less about them - it's a common problem here with Indian journalists and authors. There is a great number of noted film critics, not just from Rediff, who do not have their own Wikipedia articles. As I mentioned above Raja Sen, who is often cited in newspapers and is today a writer for Hindustan Times, the list of writers on this article alone includes Vicky Lalwani (later a Mumbai Mirroreditor) and Suparn Verma (today a film director who has directed films like EKEH). Shahid • Talk2me 10:23, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Right. My concern is that having notable writers doesn't necessarily make the early site reliable. Based on my reading of the site's history, it appears that it initially was designed as a digital advertising service rather than a journalistic endeavour. Do you have a link to the current editorial policy? Do we know what staff write uncredited pieces? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:13, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Nikkimaria. Sadly they do not appear to publish any editorial policy. I see another list of their journalists from 2003 and their credentials. As for the uncredited pieces, these are movie specials from the entertainment section, often they are just an extension of previous pieces which is impossible to link to today. For example, this interview with Kapadia is attributed to "The Rediff US Special". It seems like the second part of this article, which was written by Suleman Din. I didn't mention it because it wasn't explicit enough. I'm not at all sure you are correct about the site starting as an advertising service, especially because I see on Google books that it was used as a source even before the 2000s. Shahid • Talk2me 15:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, thank you Nikkimaria. It appears to have been very early in the day and I wouldn't say it totally undemines its reliability even at that point of time. More importantly, I would argue it doesn't tell us much about the references used in this article, which are film reviews and interviews, and most of the published after 2000 (except two, an interview and a review from 1997). I see that The New York Times called it "India's most successful portal Web site" (link) already in 2000 and would cite it as a source for articles in 2003. I somehow doubt it could be considered less reliable even for non-contentious information of the kind this article includes. As I mentioned above it won awards for journalism in 2000-2001; it was around that time that it acquired the India Abroad newspaper. Except for two refs, all the refs on this article are dated even much later than 2004. More articles about its state back then include this interview with its CEO on Hindustan Times. I do believe it is a good source especially for the kind of info it supports, and in the case of sources from the 1990s in particular, they are pretty much the best available because no other archives exist for the major publications like they do for those in the west. What do you think? Shahid • Talk2me 16:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here's what I think. I'm willing to accept most of the uses of this source, but have reservations about the following footnotes: 69, 162, 188, 160, 166. The latter three of these have named authors, but I haven't been able to track down information about them; do you have any details you could share? 69 is used to support what seems to be a significant claim rather than a reviewer opinion. 162 is less significant, but doesn't seem particularly credible as a source. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, thank you for your time. I have to say I'm a little surprised that this source would be deemed unreliable or even significantly less reliable. We've been using Rediff for years now, I can't think of a single FA about an Indian actor or film (and there are many) which doesn't use it (I know it's not a very valid argument and other stuff exists and so on). I see that it was questioned on other FAs and then accepted. I should repeat again that just a quick go through Google search shows numerous results where it's used as a source, both early in the day and nowadays of course, it's cited by The New York Times, LA Times, The Hollywood Reporter, it owned what seems to have been a rather respected newspaper (India Abroad); it won awards for journalism. I can't see how particular references could be dismissed just because no bylines are provided (which happens a lot even in newspapers and no Wikipedia policy demands it) or authors who are not particularly well known. I think it is a sad case with Indian sources in particular, where it's easy to dismiss their credibility because they lack the high circulation of their western counterparts. Please do not think I'm referring to you, it's just something I've witnessed off late particularly on AfDs, where a massive attack on Indian films took place, with some famous films being considered non-notable, and I find it a little upsetting. To the matter at hand:
N69: I don't like it either; removed it, replaced with better sources from other publications.
160 (now 161): V.S. Srinivasan is a Chennai-based art critic and writer (according to The Hindu also known as VSV) who has conducted numerous interviews for Rediff for a good few years with all the big names in the industry, from directors to actors, in addition to writing reviews and other articles related to film and music. He's active today as a local writer, thus making it highly difficult to trace his work; he was executive editor of the Tamil-language magazine Vikatan and writes for the Tamil section of The Hindu newspaper in Chennai.
162 (now 163): It shares the review from the trade magazine Film Information. There's just no other source giving a review of Kapadia's work in the film, and it gives some negative commentary about her role choice which is essential for the article.
166 (now 167): again, it's a film review; Sharmila Taliculam is probably not very active today in the field. Interestingly, her interview with Shyam Benegal from Rediff is cited in the book New Indian Cinema in Post-Independence India, about Benegal's work. I could remove this review if you insist, I just do not think it is very problematic.
188 (now 189): removed. this is my mistake, it is from Rediff's box office section. For some reason they gave credit to the designer; the author is not mentioned. I'm removing this source anyway because there are better ones.
Thank you very much, so far, for helping me through this. Shahid • Talk2me 12:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. 161/167 are fine with this additional information. One last question regarding 163: you say it shares the review from Film Information - is this an authorized republication? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:14, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Nikkimaria. I believe it is, if they post it; they do credit the original source after all. I see that it is regularly cited on Rediff, and the publisher and editor of the magazine, Komal Nahta has written a few pieces for Rediff himself and has been interviewed numerous times by Rediff as a commentator on different articles on film. Shahid • Talk2me 14:35, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ImaginesTigers, you might want to have a look at my exchange with Nikkimaria. I believe the issue is fixed now. Shahid • Talk2me 09:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Avoid making text appear smaller than it naturally would per MOS:FONTSIZE, especially in places like infoboxes. That just needlessly makes it harder on the eyes to read.
After separating from her husband, is it known for certain whether they formally divorced/got the marriage annulled before he died? Infobox appears to suggest no, but it would help to be more explicit within the prose.
Yes, every source mentions they were never divorced. Specified in text. Shahid • Talk2me 01:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"similarly became actors and retired after settling down"..... see previous comment, and daughters' retirements seems better for their own articles.
Changed to actresses, but I think the bit about their retirement after marriage (unless you insist) does have some relevance here because it does say something about their values and upbringing (which somewhat reflects her own retirement). Shahid • Talk2me 01:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Contrary to what the use of "despite" from "failed to attract viewers in Indian cinemas despite success in the Soviet Union" implies, the popularity of a film in one place is a separate factor from how it performs in others.
Removing it because it's not very necessary; the claim is supported by the other sources. Shahid • Talk2me 19:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
202: I am not so sure that the critical and economic reception of Luck by Chance bit is supported by this source.
It partly supports the critical reception (which is essentially supported by the previous source by The Hindu), quoting some approving reviews, but actually it's there to supports its economic outcome - see p. 219 which says that it "wasn't very successful at the boc office". Shahid • Talk2me 19:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
134: Source supports the award but I am not so sure it supports the moviegoers sentence.
It does, and it does so rather explicitly (p. 12): "when it was released the film was appreciated by the general audience as well as the more exacting film critics."
275: Might want to say in the reference that this is an archived link. Otherwise OK.
The ref says "Archived from the original on 20 May 2007". Shahid • Talk2me 19:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
200: Is "It will release directly on Video and Pay-Per-View DTH (Direct-To-Home) - the first Hindi film to be premiered directly on home entertainment platforms." (source) the same thing as "was the first Hindi film to be distributed via pay-per-view direct-to-home (DTH) platforms." (article)?
Having read the entire article, I believe that's what they mean (the PPV DTH service being the first instance of its sort because films had always released on home video), but anyway, revised to agree with source. Shahid • Talk2me 19:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
116: Not sure that " insisted they appear natural on screen" is supported by the source.
Removed "appear natural on screen" to agree with source. Shahid • Talk2me 19:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
237: I don't see the four year hiatus in the source?
Can't find any source mentioning it although it pretty much goes without saying. Removed anyway. Shahid • Talk2me 19:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
181: It does support the part about Kapadia's presence improving the "dead ends" which isn't the same thing as what the article says.
Well it was the version that we worked out during the previous review, and I think considering the two reviews it is a pretty fair summary. The quote from the review appeared on the article, and it was found less necessary. I can readd the quote itself, if you think it's better. Shahid • Talk2me 19:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
29: What information does this source support that the other one doesn't?
It supports that she "was with him when he died". Shahid • Talk2me 19:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
122: OK.
246: OK.
84: Is this an off-line source?
Well it is now - there used to be an onlie link to a PDF version of the Manushi articles, but they strangely removed them all from their website. Shahid • Talk2me 19:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
120: Can't access this.
I know, there was a full preview to this book several years ago and I don't have any access either - this page included a film review by the author. Shahid • Talk2me 19:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I gave this an extremely thorough review back in the summer and am happy with the improvements made. Great job!† Encyclopædius 17:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that I have the time to do a full review. I am aware that the previous FAC for this article became rather nasty, and I have no wish to revisit all of it. However, a number of useful sources were provided here, and should be used. I am also a little concerned at the abundance of quotes, and would prefer more paraphrasing. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree regarding the number of quotations. They are arguably too abundant to meet MOS:QUOTE: "While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style ... It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text when appropriate". Gog the Mild (talk) 10:59, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Vanamonde, thanks for stopping by! The link you've cited actually takes the sources from this very article; all these sources are used on the article (if relevant). Please look at the bibliography section; there is a considerable number of books and scholarly journals.
As for the quotes, the article contained a great amount of quotes in the past, and a lot of paraphrasing has been done and many quotes removed. But you can't paraphrase them all, and overuse is subjective. After all, most of the quotes are from reviews and this is common practice in articles about artists (and actors in particular, please have a look at other FAs on actors just for reference). Maybe it's a greater problem that needs to be addressed on a larger scale. If you see particular quotes you feel could be paraphrased, please cite them. I'll go over the article and remove whatever I think could be spared. Shahid • Talk2me 11:04, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've removed whatever I thought could be removed or paraphrased. I believe the number of quotations is fair and wouldn't personally consider it abundant. Looking at previous successful FACs on other actors, I see similar complaints, but I find that it is practically impossible to write a decent entry of an actor's career without reception of their work and their own approach to their work, all of which requires proper attribution. Right now, the career section mentions 58 films, and only 22 roles have quotes from critics, which I wouldn't call excessive. In several instances, the text presents commentary from a critic (or scholar) but written in my own words (see Haque (1991), Krantiveer (1994), Hum Kaun Hai (2004), Pyaar Mein Twist (2005)). That being said, just as I state above, please do let me know if there's anything else you think could be paraphrased. Shahid • Talk2me 12:42, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pruning the number of quotes. I'm still stretched for time, and cannot do a full review; so if there is consensus for promotion here, I will not stand in the way. I am slightly concerned there are still sourcing and comprehensiveness issues. For instance; where do the sources say she agreed to her marriage at age 16? For instance; Kapadia has campaigned for the Indian National Congress in several elections, and was rumoured to be the party's candidate in an election in 2012, I believe. There's a brief mention of this in the early section, but the party isn't mentioned at all. For instance; I happened to check this source; the article says "Hindi movie-goers", where the source says "Bollywood", and they aren't quite analogous. None of this warrants an oppose, especially given that I haven't done a comprehensive review; but it is somewhat concerning, and if there's more time available here, I'd like to do a sweep for sources myself. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:24, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum; the Virdi source says explicitly that Khanna forbade Kapadia from working in the film industry during their marriage. Given that, we really ought not to be using the euphemistic "retired"; if it wasn't her choice, it should not be portrayed as such. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I should be thanking you, Vanamonde93. First, I've changed two instances, including the removal of "agreed" (I used agreed because every source excplicitly says she married him after a short courtship, which I thought could directly mean she agreed to the marriage) and the movie-goers part. As for the INC campaign, I'm fully aware of the 2012 election rumours, but they were short-lived and never materialised and remained rumours and she hasn't dicussed it herself, so I figured it's best to avoid what could well be dismissed as pure speculation. There is a mention of her campaigning for Khanna's election, I just thought no further additions were called for because their relevance is more in relation to her relationship with Khanna and not her own political aspiration, which she never spoke of. I can add the part if you think it's essential (edit: information added anyway).
As for retired; indeed, she left because he forbade her from acting, but I somehow do not think that the semantic meaning of "retiring" necessarily entails voluntary retirement, especially if we explain the direct reason behind it; she could well be retired upon her husband's gratitious demand and it would still be retirement. But I do not at all think it's a big deal anyway - what other word would you rather use? Maybe "quit" is better? Just for the record, I think the following quote by Shaili Chopra who interviewed Kapadia for a chapter in her book "When I Was 25: The Leaders Look Back" touches upon the two points raised by you:
Her marriage to the country's first superstar was something that changed who she was, and how the world viewed her. She was the chosen one. Rajesh Khanna had broken many hearts and was the biggest star of a long filmy era. He was the one man who went down in history to deliver multiple (one count stands at 15 odd) hits single handedly. Dimple was smitten. She was overwhelmed by this proposal from a man who was not only handsome but also a talented superstar. And a fifteen year age difference was not to deter her. Dimple married as a teenager with the understanding that Bobby was the first and last movie of her life. She didn't succumb to this thought, she accepted it. She savoured the success of that one movie enough, and was so in love that she didn't care about what she had spawned unwittingly—a revolution called Bobby.
As we can see, it first shows that she was overwhelmed by that proposal, so there was indeed some sort of agreement on her part. The same goes for quitting films; it was more complex than it seems. She was forced into it in a way but also accepted it at the same time. Please do let me know what you think about the wording of 'retire' versus 'quit' or anything else you think would suit the situation better. I trust your judgement (so far, I've changed it to "quit"). Shahid • Talk2me 01:14, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Re; election candidacy; okay, that's reasonable. re: retirement; I don't think we should be dancing around this point. If the best source you have (and that seems to be Virdi) is saying Khanna forbade her from acting, then we should be saying that in Wikipedia's voice wherever it appears. The same goes for her marriage. We can't say she was forced into that in Wikipedia's voice, but implying choice where it likely didn't exist isn't great either. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then, great - all points addressed if so (retire -> quit; remove 'agreed'; Khanna's party mentioned). Let me know if there's anything else. Thanks and regards, Shahid • Talk2me 09:56, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's it from me for now; I don't feel able to support without doing an examination of prose and sources myself, but I do not oppose promotion either. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:49, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Awards and nominations table needs a caption per MOS:DTAB. You may enclose it with Template:Screen reader-only as it would duplicate the heading for sighted readers. Heartfox (talk) 01:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving this up as a placeholder. I will try to post my review by the end of today. Aoba47 (talk) 21:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So glad to see you're back. Shahid • Talk2me 21:46, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the kind words! Aoba47 (talk) 23:45, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This part, the first actresses who starred in women-centred action films, from the lead is not entirely accurate. Later on, the article specifies this as new trend of women-centred revenge films so I would change the lead to better reflect this. I would also specify that this is referencing Hindi film in general as I doubt this is accurate for film in general.
Added "Hindi" but the part is absolutely accurate and it actually refers more to the part in the media section which says that she was among the first actresses who acted in female-centred Hindi action films (second paragraph). Shahid • Talk2me 00:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense to me. The "Hindi" addition clears it up for the most. Thank you for addressing this. Aoba47 (talk) 01:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is this quote, "embraced Hinduism", entirely necessary? Would it be possible to paraphrase this?
As you know, there was a lot of debate pertaining to this part, and the solution was to just quote it without presenting our own interpretation of the text and what exactly the writer means by that phrase - just to let the reader come to their own conclusions. Shahid • Talk2me 00:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is a fair point. I do remember that debate (although I disengaged from it mostly). I see your point, and thank you for explaining it to me. Aoba47 (talk) 01:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am uncertain about the Rediff.com quote at the end of the "Debut (1973)" section. It is quite long and it is already made quite clear in earlier parts of the same paragraph how much Kapadia was praised for this performance. It may be worthwhile to add a sentence on how retrospective reviews of her performance have still remained positive, but I think this quote is a little over-kill and may be more appropriate for the Bobby article than here.
I'll shorten it but I wouldn't entirely remove it because it really is, perhaps to this day, her most famous role. Everyone I know still calls her Bobby. If you insist I'll remove it. Shahid • Talk2me 00:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is interesting. I was more so concerned about having a quote taking up three lines of text, but I do see your point. Thank you for the follow-up here. Aoba47 (talk) 01:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This part, because she was nervous and "literally shivering" while performing it,, seems a little unnecessarily wordy. While the "literally shivering" quote is nice, I am not sure it is really needed since the reader already knows she was nervous. Just pointing this out as the article is already quite long (and will likely only grow as her career continues) so it would be helpful to condense things like this when possible.
Removing the nervous part. I think the article is not as long as it could have been, but I have to say, I specifically added that part to show how lacking she was in confidence when she came back to the movies and that it wasn't at all an easy or natural decision for her. Shahid • Talk2me 00:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That works for me. Thank you for addressing this. Aoba47 (talk) 01:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This part, and wished it would have had more screen time in the film, reads rather awkwardly to me, since the "it" here is referring back to the role. I would instead say something like and wished she had more screen time in the film.
This part, who miscarries a pregnancy following an assault, reads awkwardly to me, as I have never heard the phrase "miscarries a pregnancy" before this. I would instead say something along the lines of who has a miscarriage following an assault.
I have received a note in the past to avoid one-word quotes as they generally do not add much and can take away from the effectiveness of other quotes. I would avoid the one-word quote in this instance, called the film an "embarrassment", for this reason.
For this part, favourably by a number of American critics, I would remove "a number of" as it is rather vague and more filler than particularly helpful.
I would avoid using the word "flop" in this part, within two weeks it was declared a flop, and in the article in general as I read that as too informal and too much like slang for a Wikipedia article.
This part, Kapadia played a strict store owner and Kapoor Khan's mother, is a little off to me as the first description, a strict store owner, is about the character in the film, but the second, Kapoor Khan's mother, is referencing the actor and is more of an out-of-universe explanation. Having these two things in the same sentence reads a little off to me as I initially thought Kapoor Khan was a character in the film.
I would revise this part Critics reacted positively to her appearance, as it could be interpreted as critics talking about her physical appearance and not her role and/or performance.
I hope these comments are helpful, and have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 23:45, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aoba47, thank you so much for the copyedits and for your valuable comments, as always. Shahid • Talk2me 00:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Everything looks good to me. Thank you for taking the time to address everything. I support the article for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 01:47, 15 February 2021 (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) 15:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.