Talk:Vicky Kaushal/Archive 1

Awards

@DarpSinghh: Re: this edit, I've removed the Films of India Online Awards. There are thousands of minor awards "organisations" across the globe, many of them run by regular people, like bloggers, or even people who work for marketing groups who just want to promote their clients in some way. We simply can't entertain these non-notable awards, lest every article about an actor or film would be stuffed with meaningless accolades. We only care about established awards from notable organisations. As a general rule, if an awards organisation doesn't have a well-established article at Wikipedia (where someone has already gone through the effort of demonstrating notability) that has survived community scrutiny for a few years, then we should ignore that organisation. Thanks for understanding, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2019

Add the fact Kaushal wins Supporting Actor for Sanju for the 4th FOI awards

https://www.foionlineawards.com/4th-foi-online-awards Correctoryamum (talk) 21:20, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: appears like a non notable award, being added for Promotional purposes DBigXrayᗙ 18:51, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Uri

Not sure where this hostility is coming from, Cyphoidbomb, but I'm only following what the source says. Also, I fail to see why writing something negative about a person makes the article "balanced" but writing something positive about a person is automatically seen as "puffery" by some people. If sources are reporting a film's incredible box office performance, then the article needs to reflect that. Period. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@Krimuk2.0: It's not intended as hostility toward you, but your first submission described it as a "top grosser" which implies it was #1, when it clearly was not when compared against the history of top grossers. That looked very much like puffery, even if you didn't mean it to be. "Balanced" would have been saying that it placed Nth among Hindi language film releases in 2019, for instance. And where is the official top 25 highest-grossing Indian films list as published by the majority of proper sources, so that we can accurately assign a placement of this film against those from history? Not surprisingly, the Indian entertainment machine has failed us again by neglecting to do their own ranking, but we should not be using Wikipedia's ranking for this purpose, so I don't know why we keep pointing to List of highest-grossing Indian films as though that's an official list. Anyway, again, it was nothing personal, but we need to be more careful about how these "records" are presented. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

"top-grossing" doesn't indicate number 1 at all. It indicates a high level of commercial success, but if there's a better way to say it, I'm all for it. Sources describe Uri's success as "historic". Using a word like that would be puffery, but we do need to stress on how big of a hit it is, which is what I was trying to do. No way was I trying to "inflate the film's success", and I absolutely do not appreciate being blamed for something like that after contributing so much on Wikipedia for almost 8 years now. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Vicky Kaushal/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ssven2 (talk · contribs) 04:52, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I will review this article, thank you.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 04:52, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments

• "Aspiring to a career in films" — Can be rephrased as "Aspiring to take up a career in film".
• "His father was keen on his son having a stable career" — As an engineer or any other position in the film industry.

Most likely as an engineer, but the source doesn't explicitly mention it. I therefore wrote that he "thus pursued an engineering degree" later in the sentence. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:49, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• Does any source mention Laal Pencil's genre?

Nope, couldn't find any mention of it. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:49, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• Perhaps a wikilink to "stammering" in case readers don't quite get the meaning at first.

Ssven2, thanks for the comments. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:49, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Sources

• Wikilink the publishers/newspapers/websites for ref nos 1 to 7.
• NDTV, Rediff.com, Box Office India, Film Companion, RajeevMasand.com shouldn't be in italics.
• Wikilink the publishers/newspapers/websites for ref nos 10, 11 and 12.
• Wikilink NDTV and The Hindu in ref nos 15 and 16 respectively.
• Wikilink Variety in ref no 20.
• Remove the wikilink for ref no 24 (Firspost) coz there are other Firstpost references before it.
• Wikilink Business Standard, India Today, Bollywood Hungama, Mid Day
• Remove the wikilink for ref no 30 (NDTV) coz there are other NDTV references before it.
• Remove the wikilink for ref no 38 (Filmfare) coz there are other Filmfare references before it.

That's about it from me. Resolve the remaining comments and the article is passed.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 07:26, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Ssven2, all done. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:35, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall: Passed, my queries were met and solved by the nominator.

   Pass or Fail:

Thank you for addressing my comments, Krimuk2.0. Congratulations, the article has passed.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 08:01, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Personal life

The article ahs seen an number of recent unsourced attempts to variously claim that he is engaged to Katrina Kaif, or that he has already married her. Please don't add claims that he is engaged, or even already married. I've taken a quick look for sources, and what I see are social media and tabloid rumours and speculation, none of which can be considered reliable sources. It is a WP:BLP violation to make such claims without reliable sources, let alone without any sources. Meters (talk) 20:33, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2021

Vicky kaushal is not married yet 2601:586:8200:640:206E:3C93:DE51:5141 (talk) 21:21, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:30, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I removed her as a spouse in the infobox. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:31, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. News media is mocking this page though Jay (talk) 07:10, 9 December 2021 (UTC)