This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
As the article sees the improvement, we will need to figure out which sources should be used. User:Shshshsh had asked me this question in my talk page, whether Askmen.com is non-RS. Yes it is. We should not be using that. IMO, Rediff.com, Times of India, The Hindu and other major newspapers/magazines could be used. Thanks, - KNM Talk 18:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
http://www.bollyvista.com is a non-RS. Are we all on same page here? - KNM Talk 17:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
In short, WP:OTHERSTUFF. Girolamo Savonarola 20:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment - A site is a 'fansite' as long as it is not run by experts. Whether they're operating out of rented commercial space or from someone's garage is immaterial. The only thing that matters is the credentials of those who run the site and those who write those columns. Silly as it may seem to some, the first questions that should arise when we look at a source are 1) are the authors of the articles really who the site claims they are 2) if so, do those authors have the expertise and the credentials to go with what they write. The answer to question 1 really hinges on the site's notability and reputation. For example, if the The Hindu carries a op-ed by say, Arun Shourie, I will take their word for it that Shourie really wrote that article. This is because The Hindu has earned a level of trustworthiness and repute and can be taken at face value. The same cannot be said of these 'fansites' and their non-notable, self-styled experts. Reliable third party referencing of these sites and their columns is either non-existant or trivial. Little or nothing is known about those who run it and their columnists. In short, they're just not 'reliable' and we cannot take their words at face value. Sarvagnya 20:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi all! Seems we are working towards good improvement of the article. Cheers to all!
Besides copyediting, a major point is deciding on the reliable source. IMO, all newspapers, indiafm, rediff are RS. bollyvista, planetbollywood, apunkachoice etc are debatable. So establishing their reliability is a major concern. I propose to make those references invisible (viewable only in the edit mode). And will check the "about us", "disclaimers" etc of those websites. Best is to replace those citations by reliable source citations.-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 17:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok. Bollyvista—"About us" says, "Through years of hard work, Bollyvista.com has been able to assemble a syndicate of reporters and dedicated technical staff to bring the best of Bollywood to its viewers around the world." So it is not a fan-managed site. It has proper staffs, and offices etc. Disclaimer says, "Bollyvista.com expressly disclaims any and all warranties, express or implied, including, without limitation: (a) Any warranties as to the availability, accuracy, completeness or content of information, products or services that are part of the Bollyvista.com web site..."
The disclaimer is pretty generic; indiatimes "terms and conditions" says, " All the contents of this Site are only for general information or use. They do not constitute advice and should not be relied upon in making (or refraining from making) any decision"; rediff.com disclaimer says, "REDIFF .COM AND/OR ITS RESPECTIVE SUPPLIERS MAKE NO REPRESENTATIONS ABOUT THE SUITABILITY, RELIABILITY, AVAILABILITY, TIMELINESS, LACK OF VIRUSES OR OTHER HARMFUL COMPONENTS AND ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION, SOFTWARE, PRODUCTS, SERVICES AND RELATED GRAPHICS CONTAINED WITHIN THE REDIFF SITES/SERVICES FOR ANY PURPOSE."
So, disclaimer-wise, bollyvista is comparable to rediff and indiatimes. And it is not a fan-managed website. Yes, it is smaller in size than ToI or rediff. And it is not as widely read/consulted as indiafm. So, what may be it's reliabilty??? My opinion, it is reliable for non-exceptional claims, if properly considered along with the context (just like any other media reliable source, where context should be taken into consideration while deciding reliability). It seems to be "trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand". Comments?-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 17:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
This is a website from INDOlink , which "...is the first Ethnic portal serving Asian-Indians worldwide since 1995. INDOlink is a US Corporation, located in San Ramon, California - with satellite offices in New York, and Bombay, India".
In its terms of service, it has similar disclaimers,disclaiming inaccuracies etc. So, it seems to be not a fan-managed site. However, on checking a few articles, most of them seemed to be written by someone named "Abid". Also, no formal statement on office or stuffs have been made. So, my view on planetbollywood is, it is probably not reliable. It is definitely less transparent than bollyvista or indiafm.-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 18:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I could not fine out any "about us" or 'disclaimers' in the website. It is hard to prove it's reliability, even if to support some non-exceptional claim.-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 18:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Can someone check the reliability of this site? Gnanapiti 22:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
It seems to be RS. Is it? Shahid • Talk2me 19:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
This website is relatively transparent about their way of working. They are telling, "IBOS is India's first online news service geared towards providing news focusing on the business of cinema and related media metrics. Founded in 2002, IBOS promotes systematic reporting of comprehensive as well as granular Industry trends. The publication is the premium source of industry tracking"
Their data are "...sourced from reported Trade journals and IBOS System Projections", and , "...Overseas figures are gross box office (GBO) based on US EDI ( http://www.nielsenedi.com/corp/index.html ??), Variety Corp. ( http://www.variety.com/index.asp?layout=about_variety_layout), and distributor reports".
Their disclaimer says, "Though best efforts have been taken to provide accurate reports and figure charts, the scale of IBOS project and lack of absolute uniformity in trade outlets renders it important to note that all information and data provided on IBOS is provided 'as is' without any explicit or implicit guarantees to the user." Just like other disclaimers.
So, it is definitely not a blog/fansite, and has transparent way of working. IMO, it is reliable. Please comment.-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 20:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I've already proved its reliability. I followed the instruction of some editors, to get an evidence to this or another site being reliable, and looked for it in different RSes. And I've found it! See please Indiatimes and ToI mentioned it on several occasions, writing "According to boxofficeindia.com..." - [1] [2]. I think if it is mentioned in reputable sites which. And it's not only mentioned. If these reputable RSes use boxofficeindia.com as source of information for themselves, it is definitealy reliable. User:Spartz and User:Nichalp support me now. Regards, Shahid • Talk2me 15:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
That's my new rewrite.
"She was soon recognized for her versatility as an actress, regarded for enacting diverse roles, and credited with bringing a new image for a leading actress in Bollywood."
"a leading actress in Bollywood." = "Hindi film heroine"
What do you say? Shahid • Talk2me 19:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Guys, we need the spelling to be consistent. So what do you say? American English or British one? I think we need to take on British, as it is an Indian related article. Shahid • Talk2me 21:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
There was a notice on this page, but looking at the date of the last archive, it appears it was archived. As a result of a lengthy discussion at good article reassessment, there was a clear consensus to remove this article from the GA list at this time, as the article does not currently meet good article standards. Some concerns were raised over POV and other stylistic issues with the article. One editor, who wished to keep this article on the GA list, noted that it had met A-class status. It should be noted that while the overall scheme of Wikipedia grading does rank "A-class" above "GA", the two are not assessed in the same manner and along the same set of standards. A-class evaluation is done by individual projects, and GA assessment is done by comparing to the WP:WIAGA standards. There is nothing incongrous with this result. It is entirely possible for an article to meet A-class standards, and not GA standards, since they don't necessarily measure the same thing. An archive of this discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 32. -- Jayron32| talk| contribs 17:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I strongly feel the persons "background and personal life" belongs to this very article. That is the very point of bio articles. This would probably lead to a GA or featured status. -- Cat chi? 15:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I just want to say to all the editors working on Background and personal life of Preity Zinta - brilliant! Almost every sentence is referenced too. The text might need a check for NPOV as well as notability for some of the stuff there mentioned. But overall, its excellent that so much content has been added that can be further worked with for her bio.
My only concern is why we have nine paragraphs dealing with her personal life and media related info when all of that is on a seperate page as well. One, two, three, maybe a few more... nine?! Seems a bit unneccessary to me; especially when all of it, all, is on another page as well. Perhaps the two repetitive sections on this page could be pruned a bit?
I'd just like to point out that theres nothing wrong with the film section, shes done a lot of films, out of which the few that deserve have been mentioned. It might be appropriate to have a spin-off article for that too, with only a brief overview in the main article. xC | ☎ 08:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
As the article sees the improvement, we will need to figure out which sources should be used. User:Shshshsh had asked me this question in my talk page, whether Askmen.com is non-RS. Yes it is. We should not be using that. IMO, Rediff.com, Times of India, The Hindu and other major newspapers/magazines could be used. Thanks, - KNM Talk 18:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
http://www.bollyvista.com is a non-RS. Are we all on same page here? - KNM Talk 17:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
In short, WP:OTHERSTUFF. Girolamo Savonarola 20:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment - A site is a 'fansite' as long as it is not run by experts. Whether they're operating out of rented commercial space or from someone's garage is immaterial. The only thing that matters is the credentials of those who run the site and those who write those columns. Silly as it may seem to some, the first questions that should arise when we look at a source are 1) are the authors of the articles really who the site claims they are 2) if so, do those authors have the expertise and the credentials to go with what they write. The answer to question 1 really hinges on the site's notability and reputation. For example, if the The Hindu carries a op-ed by say, Arun Shourie, I will take their word for it that Shourie really wrote that article. This is because The Hindu has earned a level of trustworthiness and repute and can be taken at face value. The same cannot be said of these 'fansites' and their non-notable, self-styled experts. Reliable third party referencing of these sites and their columns is either non-existant or trivial. Little or nothing is known about those who run it and their columnists. In short, they're just not 'reliable' and we cannot take their words at face value. Sarvagnya 20:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi all! Seems we are working towards good improvement of the article. Cheers to all!
Besides copyediting, a major point is deciding on the reliable source. IMO, all newspapers, indiafm, rediff are RS. bollyvista, planetbollywood, apunkachoice etc are debatable. So establishing their reliability is a major concern. I propose to make those references invisible (viewable only in the edit mode). And will check the "about us", "disclaimers" etc of those websites. Best is to replace those citations by reliable source citations.-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 17:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok. Bollyvista—"About us" says, "Through years of hard work, Bollyvista.com has been able to assemble a syndicate of reporters and dedicated technical staff to bring the best of Bollywood to its viewers around the world." So it is not a fan-managed site. It has proper staffs, and offices etc. Disclaimer says, "Bollyvista.com expressly disclaims any and all warranties, express or implied, including, without limitation: (a) Any warranties as to the availability, accuracy, completeness or content of information, products or services that are part of the Bollyvista.com web site..."
The disclaimer is pretty generic; indiatimes "terms and conditions" says, " All the contents of this Site are only for general information or use. They do not constitute advice and should not be relied upon in making (or refraining from making) any decision"; rediff.com disclaimer says, "REDIFF .COM AND/OR ITS RESPECTIVE SUPPLIERS MAKE NO REPRESENTATIONS ABOUT THE SUITABILITY, RELIABILITY, AVAILABILITY, TIMELINESS, LACK OF VIRUSES OR OTHER HARMFUL COMPONENTS AND ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION, SOFTWARE, PRODUCTS, SERVICES AND RELATED GRAPHICS CONTAINED WITHIN THE REDIFF SITES/SERVICES FOR ANY PURPOSE."
So, disclaimer-wise, bollyvista is comparable to rediff and indiatimes. And it is not a fan-managed website. Yes, it is smaller in size than ToI or rediff. And it is not as widely read/consulted as indiafm. So, what may be it's reliabilty??? My opinion, it is reliable for non-exceptional claims, if properly considered along with the context (just like any other media reliable source, where context should be taken into consideration while deciding reliability). It seems to be "trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand". Comments?-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 17:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
This is a website from INDOlink , which "...is the first Ethnic portal serving Asian-Indians worldwide since 1995. INDOlink is a US Corporation, located in San Ramon, California - with satellite offices in New York, and Bombay, India".
In its terms of service, it has similar disclaimers,disclaiming inaccuracies etc. So, it seems to be not a fan-managed site. However, on checking a few articles, most of them seemed to be written by someone named "Abid". Also, no formal statement on office or stuffs have been made. So, my view on planetbollywood is, it is probably not reliable. It is definitely less transparent than bollyvista or indiafm.-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 18:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I could not fine out any "about us" or 'disclaimers' in the website. It is hard to prove it's reliability, even if to support some non-exceptional claim.-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 18:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Can someone check the reliability of this site? Gnanapiti 22:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
It seems to be RS. Is it? Shahid • Talk2me 19:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
This website is relatively transparent about their way of working. They are telling, "IBOS is India's first online news service geared towards providing news focusing on the business of cinema and related media metrics. Founded in 2002, IBOS promotes systematic reporting of comprehensive as well as granular Industry trends. The publication is the premium source of industry tracking"
Their data are "...sourced from reported Trade journals and IBOS System Projections", and , "...Overseas figures are gross box office (GBO) based on US EDI ( http://www.nielsenedi.com/corp/index.html ??), Variety Corp. ( http://www.variety.com/index.asp?layout=about_variety_layout), and distributor reports".
Their disclaimer says, "Though best efforts have been taken to provide accurate reports and figure charts, the scale of IBOS project and lack of absolute uniformity in trade outlets renders it important to note that all information and data provided on IBOS is provided 'as is' without any explicit or implicit guarantees to the user." Just like other disclaimers.
So, it is definitely not a blog/fansite, and has transparent way of working. IMO, it is reliable. Please comment.-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 20:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I've already proved its reliability. I followed the instruction of some editors, to get an evidence to this or another site being reliable, and looked for it in different RSes. And I've found it! See please Indiatimes and ToI mentioned it on several occasions, writing "According to boxofficeindia.com..." - [1] [2]. I think if it is mentioned in reputable sites which. And it's not only mentioned. If these reputable RSes use boxofficeindia.com as source of information for themselves, it is definitealy reliable. User:Spartz and User:Nichalp support me now. Regards, Shahid • Talk2me 15:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
That's my new rewrite.
"She was soon recognized for her versatility as an actress, regarded for enacting diverse roles, and credited with bringing a new image for a leading actress in Bollywood."
"a leading actress in Bollywood." = "Hindi film heroine"
What do you say? Shahid • Talk2me 19:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Guys, we need the spelling to be consistent. So what do you say? American English or British one? I think we need to take on British, as it is an Indian related article. Shahid • Talk2me 21:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
There was a notice on this page, but looking at the date of the last archive, it appears it was archived. As a result of a lengthy discussion at good article reassessment, there was a clear consensus to remove this article from the GA list at this time, as the article does not currently meet good article standards. Some concerns were raised over POV and other stylistic issues with the article. One editor, who wished to keep this article on the GA list, noted that it had met A-class status. It should be noted that while the overall scheme of Wikipedia grading does rank "A-class" above "GA", the two are not assessed in the same manner and along the same set of standards. A-class evaluation is done by individual projects, and GA assessment is done by comparing to the WP:WIAGA standards. There is nothing incongrous with this result. It is entirely possible for an article to meet A-class standards, and not GA standards, since they don't necessarily measure the same thing. An archive of this discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 32. -- Jayron32| talk| contribs 17:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I strongly feel the persons "background and personal life" belongs to this very article. That is the very point of bio articles. This would probably lead to a GA or featured status. -- Cat chi? 15:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I just want to say to all the editors working on Background and personal life of Preity Zinta - brilliant! Almost every sentence is referenced too. The text might need a check for NPOV as well as notability for some of the stuff there mentioned. But overall, its excellent that so much content has been added that can be further worked with for her bio.
My only concern is why we have nine paragraphs dealing with her personal life and media related info when all of that is on a seperate page as well. One, two, three, maybe a few more... nine?! Seems a bit unneccessary to me; especially when all of it, all, is on another page as well. Perhaps the two repetitive sections on this page could be pruned a bit?
I'd just like to point out that theres nothing wrong with the film section, shes done a lot of films, out of which the few that deserve have been mentioned. It might be appropriate to have a spin-off article for that too, with only a brief overview in the main article. xC | ☎ 08:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)