Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:59, 1 July 2014

Kangana Ranaut

Kangana Ranaut (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/Kangana Ranaut/archive1

Nominator(s): AB01 (talk), KRIMUK90 ✉ 15:30, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

After Rani Mukerji and Vidya Balan, Kangana Ranaut is one such Bollywood actress who has helped push the boundary for a Hindi film heroine in a fiercely male-dominated industry. The article has been thoroughly researched and well-sourced and I look forward to a lot of constrictive comments. Cheers! KRIMUK90 ✉ 15:30, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Kailash29792

Just one comment for the time-being:

• There is a category named "Actresses in Tamil cinema" - is it really necessary? I mean, she has appeared in only one Tamil film, and is unlikely to appear in anymore. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:40, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

True. Since others like Priyanka Chopra and Deepika Padukone don't have that category either. Removed AB01 00:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Brief comment. I found that the high number of (often very short) quotations in the text made it difficult to read. I suggest more paraphrasing (perhaps target a 50% cut in the number of direct quotations); readers will be thankful and there'll be more of a chance of the article passing. Also, write out all contractions (e.g., "didn't" → "did not"). EddieHugh (talk) 21:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Done, I think AB01 01:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment EddieHugh. A lot of the quotes have now been paraphrased. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 01:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The rest of my comments:

• The lead says, "She then played opposite Hrithik Roshan as a superwoman in the science fiction film Krrish 3 (2013)" - I think you mean that she "acted" opposite him. Also, the term "superwoman" sounds too colloquial, just like how a strong man is called "superman" even if he cannot fly or release heat vision. So can we say "mutant" instead? Because that is what the character is.

"Played opposite" is quite correct. Changed "superwoman" to "mutant". -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 15:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

• I think the URL's can be archived in order to avoid link rotting. The India Today links may very likely die, as Checklinks always tags them as "Soft 404".

Actually, that's a Checklinks error. The India Today links are the least likely to expire, as they have online articles dating back to 1998. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 15:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

• Why are some newspaper/website fields italicised and some not? Please maintain consistency.

All print sources are italicised, and online sources are not, per the formatting used in the other FAs. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 15:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

• "Kaya, a shape-shifting mutant" - you can wikilink "shape-shifting" as it is not such a common term (I don't think many Indians know of the term, and they would refer to any Mystique-type of character as "form-changing").

Wikilinked shapeshifting. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 15:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

• The same paragraph reads, "The critic Sarita Tanwar reviewed" - for which newspaper/website?

Added. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 15:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

• FA's like Priyanka Chopra, Vidya Balan and Deepika Padukone have a filmography table, why is it absent here? If the list is too long, you can at least include "Selected filmography" just like for PC.

As I wrote below for Dwai's comment, that there is a separate page for her filmography. And since her filmography isn't as large as Chopra's or SRK's, I felt that a summary in prose would be better here instead of inserting another table. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 15:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I can't review this FAC so deeply due to time constraints, but it does look very well written and all the statements are well sourced. Once my few comments have been addressed, this FAC has my "support". Kailash29792 (talk) 14:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments Kailash. :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 15:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome Krimuk, and this FAC has my Support. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:09, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Dwaipayan

• "She has an elder sister, Rangoli, who now works as her manager..." Remve "now", may use as of.

Done.

• "her grandfather, was an IAS officer" "IAS" needs to be elaborated.

Done.

• "Ranaut who had been observing the character from a distance played the part along with " Perhaps can remove "from a distance". Also, is this info at all needed? Seems trivial.

-->We think it's important since it outlines what led to her pursuing a full-time acting career (which is shown in the next sentence)

• "A positive reaction from the audience prompted her to relocate to Mumbai to pursue a career in film" The preceding sentence is on her male role. So, do you mean the audience response to her male role playing encouraged her to move to Mumbai (it's possible to interpret in that sense due to proximity of these two sentences)?

-->Basically, a positive reaction towards her overall performance

At present it reads, "During a screening, one of the male actors went missing; Ranaut who had been observing the character played the part along with her original role of a woman. A positive reaction from the audience prompted her to relocate to Mumbai to pursue a career in film". So, the audience reaction to this particular performance (in which she played two characters, one male and one female) prompted her to relocate to Mumbai? If that is what the source says, then this sentences are perfect, no need to change. I thought good audience reception of all her performances during her theatre days prompted her move!--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:53, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what the source says. She relocated because the audience appreciated her in the dual roles. :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 16:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• "for a four-month acting course from Asha Chandra's drama school" "from" versus "in".

Done.

• "Ranaut later said..." when did she say?

Added.

• The long quotation "People in the industry treated me like I didn't deserve to be spoken ..." does not have any attribution: where/when did she say so?

Added.

• "Ranaut found support in the actor Aditya Pancholi..." need a hint of timeline -- the year/ something like "at the begiining of her struggle".--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Added.

Thanks for the comments, Dwaipayanc. :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 01:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• Are we generally avoiding table of filmography in actor articles? The Filmography, awards and nominations section in this article looks very short.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:53, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, since there is a separate article for her filmography and awards, and since her filmography isn't too large, I felt that a summary in prose would be better here instead of inserting new tables. What do you think> -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 16:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, there is no right or wrong way. Personally, I prefer the table available in the actor article (unless the table is huge in size). I like that because I don't have to navigate to another article to have an overall yet quick glimpse on the filmography. You don't need the awards table, of course. So, it's a matter of personal choice/preference.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. And that's why her most successful films are listed in the paragraph of this section. Anyway, I hope this doesn't affect the outcome of your review. :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 02:19, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Redtigerxyz

Disclaimer: I have not read the whole article; but only parts. Pardon me, if some of the comments are already addressed in other parts of the article. Most of what I have read looks good.

• "Ranaut initially aspired to become a doctor on the insistence of her parents." seems UNDUE IMO, as it is not really relevant to her career

I think it's important to show how she rebelled against what her parents wanted her to do, and establish herself on her own. It also puts into context why she was estranged from her parents. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 06:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

The doctor part really doesn't reflect the sentiment. You have say that something like "against her family's wishes," she joined Bollywood. --Redtigerxyz 06:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that is said later. Initial career aspirations are mentioned in other FAs such as Priyanka Chopra and Rani Mukerji too. So why not here? -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 06:55, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, wasn't the intention to show that she is a rebel. That is not established. --Redtigerxyz 16:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, but that is established much later. This one line just talks about what her initial career aspirations were, just like engineering and psychiatry were for Chopra. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 16:47, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Does she talk about it much; besides that interview and[REDACTED] mirrors. WP:LEAD says "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points". Is this one of them?--Redtigerxyz 04:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I tried. Can we please have some other users commenting on this? -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 05:42, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

That point is like a one-sentence summary of the Early life and background section, which talks a lot about her growing up days, education and career aspirations. So, yeah..I feel this is an important point AB01 05:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

@Redtigerxyz: I still maintain that this part is notable enough to be mentioned in the lead. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 09:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• "Ranaut's off-screen life has been the subject of extensive tabloid reporting in India." Almost every heroine has this feature. Is really needed in the lead?

Since the personal life section describes several instances of how much her relationships were covered in the Indian media, I think we need atleast one sentence in the lead to say something about it. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 06:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, disagree. Look at Angelina Jolie FA for example. No mention in lead.--Redtigerxyz 06:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Jolie's article states "...relationship notable for fervent media attention". As do other FA's like Deepika Padukone. So why not mention it here? -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 06:55, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, Messed up in a hurry what I really wanted to say last time. There is no reporting of individual media focus. Also, the Ranaut media attention pales to the scale of media frenzy over Bradangelia or even to the desi Deepika-Ranbir-Mallya.... relationships.--Redtigerxyz 16:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I understand. How about something like "Ranaut's off-screen life has generated media coverage in India". One line about this needs to be mentioned in the lead, don't you think? -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 16:47, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

(←) "extensive tabloid reporting" is an overstatement for Kangana whose coverage pales to the frenzy over the Kapoors, Bachchans, Deepika etc. "Ranaut's off-screen life has generated media coverage in India" is stating the obvious. Page 3 media works like that in Bollywood.--Redtigerxyz 04:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I would appreciate comments from other users on this point too. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 05:42, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I guess it would be ok to remove that statement, and instead add something about how she aspires to break away from stereotypical heroine roles and do more performance-oriented roles based on women empowerment (like in Vidya Balan's article) AB01 05:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

@Redtigerxyz:Okay, I have removed the sentence from the lead. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 09:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• Seems like POV-pushing of Ranaut; : "In a 2011 interview, Ranaut said: "Today, I have everything..."

Well, it's a direct quote. I agree that the "everything" sounds very pompous of her, but the rest of the quote acts like an apt conclusion to all the fights she had with her parents. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 06:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Beg to differ. It sounds like "They hate me, but I the magnanimous one still love me". Even "although I do a lot for my family and friends today." is her POV. A neutral observer's view saying the same will be NPOV. --Redtigerxyz 06:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Hence, in quotations. It's her quote, so it will obviously be from her POV. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 06:55, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you, Krimuk that it would sound incomplete without that quote. However, I've added a bit about her reconciling with her parents. I'm thinking we don't need the quote anymore. What do you say? AB01 02:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I still don't think the quote was not a case of POV-pushing, but anyway, we have removed it now Redtigerxyz. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 03:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

• "Ranaut has maintained a strong connection, and makes yearly visits to her hometown of Bhambla." Seems to be overstating the fact that she makes yearly visits.

Agreed. Removed. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 06:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

--Redtigerxyz 06:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments Redtigerxyz. Do let me know if you disagree with me on the first three arguments. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 06:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Support I've given it a thorough read and copyedit and removed a few quotes. I'm happy that the article is a sound account of an actress who hasn't been around that long really. One thing though, why was it only the 2014 film which made her a leading actress of Hindi cinema? It does sound a bit OR, is it in the source?♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Doctor. Much appreciated. :) Yup, this cited source says that Queen established her as a leading actress of Bollywood. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 09:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose Article does not exist or carry content to become a Featured content. Daan0001 (talk) 12:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)