Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kareena Kapoor Khan/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kareena Kapoor/archive1)
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 not promoted by Karanacs 21:49, 30 May 2009 [1].

Kareena Kapoor

edit
Nominator(s): Dr. Blofeld White cat 22:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

Nomination withdrawn - Given that I no longer want to contribute to this site and people will always root out the negative aspects of any situation I no longer want to waste for time editing this site with no gain. I wish everybody all the best. Don't expect me to come running back within a few days, I am clearly doing nothing to help improve this site so I'll let somebody else write the articles instead. Dr. Blofeld White cat 21:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
boxofficeindia.com is a reliable source. It's actually the most reliable source for box office collections of Indian films. It is frequently used as a source of information in newspapers, magazines and major websites. Other than that, its reliability has been the subject of long discussions in different threads on Wikipedia. One such discussion took place during the FAC of Preity Zinta. It was finally concluded that it is a reliable source after a WP:RSN discussion.
Don't know about oneindia, I personally don't use it, but I believe it can be used for non-controversial claims. Shahid • Talk2me 13:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the appraisal of us FAC reviewers, could you link to the relevant discussions so we can judge for ourselves? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh there are lots of. Anyway, some of them are cited on the Preity Zinta FAC. Other than that, don't mind citing the main point now. As I said, the source is cited and used in different reliable sources. I can give you brief examples of both Indian and western reputable sources using it as a source of information. The site's "about us" and "disclaimers" sections are quite clear and detailed about their way of working. Additionally, there was one quite an intelligent comment by User:Geometry guy, whose guidance makes quite a difference. And the Preity Zinta article eventually passed FAC, which I think automatically approves BOI.
As for the WP:RSN discussion, it is old and it'll take quite some time for me to find it, but if you strongly think it is necessary, I'll make a search. Shahid • Talk2me 20:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it would, because reading through Boxofficeindia's about and disclaimers section, I'm not seeing any way the source meets WP:RS. There is no mention of fact checking whatsoever, and the site explicitly states they don't stand behind anything on their site.[2] Parroted figures in what would be considered reliable sources does not necessarily mean the original source meets RS; to give an analogous example, VGChartz is an oft-cited[3] source for sales figures of video games and video game consoles. However, their methods have been vetted and found that often, they make up information based on guesses and retroactively change figures without any record.[4] As such, it doesn't meet reliable source criteria. The key element of RS here is "Material that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable"; I would not say most news organizations meet the definition of "scholarly". I have read through the above Preity Zinta FAC and nothing there dissuades me from that opinion. And with all due respect, Geometry guy's opinion is, in my opinion not keeping with policy. Nowhere in WP:V or WP:RS does it say "if you through up an 'according to', it's alright to use bad sources." --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well frankly I'm tired. This is opened every single FAC, and we have to start discussions afresh because of one particular user who opposes to the source. And I'm not gonna do that again. As one who is very involved in the Indian media, I know for a fact that the info is reliable there. I know that it doesn't really matter, but many reliable sources use it as a source of information. I don't think reputable newspapers whould use a blog as a source of information, and I also think, if newspapers use it, why shouldn't we? It's a great evidence which was accepted by many editors. And your example is in my opinion not really relevant in this case. With all due respect to you, I do believe GG's comment is very relevant in this particular case, and I can't see how it goes against policy. Video games are not box office figures.
Other than that and as I said, the article passed FAC with the sources included. I'll find the RSN discussion later. It was User:Relata refero I think who posted one big message which convinced all the editors. Shahid • Talk2me 07:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was indeed a length discussion over box office India as a reliable source with User:Giro Savaronola showing concerns during the Preity Zinta FAC. In the end it was confirmed that this is an acceptable source. Perhaps somebody could find the archived debate? Oneindia.in is a mainstream indian news website which I believe is a reliable source, we have an article on it so it must account for something. It's operated by B. G. Mahesh one of the pioneers of the Internet and online news in India I believe. Dr. Blofeld White cat 13:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to leave these two out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 10:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your help would be appreciated. I'm not convinced about the images either. Don't like to keep using the Preity Zinta article as a talking point but I count three fair use images in that article and it is a featured article. We have two images in this article. Dr. Blofeld White cat 16:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think Preity Zinta should be held up as the standard by which all other articles should be judged. Even after the FAC there has been major conflict about whether the images are appropriate. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another comment: the rupee convert template seems like a horrible idea here, and probably should be deleted as a general matter. The exchange rate varies - one hundred 2005 rupees in 2005 dollars is not the same as one hundred 2008 rupees in 2008 dollars. The article should be using contemporaneous exchange rates to calculate dollar amounts, in my view. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that. I used it as an example of another FA on an Indian actress. Cillian Murphy and many other FA's contain similar images most of which have inferior rationales to the images used in this one. Fair use on here whatever the article is contested. Dr. Blofeld White cat 17:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also the converter was suggested by one of the reviewers of the Kapoor article in that all the readings were in ruppees and he understandably wanted to know what they were in dollars from an American viewpoint. Dr. Blofeld White cat 17:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This (use of fair use images in articles about actors) is a general Wikiproblem whether such images should or shouldn't be included, it's not a problem with any particular article. I do believe the images on the other articles increase the understanding of the topic. I chose the most appropriate images, wrote long rationale summaries, and the article was eventually promoted with these images. The post FAC discussions are closed with a clear conclusion. I don't think WP:NFCC#8 can be considered in a general way; it is an individual choice of particular images for each BLP.
So I'd say:
Whether or not the images on this page increase the understading of the topic is another case, which should be discussed individually here.
Whether or not the use of non-free images is appropriate in such articles should be discussed in a separate page, definitely not here. Shahid • Talk2me 17:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - there are problems with the reliability of sources, non-free images and the prose. Here are a few examples:

  • Kapoor's off-screen life is subject to wide media coverage in India with frequent press coverage of her and boyfriend, actor Saif Ali Khan and speculation of a possible marriage between the couple - "between the couple" is clumsy and redundant.
  • However, she disliked her term there and studied only because of its closeness to her family. - the "term" was close to her family?
  • Kapoor was initially scheduled to make her debut in Rakesh Roshan's Kaho Naa... Pyaar Hai (2000), a debut which coincided with that of the director's son, Hrithik Roshan. - why repeat "debut"?
  • The film, which featured a ensemble cast, emerged as the second-highest-grossing film of the year in India as well as Kapoor's highest-grossing film, - repetition of "grossing film" and use of "as well as" instead of a simple "and".
  • I don't think you can have a "negative role" in a film.
  • While not a phenomenal success in India - I don't think "phenomenal" is quite the right adjective if indeed one is needed here.
  • I am tired of constantly reading "at the box office".
  • Kapoor has been linked to a number of her co-stars in the Indian media, but she has strongly denied all these rumors - is confusing, does it mean "by the Indian media"? And, why "a number of" and not "several" and even exactly how many?
  • media speculation - this is a sign of lazy writing; "speculation in the media".
  • What on earth are vegetarian on-line polls?

In my view, the article requires much more work. Graham Colm Talk 16:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources do you find unreliable? Only two sources were questioned, and the reliability of both was proved. Other than that, non-free images are used in a much wider quantity in other FAs, and still pass FACs. And this should not be discussed here, as I said above. I think these two images do fulfill WP:NFCC#8, though their rationale summaries need to be more elaborated. Prose problems will be addressed. Thank you. Shahid • Talk2me 16:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed your suggestions, but I don't really know what you suggest to do with the PETA vegeterian poll. Remove it? Shahid • Talk2me 17:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those were examples, there are more problems, but for now I am interested in, and waiting to see, comments from other reviewers. Graham Colm Talk 18:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, 1c. Blofeld and Shshshsh might say to the contrary, but there is no way boxofficeindia and oneindia meet the bare threshold of reliable sources, let alone the "high quality" requirement of featured article criteria. Looking through the Pretty FAC which I was referred to multiple times, I'm guessing there might be additional problems with the references I will have to investigate. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know about oneindia.com, and don't really care. What I do know and care about is boxofficeindia.com. Its reliability was proved on several occasions, and accepted by several editors. With all due respect, I don't think you yourself have authority to invalidate it all of a sudden, after so many discussions by so many editors. If it hadn't been accepted during the Zinta FAC, this wouldn't have passed eventually. This is frankly disrespectful to all those who discussed it so many times. And the RSN discussion about BOI is found. Here you have the link where it actually was concluded. That's how the entire community accepted the source. If you still don't accept it, this will have to be your personal choice, which shouldn't affect the work all of us editors of Wikiproject India have arduously put into so many Indian articles. Shahid • Talk2me 20:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It may be a personal evaluation of the evidence, but that doesn't mean it is any less relevant, germane, or valid than yours, Sh. I would also not brand one discussion as emblematic of the "entire community" and a mandate for inclusion. I'm sorry if this might affect lots of articles, but frankly just because something causes changes is not a reason to adhere to poor sources. I've read through the entire RSN discussion and I am unswayed. User:Relata_refero brought to the discussion a slew of sources. Unfortunately, the URL he/she provides either do not mention the use of boxofficeindia in the abstract or limited preview, are dead links now, or do not mention Boxofficeindia at all (the case for several of the sources the user provided.) The site may be the best possible source out there, but that doesn't mean it qualifies as reliable, or as a high quality source for the purposes of this discussion. Oppose sustained. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's an old discussion, how would you expect it to look any differently? How would you want this project to evolve when everyone tries to screw others' hard work, discussions and goodwill? With all due respect, why do you think that the opinion of an entire breed of editors who accepted the reliability of the source should be rejected now because of one decision of yours? Why should all these discussions be taken for granted? This is not appropriate. This is not how it works. Many of the sources there require registration (I suppose you are not registered). If many of them are no longer available, I can cite many other sources, like those I've already cited, like this and like many other reputable sources.
Otherwise I increasingly feel that this project is no longer a wonderful one to contribute to, when everyone tries to recreate problems out of old solved issues, and in doing so, preventing progress and improvement. You wouldn't say the same about boxofficemojo, would you? I hate that it mostly happens on India-related articles, because such credible sources as this one are rejected by a very small section of people who'll do anything to invalidate it that's too because they've never heard of it. I feel insulted. Shahid • Talk2me 21:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your constant accusations that I'm out to "get" you are unfortunate, but do not change my findings. If others disagree, so be it. I'm holding you up to featured article standards... if you can't accept criticism, then the FAC process is not for you. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments: I am concerned about misrepresentation of sources that I have found in various spot checks of the article, for example:

  • Wikitext: "After receiving negative reviews for a series of repetitive roles between 2002 and 2003, Kapoor accepted more demanding roles to avoid being typecast, and consequently was recognized by critics for displaying greater versatility between 2004 and 2006." The quoted source attributes the role comments to Kapoor herself in 2005, meaning the text is rather misleading, and the source itself does not mention these critics applauding greater versatility, just one.
  • [5] and [6] are used in synthesis to say that "Kapoor has established herself as one of the leading contemporary actresses in the Hindi film industry".
  • "Kapoor's off-screen life is subject to wide media coverage in India with frequent press coverage of her and boyfriend, actor Saif Ali Khan and speculation of a possible marriage." Once again, synthesis and original research, with the two supporting sources only mentioning press coverage but not supporting this "frequent" bit or the "wide media coverage".[7][8].

If the lead is this bad, I'm not sure that the article body is any better. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Kareena_Kapoor_Khan/archive1&oldid=1088118200"