The list was not promoted by Hahc21 10:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC) [1]. reply
Priyanka Chopra filmography ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
I am nominating this for featured list because Priyanka Chopra is one of the most popular and versatile actresses in Hindi cinema. The article has been thoroughly researched and is a comprehensive and well-written account of her filmography. The lead covers the most important content from the table, which is sortable. — Prashant 02:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Support. Much better this time round and the intervening work on both text and table has moved it from a straight fail into a strong list. - SchroCat ( talk) 11:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 ( talk) |
---|
*Comments from Crisco 1492
I have added one quote for Barfi!.— Prashant 13:09, 18 August 2013 (UTC) reply |
Thanks Schrod and Crisco for your input and support. But on the quotes and critical acclaim thing Crisco, that was largely why it failed before because it was overcooked on that front. A filmography in my opinion does not need to have quotes from reviews but should be purely focused on providing a very basic overview..♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:23, 19 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from indopug ( talk) 03:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC) reply |
---|
; Good work overall.
Seeing as to how the budget and box-office figures are riddled with inaccuracies and inconsistencies, I have to oppose this FLC. A thorough audit of each and every figure is required. Of course, a simpler option is to simply remove both columns; I will have no problem with this. It's probably better left to the films' articles, and FLCs such as Satyajit Ray filmography don't bother with them anyway.— indopug ( talk) 04:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC) reply
|
Resolved comments from Giants2008 ( Talk) 23:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments -
|
Oppose
Didn't anybody invite you to comment in the peer review on this? Thanks for your comments anyway.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Comprehensiveness? What? I have written her featured article. I know better. What you want should I list her films which she rejected or turned down. This is getting frustrating.— Prashant 09:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC) reply
He has a point about mentioning things like television appearances, TV adverts etc. The Bale filmography does.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Okay So, Bale's filmography also has Budgets and box-office. It means I should add it back again? It's getting tired now. There is nothing in India called Saturday Night Live. So, please let's not get there. As, she has done around thousands appearences in some reality shows. It's not that she has done a fiction or a miniseries. Also, for advertisements she has done many and then, if we can't give full detail why including them? This is a filmography page. Better stick to films and television.— Prashant 12:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC) reply
The figures have been removed and from what I can see your points have been addressed. I'm uncertain as to what you think is still stopping this from being promoted. In my opinion it is unfeasible to add every trivial appearance she ever made but some of the major TV shows and adverts which have been documented might be worthy of inclusion, although the main article only mentions one TV show. Indian actors have tons of endorsements and most are not really notable. Priyanka Chopra is a film actress and the list should primarily be a fully comprehensive list of films which she appeared in (which it is). What exactly do you think is really needed? Every chat show appearance and advert?♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Comment – Looks like the nom is not interested in the candidate anymore. — Vensatry (Ping me) 04:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC) reply
I am very much interested as I'm the main contributor and nominator of the list. I was busy for sometime that's all.— Prashant 16:11, 30 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Oppose on a really quick read-through, there are still too many issues.
The Rambling Man ( talk) 16:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC) reply
More
The Rambling Man ( talk) 19:46, 22 September 2013 (UTC) reply
I had already linked everything. The unlinked names don't have any page on Wikipedia.— Prashant 05:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC) reply
@Rambling Man. I did actually remove a lot of it but Prashant has restored a lot of the comments after a reviewer here asked why there wasn't any critical commentary. Frustrating. IMO you don't need to keep saying something earned acclaim.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:51, 26 September 2013 (UTC) reply
For your information, Blofeld, a nominator's work is to resolve issues of every reviewer and I juat did that by re-adding important facts, which were missing.— Prashant 17:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC) reply
There's an issue with tone here, and I can't support until it's resolved. The Rambling Man ( talk) 08:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC) reply
The neutrality work I did on this was sadly undone. I strongly agree with you that a filmography should not mention critical acclaim and highly successful movies in every sentence and I have removed this now. You can imply critical acclaim anyway by wording it as "won a Filmfare Award for her performance in xxx" which I've now done and the article reads much better for it. I've reedited this now anyway, which is closer to the version which had the original supports here, not the version which you saw. Is that better now RM?♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Thanks Blofeld for improving the tone. I appreciate it. But, all the supports came on my version and not yours version. Above discussion is enough to prove it.— Prashant 04:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC) reply
No, the version Schrod and Crisco supported was the toned down version and the sugary and monotonous prose was the reason why it failed first time around. I'm sure if you asked some of the others they'd prefer a sugarless filmography. Next to nobody wants to visit a filmography and to be told if every film was a commercial success or failure, they can read this in the main article, people primarily are visiting it to get a comprehensive list of films. Documenting the major awards won alongside particularly notable roles is all that is needed and infers success anyway without the sugar. Naturally we try to be as responsive as possible to FA input, but it doesn't necessarily mean that every point a reviewer brings up or "answering to critical acclaim" is right or an improvement. Given the choice I'd rather somebody opposed this on the grounds that it doesn't state if every film was a critical or commercial success than somebody as experienced as Rambling Man opposing it because of sugary, monotonous prose (which was why it failed first time). I think the current version is the best it has ever looked on top of the constructive input already put into this and the addressing of tone again and I can't see any major outstanding issue as to why this shouldn't be passed now. I'd like some further input here from User:SchroCat, User:Crisco 1492, User:Giants2008, User:The Rambling Man and User:Jionpedia in particular as to whether they agree that the toned down version is indeed the way forward. We seemed to almost go back to square one for a moment.. This should at least make it clearer to the delegates as to whether we're getting anywhere..♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Well, I was about to change the tone of the article as per The Rambling Man. But, you did and I agree the article is at it's best. So, thank you. There is no need for more discussion please stop it— Prashant 12:03, 28 September 2013 (UTC) reply
I think the discussion is needed, because if I was one of the delegates reading this FLC I'd find it difficult to keep track of progress.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:04, 28 September 2013 (UTC) reply
I also agree that the current version is superior. I think it's great.— Prashant 08:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Comment I would re-start the nomination. The previous comments and supports are really no longer valid based on the fact they were made on an historic and no longer relevant version of the list. The Rambling Man ( talk) 20:43, 3 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Any delegate watching this who has the power to pass or fail, I'd fail it based on the incivility of the nominator. This was a most disgusting message which I received earlier from Prashant and he's dismissed Rambling Man's comments as a joke. If one of the delegates had seen this abuse of one of the reviewers here it would have failed long ago anyway. I did nothing here but to act in good faith and to try to stop it failing yet according to Prashant I'm out for self-glorification (as if a filmography of an Indian actress is the way to go about that). I'd ban him from FAC and FLC based on his past and current behaviour.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Hahc21 10:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC) [1]. reply
Priyanka Chopra filmography ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
I am nominating this for featured list because Priyanka Chopra is one of the most popular and versatile actresses in Hindi cinema. The article has been thoroughly researched and is a comprehensive and well-written account of her filmography. The lead covers the most important content from the table, which is sortable. — Prashant 02:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Support. Much better this time round and the intervening work on both text and table has moved it from a straight fail into a strong list. - SchroCat ( talk) 11:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 ( talk) |
---|
*Comments from Crisco 1492
I have added one quote for Barfi!.— Prashant 13:09, 18 August 2013 (UTC) reply |
Thanks Schrod and Crisco for your input and support. But on the quotes and critical acclaim thing Crisco, that was largely why it failed before because it was overcooked on that front. A filmography in my opinion does not need to have quotes from reviews but should be purely focused on providing a very basic overview..♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:23, 19 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from indopug ( talk) 03:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC) reply |
---|
; Good work overall.
Seeing as to how the budget and box-office figures are riddled with inaccuracies and inconsistencies, I have to oppose this FLC. A thorough audit of each and every figure is required. Of course, a simpler option is to simply remove both columns; I will have no problem with this. It's probably better left to the films' articles, and FLCs such as Satyajit Ray filmography don't bother with them anyway.— indopug ( talk) 04:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC) reply
|
Resolved comments from Giants2008 ( Talk) 23:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments -
|
Oppose
Didn't anybody invite you to comment in the peer review on this? Thanks for your comments anyway.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Comprehensiveness? What? I have written her featured article. I know better. What you want should I list her films which she rejected or turned down. This is getting frustrating.— Prashant 09:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC) reply
He has a point about mentioning things like television appearances, TV adverts etc. The Bale filmography does.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Okay So, Bale's filmography also has Budgets and box-office. It means I should add it back again? It's getting tired now. There is nothing in India called Saturday Night Live. So, please let's not get there. As, she has done around thousands appearences in some reality shows. It's not that she has done a fiction or a miniseries. Also, for advertisements she has done many and then, if we can't give full detail why including them? This is a filmography page. Better stick to films and television.— Prashant 12:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC) reply
The figures have been removed and from what I can see your points have been addressed. I'm uncertain as to what you think is still stopping this from being promoted. In my opinion it is unfeasible to add every trivial appearance she ever made but some of the major TV shows and adverts which have been documented might be worthy of inclusion, although the main article only mentions one TV show. Indian actors have tons of endorsements and most are not really notable. Priyanka Chopra is a film actress and the list should primarily be a fully comprehensive list of films which she appeared in (which it is). What exactly do you think is really needed? Every chat show appearance and advert?♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Comment – Looks like the nom is not interested in the candidate anymore. — Vensatry (Ping me) 04:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC) reply
I am very much interested as I'm the main contributor and nominator of the list. I was busy for sometime that's all.— Prashant 16:11, 30 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Oppose on a really quick read-through, there are still too many issues.
The Rambling Man ( talk) 16:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC) reply
More
The Rambling Man ( talk) 19:46, 22 September 2013 (UTC) reply
I had already linked everything. The unlinked names don't have any page on Wikipedia.— Prashant 05:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC) reply
@Rambling Man. I did actually remove a lot of it but Prashant has restored a lot of the comments after a reviewer here asked why there wasn't any critical commentary. Frustrating. IMO you don't need to keep saying something earned acclaim.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:51, 26 September 2013 (UTC) reply
For your information, Blofeld, a nominator's work is to resolve issues of every reviewer and I juat did that by re-adding important facts, which were missing.— Prashant 17:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC) reply
There's an issue with tone here, and I can't support until it's resolved. The Rambling Man ( talk) 08:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC) reply
The neutrality work I did on this was sadly undone. I strongly agree with you that a filmography should not mention critical acclaim and highly successful movies in every sentence and I have removed this now. You can imply critical acclaim anyway by wording it as "won a Filmfare Award for her performance in xxx" which I've now done and the article reads much better for it. I've reedited this now anyway, which is closer to the version which had the original supports here, not the version which you saw. Is that better now RM?♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Thanks Blofeld for improving the tone. I appreciate it. But, all the supports came on my version and not yours version. Above discussion is enough to prove it.— Prashant 04:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC) reply
No, the version Schrod and Crisco supported was the toned down version and the sugary and monotonous prose was the reason why it failed first time around. I'm sure if you asked some of the others they'd prefer a sugarless filmography. Next to nobody wants to visit a filmography and to be told if every film was a commercial success or failure, they can read this in the main article, people primarily are visiting it to get a comprehensive list of films. Documenting the major awards won alongside particularly notable roles is all that is needed and infers success anyway without the sugar. Naturally we try to be as responsive as possible to FA input, but it doesn't necessarily mean that every point a reviewer brings up or "answering to critical acclaim" is right or an improvement. Given the choice I'd rather somebody opposed this on the grounds that it doesn't state if every film was a critical or commercial success than somebody as experienced as Rambling Man opposing it because of sugary, monotonous prose (which was why it failed first time). I think the current version is the best it has ever looked on top of the constructive input already put into this and the addressing of tone again and I can't see any major outstanding issue as to why this shouldn't be passed now. I'd like some further input here from User:SchroCat, User:Crisco 1492, User:Giants2008, User:The Rambling Man and User:Jionpedia in particular as to whether they agree that the toned down version is indeed the way forward. We seemed to almost go back to square one for a moment.. This should at least make it clearer to the delegates as to whether we're getting anywhere..♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Well, I was about to change the tone of the article as per The Rambling Man. But, you did and I agree the article is at it's best. So, thank you. There is no need for more discussion please stop it— Prashant 12:03, 28 September 2013 (UTC) reply
I think the discussion is needed, because if I was one of the delegates reading this FLC I'd find it difficult to keep track of progress.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:04, 28 September 2013 (UTC) reply
I also agree that the current version is superior. I think it's great.— Prashant 08:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Comment I would re-start the nomination. The previous comments and supports are really no longer valid based on the fact they were made on an historic and no longer relevant version of the list. The Rambling Man ( talk) 20:43, 3 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Any delegate watching this who has the power to pass or fail, I'd fail it based on the incivility of the nominator. This was a most disgusting message which I received earlier from Prashant and he's dismissed Rambling Man's comments as a joke. If one of the delegates had seen this abuse of one of the reviewers here it would have failed long ago anyway. I did nothing here but to act in good faith and to try to stop it failing yet according to Prashant I'm out for self-glorification (as if a filmography of an Indian actress is the way to go about that). I'd ban him from FAC and FLC based on his past and current behaviour.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC) reply