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

The list was not promoted by NapHit 05:49, 30 December 2012 [1].


List of awards and nominations received by Priyanka Chopra[edit]

List of awards and nominations received by Priyanka Chopra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Pks1142 (talk) 04:21, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating the list for featured list candidate because Priyanka Chopra has won Several awards for her universally applauded performances. Chopra is one of the Best actresses of Indian cinema and a superstar too. There are very rare stars who can really act and she is undoubtedly one of them. Chopra's Awards and nominations list meets Wikipedia:Featured list candidates criteria and after the peer review, It only got Better. I had worked hard on the list and It deserves to be a FLC.Pks1142 (talk) 04:21, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Pks1142 (talk) 12:44, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And in the section headers. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 13:13, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done.Pks1142 (talk) 13:21, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on lead alone.

Done. Pks1142 (talk) 22:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Pks1142 (talk) 22:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Linked. Pks1142 (talk) 22:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Pks1142 (talk) 22:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Pks1142 (talk) 22:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Pks1142 (talk) 22:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Pks1142 (talk) 22:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
refrenced. Pks1142 (talk) 22:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Pks1142 (talk) 22:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Pks1142 (talk) 22:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Pks1142 (talk) 22:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Adopted. Pks1142 (talk) 22:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. Pks1142 (talk) 22:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Given. Pks1142 (talk) 22:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Checked. Pks1142 (talk) 22:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:29, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Done.—PKS:1142 · (TALK) 08:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done.—PKS:1142 · (TALK) 08:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done.—PKS:1142 · (TALK) 08:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected—PKS:1142 · (TALK) 08:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Refrenced.—PKS:1142 · (TALK) 08:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Refrenced.—PKS:1142 · (TALK) 08:43, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done.—PKS:1142 · (TALK) 08:43, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done.—PKS:1142 · (TALK) 08:43, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done.—PKS:1142 · (TALK) 18:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected.—PKS:1142 · (TALK) 09:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done.—PKS:1142 · (TALK) 12:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Explanation: DesiHits is a very reliable source, indya.com is an archive of Screen award nomination, Indiaglitz source is presented by a very well known author Subhash K. Jha and Pinkvilla is just showing the exact nominations list.—PKS:1142 · (TALK) 09:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done.—PKS:1142 · (TALK) 10:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Explanation is taken from its wikipedia article.—PKS:1142 · (TALK) 09:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done.—PKS:1142 · (TALK) 09:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done.—PKS:1142 · (TALK) 09:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)v[reply]
Done.—PKS:1142 · (TALK) 09:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
replaced.—PKS:1142 · (TALK) 09:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done.—PKS:1142 · (TALK) 09:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
refrenced.—PKS:1142 · (TALK) 09:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done.—PKS:1142 · (TALK) 10:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done.—PKS:1142 · (TALK) 10:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done.—PKS:1142 · (TALK) 10:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
removed.—PKS:1142 · (TALK) 09:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • My biggest concern with this article is the quality of sources being used; a few sources doesn't seem like verifying the facts. Besides this there are a lot of formatting errors in refs and MOS issues. I did not go fully through the prose, table and check all the references. Given the number of concerns, I may have to oppose the list at the moment. —Vensatry (Ping me) 07:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I somewhat Disagree with you regarding Its reliability, as I have used the most reliable sources found on the web. Yes, some sources are not that reliable But they are reliable enough to prove everything correctly.—PKS:1142 · (TALK) 10:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I'm not a reviewer but have been asked to comment upon this list. It's looking a lot better since I first saw it, but could benefit from further improvement. These are my suggestions for changes to improve/expand the prose, which do not represent an endorsement for or against its listing as a featured list:

Done. —PKS:1142 · (TALK) 03:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. —PKS:1142 · (TALK) 03:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. —PKS:1142 · (TALK) 03:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. —PKS:1142 · (TALK) 03:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. —PKS:1142 · (TALK) 03:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. —PKS:1142 · (TALK) 03:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. —PKS:1142 · (TALK) 03:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. —PKS:1142 · (TALK) 03:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. —PKS:1142 · (TALK) 03:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. —PKS:1142 · (TALK) 03:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. —PKS:1142 · (TALK) 03:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done.—PKS:1142 · (TALK) 15:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done.—PKS:1142 · (TALK) 15:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done.—PKS:1142 · (TALK) 15:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done.—PKS:1142 · (TALK) 15:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done.—PKS:1142 · (TALK) 15:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done.—PKS:1142 · (TALK) 15:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done.—PKS:1142 · (TALK) 15:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done.—PKS:1142 · (TALK) 15:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done.—PKS:1142 · (TALK) 15:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You for your suggestions.—PKS:1142 · (TALK) 15:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pks, you missed a few points in my checklist, which I've now fixed; please don't mark points as done when you haven't done them. I've also taken care of the WP:MOSNUM error in the header ('4' and '8' instead of 'four' and 'eight') which I added late, so please accept my apology for not noticing it earlier. Anyway my checklist is resolved. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 21:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the support.—PKS:1142 · (TALK) 18:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Noted that I have retracted the support until further improvements are made.--MONGO 05:54, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

General comment: this level of comment on a list usually indicates that the list is not ready for nomination, so we should consider a withdrawal until the list is ready for review. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, your queries has been resolved. So, pls don't point fingers towards its nomination. I know it was a bit unready but know, its completely ready for passing FL.—PKS:1142 · (TALK) 18:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe what The Rambling Man is indicating is that there were numerous issues (meaning more than usual) that they and others had with the list...but I concur that those issues seemed to have been addressed. If The Rambling Man has further issues it is probably because he is a well seasoned reviewer (which he is). So, is the suggestion to withdraw based on other things that need correction, or just that there were so many to begin with?--MONGO 19:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't expect nor want candidates here which attract ten times as many comments as I see at a peer review. That's what WP:PR is all about. Before lists are nominated here, they are supposed to be of a minimum quality such that we're not picking up silly things like poor English, poor punctuation, poor MOS compliance. If I can spend the time, I'll give the list one more look, but if I find too many more issues, I'll archive this nomination and recommend you take it for some peer review, and quality control elsewhere, before returning to FLC. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The numerous issues haven't all been addressed, as is evidenced below. The award counts in the lead and infobox aren't even correct, and aren't that close to being correct. How two supporters can miss that, I will never know. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid to say that we will have discount a number of supports from reviewers who clearly are not even capable of seeing the basic failings. This extends beyond just this nomination. For some time I've been worried about "friendly supports" going on here at FLC. I think we need to go back to the drawing board. Clearly a number of our reviewers are not able to review lists against the criteria adequately. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I stated above that I was watching this, but based my support on the then current issues that had apparently been addressed. But I've retracted that support since it is now more apparent to me that more issues need to be addressed. I am actually a well seasoned FAC reviewer and have been the primary author of 8 FAs, but far less well versed in examining FLCs. In the past month I have been involved in 3 FAC's reviews, one other FLC review and am assisting another get an article through GAN and one more ready for PR. It would be nice if I could contribute to FLC's in the future but if I'm going to be insulted by more seasoned FLC reviewers, then there isn't any reason to bother with it. I had no qualms about changing my support to an oppose if there was further explanations.--MONGO 05:54, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support This list meets the criteria for FL. It is Well-crafted and I don't see any issues with its prose or lead . Good work.Green Parakeet (talk) 18:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – Sorry, but I do see issues with the prose in the lead. To respond to one of TRM's points above, the list did have a peer review that was closed awfully early, before I had an opportunity to respond to a talk page request. Had I been able to review earlier, some of the basic glitches that prevent this article from meeting FL standards could have been weeded out before this FLC.

I somewhat disagree to your allegations over no. of nominations and awards. 73?? Are you, counting the CRITIC'S or JURY award as nominations. They are not nominations. They were directly given. I had not included the pending nominations. Pls, don't confuse with those at all. I do confess that this has many comments which is unusual for this kind of page. Sorry for that but I don't see further problems with prose and lead.—PKS:1142 · (TALK) 03:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawal Thank you and sorry. I withdraw the list from FLC. A PR would be conducted as soon as I can. Please, Help me on the PR and thanks to all you amazing people.—PKS:1142 · (TALK) 04:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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