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 archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 15:25, 8 April 2016 [1].


Kalki Koechlin[edit]

Nominator(s):Numerounovedant (talk) 13:10, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kalki Koechlin is an Indian actress of French descent, working in Bollywood films. She is a theatre actress as well and has written, directed and acted in numerous plays. She although has been involved in commercially successful Bollywood films, is better known for her unconventional roles in films like Margarita with a Straw and That Girl in Yellow Boots, among others.

I nominated this article for GA status after having done extensive work on it and now am looking to further improve it and bring it to FA status. Numerounovedant (Talk) 13:10, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kailash[edit]

  • Fixed
I too wish they are, but WP:Potentially unreliable sources reads, "In general, tabloid-journalist newspapers, such as The Sun, Daily Mirror, Daily Mail, equivalent television shows, or sites like The Register, should not be used." ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 11:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Working on it, I followed the lead of Sonam Kapoor's aticle, now an FA, the table was made based on from this article. But, as you suggested will look to improve it.
Much better. But I think I seee a slight screwup with the alignment of the years. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:27, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you are referring to the Tallinn Film Festival Award it was indeed awarded in 2014 as the film premiered there in 2014. NumerounovedantTalk 12:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Kailash29792:Have made most of the amends that were suggested! Thank you for your help. Let me know of what you think of the article, and any further suggestions! NumerounovedantTalk 16:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anymore major issues; minor prose and grammatical issues may remain, but I think I can solve them. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:25, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You! NumerounovedantTalk 10:52, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Kailash29792: Hey Kailash, I am not sure if you need me do work on any specific areas in the article, but I'll be happy to respond to any more comments that you have. NumerounovedantTalk 12:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dr. Blofeld[edit]

Will look at this tomorrow.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to read it later today.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay.
Lede
Fixed all.
Early life
It is a Union territory.
Fixed all.
Debut
Fixed all.
2013-present and stage
Fixed all.
Personal life
Fixed all
Media

Koechlin is a celebrity endorser and has been associated with several brands and services, " this needs a restructuring as it seems like you're repeating what you just said at the end of the preceding paragraph. I would move the first into the last paragraph and say:

"Koechlin is a celebrity endorser and has been associated with several brands and services. She endorses Grey Goose's Style du jour, Vogue, Coca-Cola, Olay, Micromax, Titan and AOC International, and numerous others."

Fixed

Overall there's nothing disastrously wrong with the prose or article, but like many similar articles brough here the prose is rather bland and a tad monotonous to read with the usual played xx, badly at box office, critic praised format" and not quite as a sharp as it could be at times. In places it would be good to read more about her preperations for roles and background to productions to vary it a bit and give it more life. It's difficult to give it my support. I would like to see the article made more interesting if possible and varied a bit. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:36, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Working on it. Thank you for all your comments! NumerounovedantTalk 21:35, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help! I am going to restructure parts of the article and add relevant information to make it more interesting, in a day or two. NumerounovedantTalk 10:01, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As per Dr. Blofeld's suggestions I have expanded the Career section, with details of her pre and post film activities. I have covered all her major roles and would be working on some more minor additions and a thematic arrangement of "Media Image" section, as done in Preity Zinta's article. The reviewers may take a look at the recent additions. Thank You! NumerounovedantTalk 20:55, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Yashthepunisher (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Yashthepunisher
  • "Oneindia.in" --> Oneindia
Done
  • Is Happy Ending worth mentioning in the lead? It failed on every count.
Removed
  • Mention Waiting, Love Affair and A Death In The Gunj in the prose.
Added a new section, "Upcoming Projects".
  • Remove A Death In the Gunj from the table, as its only in pre-production stage. Per WP:NFF.
Removed
  • De-italise "Bollywood Hungama", "Koimoi" and "Rediff.com".
Fixed
  • Neither ref 1 nor 2 supports the claim that she was born to French parents Joel Koechlin and Françoise Armandie, who came to India from France.
Shifted the suitable reference to the end of the sentence.
  • "Her parents are devotees of Sri Aurobindo." Source?
Same as previous.
  • Author of ref 77 is missing.
Done
I have checked every reference, the domain and URL alteration does not lead to any ads or redirects or dead ends, is the fix still required?
Yes. This edit might give you an idea of the know-how. Such redirects occur when there is a difference in the urls of the ref and the real link. You have to open that link and replace that with the existing one. Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:57, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Working on it! NumerounovedantTalk 14:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed NumerounovedantTalk 16:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 37 doesn't support the claim that My friend Pinto had a poor opening and was commercially unsuccessful.
Shifted reference
  • There are some instances where the source doesn't support the claim, two examples are mentioned above.
I believe I have taken care of these?
  • The prose should only stick to National Awards and Filmfare, not the non-notable in-house awards. Just like other Bollywood FA's.
Removed Stardust Award, but all Bollywood FA articles quote the Screen Awards in the prose.
Film awards are a joke in India, including IIFA and other ones. I'd strongly suggest you to remove them. Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I probably disregard even the Filmfares because they are no better, but without mentioning any awards it's really hard to highlight the significant roles of an actor, especially in cases like Koechlin's because she seldom gets nominated for awards despite garnering acclaim for most of her performances! That said I would be happy to remove IIFA's from the prpse, but if you look closely Screen Awards re doing a better job than any other award show lately, so I insist on keeping that. NumerounovedantTalk 14:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I never wanted to remove every award, but the garbages who give awards whoever is present at that ceremony. Also, I agree with your reason, and you can restore the Screen awards. But, atleast remove one of those. Yashthepunisher (talk) 15:04, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed NumerounovedantTalk 16:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yashthepunisher (talk) 07:08, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all your suggestions! NumerounovedantTalk 17:24, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jaguar[edit]

Featured Koechlin reciting a poem?
I just thought that "positive" doesn't quite cut it!
Done
Done
Not sure if what is right "excluding from" or just "excluding".
Done
Done
Done
Done
Done
Done
Yes technically but I don't want to give the impression of it being just business because most of the events were charitable, so what do you suggest?

I spotted some minor prose errors and sentences that would be better off rephrased, but other than that the article is looking pretty solid! JAGUAR  20:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all your comments. Some really good catches in the prose! I have responded to all of your concerns. Thank you again! NumerounovedantTalk 04:16, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
After going through the article again, I will now support this FAC. Well done on all the good work put into this! And once again I must apologise for my two week delay. It's never like me to delay so long but I've been busy in real life this week and my internet keeps dropping out. I'm confident this should pass. JAGUAR  22:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need for saying that, I am glad you could take out time to for the review. All your suggestions are really appreciated. Thank you again! NumerounovedantTalk 03:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ssven2[edit]

Support — Haven't found anything wrong with the prose, but you could try to replace the Oneindia source with a more credible one. Other than that, nice work on the article, Numerounovedant.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 11:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ssven2: Thank you Ssven2! I'll look for a replacement for the source! NumerounovedantTalk 11:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ssven2: I removed the reference because there is nothing that the other two references (HT and Koimoi) do not cover. NumerounovedantTalk 12:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So, I take it as a support? NumerounovedantTalk 13:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 02:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! NumerounovedantTalk 03:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spot-check and image review[edit]

Some comments are not related to sourcing or images.

Moved onto the prose at appropriate place.
I am having trouble here, do you want me to remove some part because otherwise it's just shuffling phrases?
Look at the similarity between the

article's text and source's text.

Done NumerounovedantTalk 16:11, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the reference because it had no exclusive piece of information.
Done
I cite just the one guest appearance because it is absent in the text, and incase of Love Affair, there's no link to cross-check so I added the footnote.
I did not understand this point.

FrB.TG (talk) 17:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Working on it. NumerounovedantTalk 03:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Added
Done NumerounovedantTalk 16:11, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Krimuk90[edit]

I'm sorry to say that the prose is nowhere close to meeting the FA requirements. Some instances of the poor prose (mind you, this is only in "Debut and further roles (2009–12)" sub-section; the rest of the article has similar such errors):

I don't want to sit and nitpick on such errors for the rest of the article. I strongly suggest a thorough copy-edit from a native English speaker before this is brought back here. Cheers! --Krimuk|90 (talk) 10:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Krimuk90:Thank you for your comments! I am currently working on the article for prose improvements and adding additional information and that is mainly the reason of why you found these errors. Most of them were suggestions from other reviewers, the other were recent additions that I made and did not have time to cross-check. None the less all your concerns are justifiable, but I don't think a couple of typos and slight lack of brevity should lead to a strong opposition. I am currently working on the prose as I mentioned here earlier, and after I am done (in probably a day or two) I would be happy to address the problems then. Rest all your comments here have been taken care of. I won't push you to take another look, but I think your concerns could all be addressed and resolved rather easily as done here. NumerounovedantTalk 11:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I missed most of those Krimuk picked up on, largely because I was busy at the time, but some of those are certainly howlers for FA.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:03, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No I am afraid none of them were a part of the article at the time you reviewed it. I am currently working on adding additional information, as per your suggestions. I have fixed most parts of the career section now, you may take a look. NumerounovedantTalk 12:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Krimuk90: @Dr. Blofeld: I am almost done with editing the career section which would give you a better idea of the article's status now. Have a look if you can but I am pretty sure all the observations made by Krimuk90 were in the middle of my copy-edit spree. None of the problems were there when Dr. Blofeld reviewed the article, so I did not understand his concerns. Thank you for your comments though! NumerounovedantTalk 08:04, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's not quite true. Some other issues that I see now are (again, this is not exhaustive) :

To conclude, I still stand by the fact that the article needs a thorough copy-edit before it is brought here. I can do it myself at a later time, but in its current state the article does not meet the FA-criteria. Krimuk|90 (talk) 02:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all the work that you are putting in. NumerounovedantTalk 08:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: With the number of prose and source issues brought to light, it's clear this was not adequately prepared before bringing it to FAC. Therefore, I will be archiving the nomination. --Laser brain (talk) 15:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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