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 Ian Rose 00:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Rani Mukerji[edit]

Featured article candidates/Rani Mukerji/archive1

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

Nominator(s): smarojit ^{(buzz me)} 18:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rani Mukerji is a popular Indian film actress who has established herself as one of the most versatile actresses of her generation. I joined Wikipedia two years earlier, with the sole intention of expanding this article. Since then, the article has improved leaps and bounds and it is a moment of great pride for me to finally nominate it for the FAC. In my opinion the article is comprehensive, well written and extensively researched. I hope that the reviewers who haven't seen her work, enjoy the article and in the process watch some of her films. Thank you. smarojit ^{(buzz me)} 18:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reference review by Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...}
- Checklinks shows that two of the articles are resolved as being suspicious (soft 404). The respective pages came up for me when I opened them, but I might recommend grabbing a couple of archives courtesy of the Wayback Machine just in case they do go solid 404.
- Otherwise, references all appear to be good and I believe they're all reliable.

Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 13:11, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reference review Red Phoenix. :) India Today links are always shown as Soft 404 errors for some reason. Anyway, to be safe I have archived both these references. --smarojit ^{(buzz me)} 13:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will give a read tomorrow, sorry to see this FAC hasn't attracted much attention to date!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:12, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Graham Colm (talk) 19:25, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dr. Blofeld, looking forward to your comments. :) --smarojit ^HD 06:49, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support No comments from me, I've made the minor changes I would have mentioned myself! I was going to mention something about lack of book research, but I did a google book search and found frightfully little of substance. What I did find I added. Hopefully at some point an autobiography or biography about her will be published in which more details can be added to improve it, but it doesn't exist at present to my knowledge. Happy to support this excellent piece on an important actress in India. The article has a delicate balance of praise and criticism and the way the films are covered is done with much skill given the sources that exist. It covers the most important aspects of her career in film well in my opinion, and I believe the article is every bit as good as our other featured articles on Indian actresses. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 08:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much Dr. Blofeld. Much appreciated. :) --smarojit ^HD 08:54, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One thing, the quote "Mukerji's mock sob-whine-whimper do not amuse anymore" Shouldn't "do" be "does", is that the exact quote? If so I'd probably put [es] in brackets.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 09:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's the exact quote. Anyway, included [es] in brackets. --smarojit ^HD 09:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 19:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
*Additional comments by Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...}: Sorry, didn't mean to just leave you with a quick reference review; I was actually fully intending to give you more. So, I hope this will help to make up for it. I very much like what I see and think it's very close, but have a couple of changes to suggest, looking now at the prose: Image check performed - all validated for allowed use by OTRS, and look quite professional. Use is appropriate, and no fair use images are in the article. Look across your paragraphs. See how many of them start with "Mukerji..."? It gets pretty difficult to read paragraphs that all start the same way. I'd recommend mixing up the way the paragraphs begin to help improve fluency and make the read more professional. My personal recommendation is that no two paragraphs that are right next to each other should start the same way, but sometimes this is okay every now and then. In this article, however, it's done over and over quite a bit of the time. Same thing, but to a lesser extent, with "In 199X..." Done: Removed repetitive use of Mukerji to begin a paragraph. I would wikilink "Indian" and "actress" in the first sentence of the lead. It may seem like it's obvious to us, but Wikipedia places emphasis on thinking of the reader and stating the obvious. This is the first use of these terms in the article, so linking them here to their respective articles is a good idea. I agree that it's too obvious to link them, but done anyway. :) Why is Rani Mukerji's filmography a separate article? Certainly as I look at it, I think it could be merged into this one rather effortlessly, provided MOS:LIST is followed and the table formatting is updated to be compliant. As I look at her filmography, I can't see it being long enough to validate a content fork (and to cite precedent, check out Kirsten Dunst, which has an even longer filmography). When formatting the table as well, make sure to look at MOS:DTT, and in the notes, make sure to explain when describing nominations and awards as to what institution they are for; i.e. in the US, are they nominated for an Academy Award or a Golden Globe Award? Again, state the obvious and make it clear. Thanks Blofeld for merging the article. As an aside to the previous note, I would consider the list article of her nominations and awards a valid content fork, and there's no need to merge that in. Have you considered working on that and making it a featured list next? Not necessary for this article here at FAC, of course, but it's just a thought for your next project, perhaps. Yeah, the list article of her awards and nominations does need a look of work. I do want to look into in a couple of days time. "Awards & Honors", in keeping with consistency, should be "Awards and honors" Perhaps a paragraph or two can be taken from the list article and added to the Awards and honors section before the bulleted list? I find that anytime a list is in an article, it helps to have some type of introduction to the list in prose to help connect the dots. In fact, that's part of why list articles use lead sections; or at least, the best ones do. Even in articles, having a paragraph introduction that talks about some background in the section before running through the list helps, especially since this section is the section where the article specifically talks about her awards and honors. Since the filmography section has been merged into it, and it contains the major awards that she has received, I think the "awards and honors" section is not required now. Don't get discouraged by some of the major suggestions here; it's actually a very nice read. Work on the comments and let me know when you're done; I'll be glad to take another look and hopefully throw you my support. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 15:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply] Thank you so much for the suggestions Red Phoenix. I hope that your comments have been resolved. :) --smarojit ^HD 16:20, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 19:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Additional comments by Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...}:

Sorry, didn't mean to just leave you with a quick reference review; I was actually fully intending to give you more. So, I hope this will help to make up for it. I very much like what I see and think it's very close, but have a couple of changes to suggest, looking now at the prose:

- Image check performed - all validated for allowed use by OTRS, and look quite professional. Use is appropriate, and no fair use images are in the article.
- Look across your paragraphs. See how many of them start with "Mukerji..."? It gets pretty difficult to read paragraphs that all start the same way. I'd recommend mixing up the way the paragraphs begin to help improve fluency and make the read more professional. My personal recommendation is that no two paragraphs that are right next to each other should start the same way, but sometimes this is okay every now and then. In this article, however, it's done over and over quite a bit of the time. Same thing, but to a lesser extent, with "In 199X..."

Done: Removed repetitive use of Mukerji to begin a paragraph.

- I would wikilink "Indian" and "actress" in the first sentence of the lead. It may seem like it's obvious to us, but Wikipedia places emphasis on thinking of the reader and stating the obvious. This is the first use of these terms in the article, so linking them here to their respective articles is a good idea.

I agree that it's too obvious to link them, but done anyway. :)

- Why is Rani Mukerji's filmography a separate article? Certainly as I look at it, I think it could be merged into this one rather effortlessly, provided MOS:LIST is followed and the table formatting is updated to be compliant. As I look at her filmography, I can't see it being long enough to validate a content fork (and to cite precedent, check out Kirsten Dunst, which has an even longer filmography). When formatting the table as well, make sure to look at MOS:DTT, and in the notes, make sure to explain when describing nominations and awards as to what institution they are for; i.e. in the US, are they nominated for an Academy Award or a Golden Globe Award? Again, state the obvious and make it clear.

Thanks Blofeld for merging the article.

- As an aside to the previous note, I would consider the list article of her nominations and awards a valid content fork, and there's no need to merge that in. Have you considered working on that and making it a featured list next? Not necessary for this article here at FAC, of course, but it's just a thought for your next project, perhaps.

Yeah, the list article of her awards and nominations does need a look of work. I do want to look into in a couple of days time.

- "Awards & Honors", in keeping with consistency, should be "Awards and honors"
- Perhaps a paragraph or two can be taken from the list article and added to the Awards and honors section before the bulleted list? I find that anytime a list is in an article, it helps to have some type of introduction to the list in prose to help connect the dots. In fact, that's part of why list articles use lead sections; or at least, the best ones do. Even in articles, having a paragraph introduction that talks about some background in the section before running through the list helps, especially since this section is the section where the article specifically talks about her awards and honors.

Since the filmography section has been merged into it, and it contains the major awards that she has received, I think the "awards and honors" section is not required now.

Don't get discouraged by some of the major suggestions here; it's actually a very nice read. Work on the comments and let me know when you're done; I'll be glad to take another look and hopefully throw you my support. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 15:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the suggestions Red Phoenix. I hope that your comments have been resolved. :) --smarojit ^HD 16:20, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Much improved. Deserving of FA status. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 19:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. :) --smarojit ^HD 02:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that I am late getting here; some comments:
earlier life:

Source for "Bengali Brahmin parents"?

The surname "Mukerji" is a Bengali Brahmin surname. I don't think a source is required for that.

Source for "Maneckji Cooper High School in Juhu and graduated with a degree in Home Science from SNDT Women's University"?

Done.

debut

"hit Ghulam" - source comes after following sentence, and it says 'above average' not 'hit'.

Changed.

"Due to Mukerji's problems with a broken voice" - is it a problem or just a trait?

Changed the wording.

KKHH casting - it would be good to say that she approached Johar as the source says

Done.

Why use adjusted gross only for KKHH? Be consistent with others.

Done.

Last source is titled incorrectly as year 2000, but is really 1999 (as it should be)

Done.

Last paragraph might fit better in next section since it is start of struggles.

One of the commercial faliures was in 1998 (her breakthrough year), and she had only one release in 1999. Hence started the next section from 2000.

Sources:

Be consistent in HighBeam source formatting, why italics?

Done.

No Wikilinks in sources? Consider linking first of each kind.

Done.

I checked only the first 10 sources for author names; three were missing. You should check all sources for this.

Added missing authors to all the sources.

Ref 146 looks messy. If it's supposed to be three separate citations, they should have bullets to set them apart.

Changed.

Only two sources have locations. Be consistent. Remove these or add others.

Removed the two locations.

That's it for now. Perhaps more later. BollyJeff | talk 02:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the comments Bollyjeff, I hope that they have been resolved. :) --smarojit ^HD 04:01, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Through 2003:

"Due to Mukerji's broken voice texture, Bhatt hired a dubbing artist with a much higher pitched voice to dub for her lines; when asked if the director's decision to not use her voice in the film affected her, she said that her voice was dubbed as it "did not suit the character"." and "The romantic comedy Har Dil Jo Pyar Karega, however, earned her a Best Supporting Actress nomination at Filmfare and was better received by the critics;[33][34] Padmaraj Nair of Screen found Mukerji's role to be "too meagre for her to prove herself" but added that "she is quite adequate in whatever scenes she has been given"." and "In Bas Itna Sa Khwaab Hai and Nayak: The Real Hero, films that failed to find an audience, Mukerji played the love interests of Abhishek Bachchan and Anil Kapoor respectively;[37] in a review for the latter Sarita Tanwar wrote that "[Mukerji] has very little to do except being part of some magnificently picturised songs"." - Seem like they could each be two separate sentences, instead of semicolons.

Done, separated all the three sentences.

"in a review for the latter Sarita Tanwar wrote" - comma after latter.

Done.

"Tamil box-office hit Alaipayuthey" - period missing.

Done.

"The film co-starred Vivek Oberoi and her paternal aunt Tanuja and proved an economic success." - some commas please.

Added.

"replaced Aishwarya Rai" - either explain why or leave it out.

Explanation added.

"Coincidentally, the film's concept was similar to Saathiya and dealt with misunderstandings between a married couple. On questioned about the similarity of her roles in the two films, Mukerji said..." - I don't think Coincidentally is needed, and the second sentence doesn't sound right.. on questioned?

Changed.

2004-2006:

"At the 50th Filmfare Awards in 2005, Mukerji won both the Best Actress and Best Supporting Actress awards." and "She won both the Best Actress and Best Actress – Critics trophies at the Filmfare Awards ceremony." - Just curious, is she the only actress to accomplish either one of these feats?

Yes, that's true. However, I could not find any reliable sources to back this fact and hence had to remove it.

2007–10:

Mention that she had no film releases in 2010.

Done.

2011:

(seventh overall) - what does this mean? Probably not needed.

Removed.

Lead and general

In the lead and media section, it says that she has a reputation for playing roles that are a significant departure from the traditional portrayal of women in Indian cinema. Yet in the decline section it says "she had become an "exclusive Yash Raj heroine" which hindered other directors to approach her for roles". Some mention should be made that she overcame stereotyping to get to where she is now.

I think that both these statements are mutually exclusive of each other. Her film roles were different from "the traditional portrayal of women in Indian cinema" even before her exclusivity with Yash Raj, and continued later. So I don't think that there was any overcoming a stereotype in this matter.

Lead says "seven Filmfare Awards from fourteen nominations" - I believe that this is a record, no?

Yes, that is a record. But again, no reliable source available.

Lead says "performed on stage for televised award ceremonies" - she also performed in other stage shows as pointed out later,not all were for award ceremonies, as could be assumed by reading this.

Done.

box office vs. box-office - try to be consistent (except in quotes).

Changed to box office.

source 121 - can this be made to not bring up a print screen?

Changed the url.

Okay, I am done now. Overall it is very good. BollyJeff | talk 23:39, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, Bollyjeff. :) --smarojit ^HD 02:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How frustrating that a "reliable" source cannot be found. Keep looking. Here is an "unreliable" one [2], but a little research into the award pages would reveal the fact to anyone. I think that the facts should be known, and a source's (un)reliability is dependent on the type of data it is supporting. These are just a compilation of available data. Maybe a delegate or someone else can comment on this. Anyway, I am proud to add my support here, but I have to disclose that I have made a lot of edits to this page in the past, in case that matters. BollyJeff | talk 02:56, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support Bollyjeff. I agree, it is frustrating. I would appreciate comments from anyone regarding this matter. Thank you. --smarojit ^HD 03:11, 18 July 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. Ian Rose (talk) 08:37, 21 July 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.