- Comment So, there was no best female actor award by the Indian government from 1954 to 1968?--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There was no such award for individual performers before 1968. It's very well explained in the first para. —Vensatry (Ping me) 17:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If I remember correctly, there was an award given to Best performers at the state level; Sivaji Ganesan and Savitri both have won that numerous times. But that's totally different and has got nothing to do with this award. —Vensatry (Ping me) 18:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- State (province) level awards are irrelevant. Also, that cash prize part. It should say "that amounted to 50k in 2012", or removed (unless it's always been 50k). Did some edits, please have a look.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added the age for the youngest actress. Other edits are fine. —Vensatry (Ping me) 05:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The State Awards instituted the individual award in 1968 as the "Urvashi Award for the Best Actress""
What does "individual award" mean here? This particular award? Or, in general, awards for individuals (such as actors or actresses)?--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed it to "Best Actress" award. —Vensatry (Ping me) 14:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment reference 1, Times of India directory and year book. That's a book, right? S, it needs a page number.
- Ref 17, Illustrated weekly of India. That's a periodical. So, either publication date, or volume and issue number is need.
- Ref 24. Asian Women. Way is that? Book or periodical. If book, an identifier (if available ) , such as isbn is needed. This particular reference looks somewhat incomplete.
- Ref 25 has publication location (Madras) within parenthesis. No other references have publication location. For consistency, you should either name publication location in all, or none,
- Ref 37 has Bowker as author and publisher. It's unlikely. Can you please check. You can check in amazon.
- Ref 62 has rediff.com wiki linked, although rediff.com has appeared in the reference section before this.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- All the above comments were appropriately addressed. --Dwaipayan (talk) 08:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment
I think alt captions for images need improvement. Please see WP:ALT and the examples there.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid, alt and caption shouldn't be having the same details. —Vensatry (Ping me) 07:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read WP:ALT. I am quoting—"Alternative text is text associated with an image that serves the same purpose and conveys the same essential information as the image. In situations where the image is not available to the reader (perhaps because they have turned off images in their web browser, or are using a screen reader due to a visual impairment) the alternative text ensures no information or functionality is lost." Alt text, of course, should go by the context. So, please read Wikipedia:Alt#Importance_of_context. Such alt captions as "woman wearing black saree" are useless. So, please change the alt caps (not necessarily to the alt captions that I did, but something meaningful for the context).--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right. This being a list which is not particular to just one actress, subject name should be included. But it also says that "The alt text is read out by screen readers just before the caption, so try to avoid having the same details in both", so mentioning what which was said earlier in the caption seems meaningless. I've made a few changes slightly. —Vensatry (Ping me) 08:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I also was not much aware of the alt caption rules. I read it recently. Indeed there is an option "alt=refer to caption" which may be suitable in many cases (in general, not specific to this article). Anyway, IMO the alt texts read ok now.--Dwaipayan (talk) 08:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I am not sure if the Nargis image is acceptable in US public domain. I do not have much knowledge about image copyrights. Not sure who would be the best person to consult. May be Rambling Man would know who to refer to.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm a long way from an expert. So look forward for someone with more expertise to comment. —Vensatry (Ping me) 08:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There a few regulars in FAC that are image copyrigth experts. I can not remember of teh top of my head. You can skim through a few FACs, if needed. If they are requested, they might do an image review here. You can actually ask The Rambling Man if he/anyone else he knows can do an image review. The other images are all ok.--Dwaipayan (talk) 08:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've reviewed it and nominated it for deletion, it's not PD in the US. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The years of receiving the award for Sharda, Archana and Monisha Unni are not matching bwteen the lead and the list. You have to stick to either the award-ceremony year, or specify on each occasion that the year mentioned are year of release, or provide the year within parenthesis following the film name (which indicates release years). However, since this article is about the awards, I think it will be ok to mention the years of the awards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- They need not match as the table indicates the year in which the film was censored. I've provided a FN there for clarification. As for the lead, the years should be the one in which the award ceremony took place to avoid confusion. —Vensatry (Ping me) 07:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok. The leads now mention the years in which the ceremonies were held, right?--Dwaipayan (talk) 08:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- More comments. Some award winners in the list have two references as evidence. Why do we need two references for something non-controversial? One good reliable source will suffice as evidence, unless something extra-ordinary or controversial happened. I suggest removal so all those extra references. That would get the article rid of unnecessary size. Also, the current revenue 79 (Deccan Chronicle) is a dead link.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|