Talk:Preity Zinta - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Xcentaur (talk | contribs) at 11:15, 12 May 2007 (International Fame). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 11:15, 12 May 2007 by Xcentaur (talk | contribs) (International Fame)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

India: Himachal Pradesh / Cinema Unassessed

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Himachal Pradesh.
	This article is supported by the Indian cinema workgroup.

Biography B‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Archives

Intro debate (doing one thing after the other)

Preity Zinta (Hindi: प्रीति ज़िंटा, Urdu: پریتی زینتا. Pronunciation: /priːti ziɳʈaː/ born 31 January 1975) is an award-winning Indian actress who appears in popular Bollywood movies. She is among the most successful actresses in the industry, and is regarded as one of the biggest names in India. Zinta has primarily acted in mainstream cinema having the biggest hits of the last years, but has also done some critically acclaimed films. Today, she has the highest number of grossing films than any other actress of her generation. Zinta has also worked in the Tollywood industry.

Comments: Don't know about the Hindi and Urdu. Award-winning Indian actress is fine, I'd crop "popular". Her movies are not popular with everyone. How about:

... actress who is primarly working in the Indian movie industry popularly known as Bollywood.

Successful is correct, biggest names is a bit unencyclopaedic. No ordinary encyclopaedia says "biggest names". If one sees her award section, they'll know how "big" she is.

Next thing, how about: Zinta is successfully working in mainstream cinema. I'd crop the "critically acclaimed"-part. Her awards show how "critically acclaimed" she is.

Today, she has the highest number of grossing films than any other actress of her generation.

This can change with any movie. It's too unstable, so I suggest to leave it out. Same thing for the Tollywood part. How many Tollywood movies did she do? One? Not notable.

Please, please comment.

Best regards,--Plumcouch 17:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I see Plum's picked up the lead para. I agree with everything here, especially the Tollywood movie - I always wondered why it had to be in the lead. It can be mentioned in the career as a one-liner and later in the filmography, its unneccessary to have it in the lead. Regards,xC | ☎ 17:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

"Primarily acting" and "critically acclaimed" "Mainstream cinema" are not always seen in the awards sections. I think they should be kept. They are so neutral. If I`m not wrong, Pa7 has written that. Not me. It`s not overdone. and please keep the critically acclaimed.

Biggest names. I like it cause it`s true and unique statement. Anyway, it was posted there when there was a war of statements between me, Shez and other users. So I put this as well as Shez put his one (today she has emerged...) in Rani`s page. To be honest, both of us know that it`s true. She is mentioned everywhere. We don`t say THE biggest name, just ONE OF. never mind. Let`s discuss it.

Today, she has the highest number of grossing films than any other actress of her generation.

This can change with any movie. This could change undoubtly, but it hasn`t changed yet. This fact expresses her success at the B.O. Who knows, all her films this year would the highest grossing films. wouldn`t it?

OK, popular films is a little bit worthless. If we say she is popular, so it`s clear that she has popular films. Fine.

Yes, if you say primarily acting in bollywood, it means she`s worked out too.

Best Regards:-) --Shshshsh 18:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is my version as for now:

Preity Zinta (Hindi: प्रीति ज़िंटा, Urdu: پریتی زینتا. Pronunciation: /priːti ziɳʈaː/ born 31 January 1975) is an award-winning Indian actress primarly working in Bollywood. She is among the most successful actresses in the industry, and is regarded as one of the biggest names in India. Zinta has primarily acted in mainstream cinema, but has also done some critically acclaimed films. Today, she has the highest number of grossing films than any other actress of her generation.

What do you think?! Much more neutral. Don`t you think? Why don`t you write your brief version. Common guys! I`m enjoying. --Shshshsh 18:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Zinta has primarily acted in mainstream cinema, but has also done some critically acclaimed films.

I don't know - it kinda sounds like "If it's mainstream, it cannot be critically acclaimed." as if mainstream excludes "critcally acclaimed". Maybe we could rephrase it? Best regards, --Plumcouch 21:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC) PS. You get my suggestion and the answers to your questions on my talk page tomorrow, Shahid, as I have a paper due on Tuesday and am kinda about to panic. ;)

Yes I don`t have a problem rephrasing that. I don`t know, I like this statement so much. this critically acclaimed films is so neutral. We didn`t even say that she is acclaimed. We said that she had some critically acclaimed FILMS. In other words she was a part of an acclaimed film. Don`t you think? Anyway give me your rephrase. Best Regards. --Shshshsh 09:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion for a new career sections

The previous version is a little bit tasteless. I don't really understand why the "2005-present" has been separated from the whole Success section.

My suggestion is like this:

Since Zinta's career has been running very fast in the last 9 years, her Early Career would be 1998-1999. We can expand it a little, by adding some information about the beginning of her work.
Kya Kehna was the Breakthrough of her career in the full sense of the word. She received her first nomination for Best Actress and it was her first hit which is also her solo release.
Undoubtly, in 2003, came the success. She was the most successful actress of the year, winning awards and acting in the biggest films of the year.

So, that's the reason I'm doing that. If we use, 2005-Present in a separate section it sounds like all the success has gone since then till date. But the truth is that the actress had hits - every year, nominations - every year, and I believe this yer she will be even more successful.

I waited for Pa_7 to hear her opinion, that's why I didn't put into action my edit intents yesterday. Please Pa_7 discuss here your thoughts. Best Regards --Shshshsh 13:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Automatic Peer Review

As per User:AndyZ/peerreviewer - automatic peer review
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Misplaced Pages:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
Per Misplaced Pages:Context and Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
This article has no images. Please see if there are any free use images that fall under the Misplaced Pages:Image use policy and fit under one of the Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags that can be uploaded. To upload images on Misplaced Pages, go to Special:Upload; to upload non-fair use images on the Wikimedia Commons, go to commons:special:upload.
See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.
If this article is about a person, please add {{persondata|PLEASE SEE ]!}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Misplaced Pages:Persondata for more information.
Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.
Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Misplaced Pages:Summary style.
There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
- allege
- might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please ~~strike~~ this comment).
Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
- While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 19 additive terms, a bit too much.
Avoid using contractions like (outside of quotations): wasn't.
As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon . is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.
Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Misplaced Pages's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, xC | ☎ 06:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Put this here as it might help the article. Regards,xC | ☎ 06:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that theres no need to name every single ref tag that is used in the article. Only refs that are used more than once need a name, not all of them. Regards,xC | ☎ 06:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

International fame

"Moreover, Zinta is very popular in the Middle East countries, like Afganistan. Her portraits became covers of mirrors of Kabul's beauty salons and music and video shops and restaurants, along with other Bollywood stars such as Sharukh Khan and Madhuri Dixit. She is also famous in Netherlands"

This fact was there for a long time, but user xC objects to have it here. However, he/she didn't remove it from the page of Madhuri Dixit. I think Dixit deserves to have it. She is really popular and has a big and well honoured career. I know Zinta hasn't beaten Dixit's records, but if she also appears in the reference which describes the fact, why not mentioning it in her page too? I don't know why, but xC didn't have a look on Dixit's page and didn't remove it from her page like he did with Zinta. I see this fact remained on Dixit's page, so it remains here too. I like Dixit a lot, but I think it would be unfair to remove something from Zinta's page, while ignoring the existance of the same fact in Dixit's page. Best Regards. --Shshshsh 10:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

International Fame

I had brought this point up before, however User:Shshshsh insists on putting it back. The following content does not deserve place in an encyclopedia article-

Moreover, Zinta is very popular in the Middle East countries, like Afganistan. Her portraits became covers of mirrors of Kabul's beauty salons and music and video shops and restaurants, along with other Bollywood stars such as Sharukh Khan and Madhuri Dixit.
She is also famous in Netherlands

Let us first look at the Middle East countries portion.The reasons why it should not be included fall in three categories-

The text itself
The reference used to support it
Implications of adding this text

1. The text itself -

Zinta is very popular - why very? That is POV. Who decides her popularity? Do you have statistics showing that she is very popular?
Her portraits became covers of mirrors of Kabul's beauty salons and music and video shops and restaurants - Is she the only celebrity whose portraits are used in beauty salons and shops? No she is not, so this is non-notable.
along with other Bollywood stars such as Sharukh Khan and Madhuri Dixit - that explains the very same thing. She is an actress. Just like the actresses whose portraits are used, hers are used as well. Why is this notable?
This very same discussion has taken place before (refer to Archive2). I will repeat my concerns which I had raised earlier-
- Are the mirrors of Kabul's beauty salons notable? They are not, so why should their details feature in this article?
- Portraits of celebrities are used all the time, including in salons, shops, etc. Is it notable to write down exactly where all her portraits are used?

(2) The reference used to support it-

The reference used to support the above text is - this page.
Lets look at that first paragraph in the ref. It is written -
WHETHER it's a muddy, broken road in the historic town of Bamiyan, about 250 km from Kabul, or a bustling street in Kabul, at shops, stores, and particularly hair dressing saloons, big portraits of Shahrukh Khan, Ajay Devgan, Sunny Deol, Aishwarya Rai, Preity Zinta, Madhuri Dixit and scores of others greet you.

Khan, Deol, Rai, Zinta, Dixit are mentioned and alongwith that is written scores of others. She is not the only one mentioned in that article. She is not wildly popular that to the extent that all other filmstars are forgotten. She is just another filmstar among the scores that the people there like to watch. It is not just about Zinta. Remove.
The entire ref talks of Bollywood as a whole, and not Zinta in particular. In other words, using this reference and putting in these lines is fine for the page discussing Bollywood in general, but it tells us nothing about Zinta in particular. Remove.
The reference talks about Kabul. Why exactly should the beauty salons of Kabul be mentioned in the article? Why are the mirrors of Kabul so important that they and their details deserve space in an encyclopedia article? Remove.

Now I have discussed the leading paragraph. If we search for the name Zinta, we find that actually it is only mentioned twice in the entire ref. The first is in the leading paragraph, where she is mentioned as one among the scores. The other is right at the bottom. I will copypaste the entire paragraph where it is taken from-
"I simply adore Shahrukh Khan and loved his film Devdas. And your Preity Zinta is so beautiful. My dream is to come to India and meet Shahrukh Khan. And Indian music is great... I love listening to Lata Mangeshkar's songs. If I can ever meet her, I'll think I'm in paradise!"

The entire thing is a quote from an individual. Who is this individual? The article tells us that she is Nilab Sadat is a beautiful young woman, who had to flee to Peshawar in Pakistan during the Taliban era to continue her education. Why is she notable? She believes that Zinta is very beautiful, and she is. Does that mean we put in this quote into the article? No, we should not. Remove.
Zinta is only mentioned twice in the entire article - first among half a dozen other names, and second in a quote from a non-notable individual. What exactly does this page prove then? All it shows is that Bollywood might be popular in Kabul, and that there is some individual named Nilab Sadat who believes Zinta is beautiful. Based on this, why should we keep this particular content in the article? Remove.

(3) Implications of adding this text-

The mirrors and their posters are non-notable. Adding them in means that every such reference which talks about anything even trivially related to a film-star would have to be added into an article, simply because its noted so. Theres a public toilet near an old school I know which had a picture of Rajnikant and a poster of Shah Rukh Khan stuck on it. Does that mean we add in those facts to the article? It is a fact that those posters have been stuck on the public toilets, but does that add value to the article? What encyclopedic knowledge do the readers gain by knowing about these mirrors and their posters? Allowing this content to remain would set a poor example in terms of quality of the encyclopedia, therefore it should not be included.
Right now we are discussing Kabul, next on the list is Netherlands. Then it will be some other country. Soon we'll have a paragraph full of countries whose names have been mentioned. Then we'll end up having a List of countries where Preity Zinta is popular. It is unencyclopedic to have such a list. Therefore remove.
Mentioning popularity in a country also has other problems. Firstly, it is not universal popularity, ie. there will be people in that country who do not like her, or are not fans of her. So it would be misleading on our part to say that she is popular in the country as a whole.
Popularity is a very difficult thing to establish. Film-stars which are popular one minute can fall out of public favour the next, there are no statistics to establish sure-shot popularity and the concept of popularity as a whole is largely subjective. For example, the entire reference used is from the point of view of the journalist who wrote the article. On the other hand, market statistics, box office records, details about the films,etc. these are all verifiable solid facts. As an encyclopedia, we must deal with facts and not subjective opinions.

Now we can look at the portion stating her fame in the Netherlands, with this page given as a reference. Firstly, I believe as per WP:RS that youtube does not qualify as a reliable source. Secondly, all the points of Implications of adding this text hold true for this sentence as well. Simply adding names of countries where she is famous and/or popular does not add anything of value to the encyclopedia article.

Both these additions would be useful on a fanpage, or fansite devoted to Zinta. It might be interesting there as an entertainment list. However we are writing an encyclopedia article. Such additions bring down the quality of the content, and reduce how respectable the article is, and so should be removed.

Looking forward to all editors comments on the same,

Regards, xC | ☎ 11:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

"thehindubusinessline.com". Preity popular in Afganistan. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |accessdaymonth= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)
"youtube.com". Preity popular in Holland. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |accessdaymonth= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)

Categories: