Talk:Amitabh Bachchan/GA2

GA Review (1)

1st review by Lazman321

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Reviewer: Lazman321 (talk · contribs) 03:24, 1 October 2020 (UTC) Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed As part of the October Backlog Drive, I will be reviewing this article for GA status. Lazman321 (talk) 03:24, 1 October 2020 (UTC) 1 - Well Written a - Clear and Concise Prose In the second to last paragraph of Early life and family, there are some prose issues. It reads: Amitabh Bachchan married actress and politician Jaya Bhaduri in 1973 and together they have two children Abhishek, an actor, and Shweta, an author, journalist, and former model. Abhishek married fellow actress Aishwarya Rai and together they have a daughter named Aaradhya. Shweta is married to businessman Nikhil Nanda who is a part of the Kapoor family of Bollywood. Together they have two children Navil and Agastya. The family resides in his two famous houses, Jalsa and Pratiksha, both in Mumbai in the Indian state of Maharashtra. Change it to: Amitabh Bachchan married actress and politician Jaya Bhaduri in 1973 and together, they had two children, Abhishek, an actor, and Shweta, an author, journalist, and former model. Abhishek married fellow actress Aishwarya Rai and together, they had a daughter named Aaradhya. Shweta married businessman Nikhil Nanda who is a part of the Kapoor family of Bollywood. Together, they had two children, Navil and Agastya. The family resides in his two famous houses, Jalsa and Pratiksha, both in Mumbai in the Indian state of Maharashtra. Not agree. They are all still together and alive. So it won't be in the past tense. User:The9Man, Yeah, the family is still alive and together, but this should still be past-tense because marrying and having a child I.e. giving birth to a child is an action that they did in the past. Plus, past-tense reads better in this case, and the paragraph saying that Amitabh and Jaya "married" does not imply that they later divorced or that Jaya died. Saying Amitabh and Jaya "had" children does not imply that the children later died or were disowned. If any of those things happened, the article would've explicitly said so. Lazman321 (talk) 01:04, 7 October 2020 (UTC) @Lazman321: Married is an event that happened in the past but 'having' children is a present thing unless the parents or the children die. Here is a list of 5 GA articles for you to refer. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Bill_Gates#Personal_life https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Jennifer_Connelly#Personal_life https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Pen%C3%A9lope_Cruz#Personal_life https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Shah_Rukh_Khan#Early_life_and_family https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Gisele_B%C3%BCndchen#Personal_life - The9Man (Talk) 08:55, 13 October 2020 (UTC) In the sub-section named Early career (located in Acting career), move Many of Bachchan's films during this early period did not do well, but that was about to change. to after His only film with Mala Sinha, Sanjog (1972) was also a box office failure and remove but that was about to change. and replace the comma with a period. Y. Done You sure? I don't see any change. Lazman321 (talk) 17:25, 5 October 2020 (UTC) I guess there was some mishap. Done now. - The9Man (Talk) 12:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC) b - MOS Adherence The MOS guidelines that need to be followed in order to be passed are the guidelines on lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. The lead section looks fine. The layout seems to be consistent. There were no "words to watch". All fiction that is used in this article is attributed to the movie it's from. It follows the guideline of fiction. The only list incorporation that is in this article is in the voice acting sub-section and the awards section. Both are used appropriately as if they were converted into prose, it would be really tiresome to read. The only MOS guideline not listed that I noticed needed attention was that citation 17 was placed before a period. That one isn't required for a GA pass but is against the MOS. Y Changed. 2 - Verifiable with No Original Research a - Reference List There is indeed a reference list. This criterion is easy to meet. No action needed. b - Reliable Sources Remove citations 35 and 57 as they are citing Wikipedia articles, which is against Wikipedia policy. Citations 62 and 193 are not reliable sources and should be replaced by more reliable sources. Citation 44 is kind of problematic because it is from a blog, but the blog is from a famous Hindi critic so I am not sure. Other than that, the sources seem to be reliable enough.  Done. The claim using citation 44 is established by other citations already and won't be an issue, it is reliable too. c - No Original Research Successes during this period like the crime drama Aaj Ka Arjun (1990) and action crime drama Hum (1991), for which he won his third Filmfare Best Actor Award, looked like they might reverse the trend, but this momentum was short-lived and his string of box office failures continued. This statement is backed up by box office websites that didn't explicitly state that the two films "might reverse the trend" of failures. As a result, this may be original research. Other successful films of this period include Shaan (1980), Ram Balram (1980), Naseeb (1981), Lawaaris (1981), Kaalia (1981), Yaarana (1981), Barsaat Ki Ek Raat (1981) and Shakti (1982), is not backed up by citations. Plus, there are almost no citations backing up the awards that Amitabh won in the acting career section.  Done except the award citations. d - No Copyright Violations This tool that detects copyright violations has a 92.4% confidence that a lot of the information in this article is taken from this webpage. That is alarming. Try paraphrasing the phrases that the tool thinks the article is copying from. There seems to be some confusion here. I have used the tool and not found anything like that. 92.4 copyvio is a serious issue and this article would not be surviving this long if that was the case. - The9Man (Talk) 08:16, 5 October 2020 (UTC) Apparently, I had to checkmark the option that clears the cache. It's okay now. Lazman321 (talk) 17:25, 5 October 2020 (UTC) 3 - Broad in its Coverage a - Main Aspects I definitely learned a lot from this article and believe that it did cover the main aspects of the topic. No action needed. b - Stays Focused The fourth paragraph of Early life and family should be moved to Acting career as the first paragraph in Early career or even its own sub-section.  Removed I don't see any particular section where we can include this. Further, I believe it is not important as well. A lot of awards are mentioned throughout the acting career section, even though there already is an awards section and a page dedicated to the various awards that he received. You don't see other actors having awards mentioned in their history section. N Vaguely put. I don't see any issue here as all the information is referenced. Let me know if you want to change anything in particular. I was trying to ask you to remove the awards listed throughout the acting career. Most GA articles and nearly all FA articles don't put awards in the acting career section. Though I discovered that even in FA articles, like William Hanna and Joseph Barbera, not all awards have to be removed. Maybe cut down the number of award statements in the acting career section except for the notable ones like ones for really famous movies by Amitabh Bachchan or ones widely documented by news organizations. Keep the awards section. Lazman321 (talk) 16:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC) Also, the books listed in the awards section will have to be moved to the further reading section. Y I have re-arranged the whole section. 4 - Neutral This article is written from a neutral point of view. No action needed. 5 - Stable There are no edit wars or content disputes going on right now. 6 - Illustrated a - Copyright tags on non-free media Nearly every image is free to use in Wikipedia. However, I am concerned about the image of Amitabh Bachchan with his wife considering every other image from Bollywood Hungama, there is proof that Bollywood Hungama did grant permission to use, but not this image. Please explain why do you think this particular image doesn't have the permission. I have checked the licensing and it looks okay to me. The proof I am talking about is the OTRS ticket that all the other images from Bollywood Hungama have. This image doesn't have one. Lazman321 (talk) 16:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC) b - Relevant media All media used in this article are relevant to the topic. No action needed. 7 - Overall This article could use some improvements but is decent overall. This review will be  On hold for 14 days. Good luck. Lazman321 (talk) 06:01, 4 October 2020 (UTC) Because I have put another request on this review, I will be extending this review to another 4 days for a total of 18 days. 3 days have passed, meaning you have 15 days left now. Lazman321 (talk) 01:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC) @The9Man: Where are you? You haven't done any more of the suggestions that I have brought up. Lazman321 (talk) 18:20, 12 October 2020 (UTC) I can see that you have put 18 days time to work on the article. Why the hurry now? - The9Man (Talk) 08:23, 13 October 2020 (UTC) I will be requesting a Second opinion from other reviewers soon. Lazman321 (talk) 16:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)  Second opinion requested Hi Lazmanif321. What aspect of this review would you like a second opinion on? If it's about the use of this image: File:BigB N JayaB.jpg, I would agree that the licensing is insecure as it is a crop of a copyrighted image without an appropriate license. It is also concerning that it was uploaded by a blocked user. I have removed the image from the article, and listed it on Commons for deletion. SilkTork (talk) 12:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC) Thanks, SilkTork. I was concerned about the insecure copyright of the image. I guess the main thing I want is for you to see if there are any more problems in the article that you can find. Look at the rebuttal towards making a paragraph in present tense and see if you agree with it. (I am fine if you agree with the rebuttal.) Make sure you notify The9Man once you are done reviewing the article and have put it on hold. Lazman321 (talk) 15:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC) Hi Lazmanif321. Would you like me to finish the review for you? There are times when I get fed up with a review and don't want any more to do with it. I can take over and deal directly with the nominator and then pass or fail it myself, and you can get on with other things. If you prefer not to have your name involved, then you can either fail it, and User:The9Man can nominate it again, or I can simply delete this review as housekeeping and start over. Up to you. SilkTork (talk) 15:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC) Yes, I would like you to finish the review for me. I fine with having my name involved. Thanks if you can. Lazman321 (talk) 15:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC) No probs. SilkTork (talk) 15:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

GA review (2)

Closed as fail. SilkTork (talk) 10:13, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I'll start reading over the next few days and then begin to make comments. I am normally a slow reviewer - if that is likely to be a problem, please let me know as soon as possible. I tend to directly do copy-editing and minor improvements as I'm reading the article rather than list them here; if there is a lot of copy-editing to be done I may suggest getting a copy-editor (on the basis that a fresh set of eyes is helpful). Anything more significant than minor improvements I will raise here. I see the reviewer's role as collaborative and collegiate, so I welcome discussion regarding interpretation of the criteria. SilkTork (talk)

Tick box

GA review – see Wikipedia:Good article criteria for detailed criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. Prose is clear and concise, understandable, without spelling and grammar errors:

   Prose is mostly fluid, articulate and enjoyably readable. There are places where use of short, almost elliptical, sentences hinders readability and understanding (example: "He was also one of the trustees of Rajiv Gandhi Foundation."); and the Television appearances section contains several one sentence paragraphs impeding reading flow, and giving the article a poor appearance. This should be adjusted as part of ongoing editing, though are not significant enough to hold up a GA, unless several other minor matters start to accrue. SilkTork (talk) 16:07, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

   B. Complies with MoS guidance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   This is almost always a pass. SilkTork (talk) 16:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

   D. No copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   There's been some non-vandalistic reverts recently. These are, however, very minor, and I don't expect them to continue, so this is a pass. SilkTork (talk) 16:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

6. Does it contain media such as images, images, video, or audio to illustrate the topic?

   A. Media are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   File:Amitabhbachchan28529.jpg appears to be an unauthorised crop of a copyrighted image: [1]. SilkTork (talk) 17:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

   B. Media are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Two images are very similar and are close together. SilkTork (talk) 17:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Y Already removed.

Comments on GA criteria

Pass

• Images are appropriately licensed and are relevant. SilkTork (talk) 10:21, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
• Prose is OK. SilkTork (talk) 13:34, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
• There is a reference section. SilkTork (talk) 13:34, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
• No evidence of copyvio or plagiarism, though there is an overuse of quotes that should be looked into. SilkTork (talk) 13:34, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
• No evidence of original research. Statements where checked are supported by sources. SilkTork (talk) 15:27, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Query

• Images File:Amitabh Bachchan - TeachAIDS Recording Session (19284544383).jpg and File:BachchanAmitabh.jpg are very similar to each other. Per MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE we should "Strive for variety". We only need one of them. SilkTork (talk) 17:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

YRemoved the second image.

• Do we need all of this quote?: "Bachchan is pretty terrific as Bhashkor, who reminds you of that oddball uncle that you nevertheless have a soft spot for. He bickers with the maids, harrows his hapless helper, and expects that Piku stay unmarried so she can attend to him. At one point, to ward off a possible suitor, he casually mentions that his daughter isn't a virgin; that she's financially independent and sexually independent too. Bachchan embraces the character's many idiosyncrasies, never once slipping into caricature while all along delivering big laughs thanks to his spot-on comic timing." This seems very specific to one role, which already has two other review quotes. The amount of coverage and use of lengthy quotes here and for his role in Pink, appear to be excessive; see WP:QUOTEFARM for some guidance on the use of quotes, and when their use may be exsessive. If these two films are particularly significant why are they not mentioned at all in the lead, while Shahenshah and The Great Gatsby are mentioned, but have barely any coverage in the main body? My background reading suggests that while Pink and Piku are frequently mentioned, films such as Black, Deewaar, Zanjeer and Don get more coverage. It's always difficult to decide what to give more coverage to, especially when more recent releases tend to monopolise the media, so we tend to use book when developing articles on notable people in order to help put things in context and decide what factors are most important, and which are least important - I don't see any book used here as a source, though there are many: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] - I've not read or reviewed those books, just listing them as examples; see WP:RECENTISM for more guidance on this issue. SilkTork (talk) 11:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

• Do we need all of the External links? If any of the websites provide more information than our Wikipedia article, then our article should be improved. Sites such as official websites or blogs, such as [10], are allowed, and sites which provide more media than we could incorporate are also allowed. See Wikipedia:External_links#What_to_link and WP:LINKSTOAVOID for guidance. SilkTork (talk) 11:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

• There are a lot of books in the Further reading section. It would be more useful if those books were consulted and used as sources for the article than merely listed. Unless there is a specific reason why a book has not been used as a source but is recommended to be read, we shouldn't really be listing it. Are you able to justify every entry in that list? If not, then the entry should be removed. The bulk seem to be about Indian cinema in general, and might be suited for Cinema of India rather than here. Why, for example, is "Rao, R. Raj (2008). "Memories Pierce the Heart: Homoeroticism, Bollywood-Style" (PDF). Journal of Homosexuality." listed? The abstract says: "In this essay, I enjoy using Amitabh Bachchan, perennial idol of the Bollywood screen, as a point of departure for ruminations on the construction of male friendship and male love within both Indian cinema and its primarily male audience (which, in a sense, represents in turn Hindi culture at large). Using translations of songs from Amitabh's films interlaced with my own personal experiences, we see how homosexuality thrives in covert yet recognized places in Indian culture, and how subtler forms of homosexuality are actually engendered under the auspices of normative patriarchal culture. Songs were translated by the author in collaboration with Jia Das.", so that appears to be more about male friendship than about Amitabh Bachchan. Would you be ale to revise this list to make it more appropriate? SilkTork (talk) 11:36, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

• Sources. Not quite a fail as there are plenty of cites, but the sources are almost all media - there doesn't appear to be one book used as a source, even though there are several books published. For readers (and this reviewer at least) to have more confidence in the completeness and balance of the article some books should be consulted and used as more reliable sources than press releases republished in media websites of dubious reliability. There's also one sentence ("Teji had some influence in Amitabh Bachchan's choice of career because she always insisted that he should take centre stage.") tagged as needing citation since last month. SilkTork (talk) 14:32, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

• Bias. Article tends toward superfluous words in praising Bachchan, but hesitates to detail controversies. It's not a major issue. But article does need a careful copyedit to resolve the tendency toward adoring the subject. SilkTork (talk) 15:25, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Fail

• Lead. To meet GA criteria 1(b), which relates to specific manual of style guidelines, the article needs to comply with the advice in WP:LEAD. That is, in addition to being an introduction, the lead needs to be an adequate overview of the whole of the article. As a rough guide, each major section in the article should be represented with an appropriate summary in the lead. Also, the article should provide further details on all the things mentioned in the lead. And, the first few sentences should mention the most notable features of the article's subject - the essential facts that every reader should know. The lead paragraph should be rearranged so that the reader gets to know very quickly that "Bachchan is regarded as one of the greatest actors in the history of Indian cinema." There should also be some detail from sections such as Early life and family, and Other work, particularly that he was a politician for several years, and was involved in a scandal. SilkTork (talk) 11:57, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I've made a slight adjustment to the lead. More work needs to be done to build it up. SilkTork (talk) 11:59, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

The near fatal injury should be mentioned in the lead. SilkTork (talk) 12:25, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

"he acquired a large overseas following in markets including Africa (South Africa and Mauritius), the Middle East (especially UAE and Egypt), the United Kingdom, Russia, the Caribbean (Guyana, Suriname, and Trinidad and Tobago), Oceania (Fiji, Australia, and New Zealand) and parts of the United States." - This list is too detailed for the lead. Also, those markets are not mentioned in the main body as far as I can see. The lead could have a sentence such as "he acquired a large overseas market"; and then a section (or sub-section) created for his Popularity, in which information is presented for his popularity in India and abroad, and the whole of that text could be included in that section. SilkTork (talk) 12:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

• Focus. There is rather too much focus on his later films, while information regarding his earlier films could be more developed. In general the article could do with a proper copyedit to resolve various imbalances in information, such as that we get more information about his name than we do about his three year political career which included a notorious scandal. SilkTork (talk) 15:12, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

• Coverage. There are various gaps in coverage. There is nothing about his theatre career before he moved into film, nor about his time as a business executive in Kolkata/Calcutta. I have added a filmography section, quickly merging in information from the excellent filmography article, but other sections need creating, such as one on his acting style and/or popularity, such as Laurence_Olivier#Technique_and_reputation. The article at the moment has accumulated information (from rather superficial sources), but now needs an editor or group of editors to take hold of it and fully research the man's career and organise the material into a reasonably informative coverage of his life and carer, enough to satisfy the curiosity of the general reader. The topic deserves better than it has got so far. SilkTork (talk) 15:20, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

General comments

Two images you have raised already resolved a while back. Can we finish it anytime soon? - The9Man ^(Talk) 10:10, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I tend to be slow. If that is an issue for you please let me know, and I'll withdraw and let someone else finish. SilkTork (talk) 12:45, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi. If you want me to continue and finish this off, please let me know. I should have some time on Monday to finish looking through and letting you know what I feel still needs to be done, or if the article is OK for GA. If you're OK with that, or prefer to ask someone else to finish it off, let me know. SilkTork (talk) 17:35, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I am okay to wait till Monday. Please do it. - The9Man ^(Talk) 05:52, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

• "briefly entered politics in support of a long-time family friend, Rajiv Gandhi." What does this mean? Did Gandhi ask Bachchan to support his election, or did he ask him to stand in the election as part of Bachchan's party? A few more details would be useful. SilkTork (talk) 14:48, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

• "Renowned film director Satyajit Ray was so impressed with Bachchan's voice that he decided to use Bachchan as the narrator in his 1977 film" - sentences such as this need to be toned down a little to make the article appear more neutral and balanced. SilkTork (talk) 15:22, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Pass/Hold/Fail

On hold. A lot of information has been gathered here by various editors over the years, but it appears that nobody has really settled down to organise the material. What is required is a period of research into sources more detailed than magazine stories and press clippings. And then organising the material to present a useful and balanced overview of the man's career. It's a fairly big task, though it can be done fairly quickly if there are one or two experienced, hard-working and willing editors prepared to devote some time to this. I'm OK with keeping this review open for a month (or more) if positive progress is being made. What specifically needs to be done:

• Research more deeply into Bachchan's life and career.
• Fill in the gaps in his early life. Develop more information on his early and important films.
• Create a section on his acting and popularity (both in one section, or a section on each).
• Reduce fluff and irrelevancy - particularly the long list of Further reading, and the many quotes from reviews of his more recent films.
• Organise the material so that details are not unnecessarily repeated, or which appear out of sequence. For example. the later family material is conventionally placed in a later section in biographies marked Personal life.
• Work on the lead so that anything that is mentioned in the lead is also mentioned (in greater detail) in the main body, and so everything important in the main body is summarised in the lead.
• Copyedit for neutral language, and to avoid short paragraphs which inhibit flow and give the article a scrappy amateur appearance.

I'll put this on hold for the standard seven days. I'm OK with extending this or with closing the review earlier if the nominator feels they would prefer to work on the article over an extended period. SilkTork (talk) 15:41, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Your suggestions are too vague and almost like rewriting the entire article! Sorry to say, but it doesn't make much sense to me. It's like one's opinion over 100+s other editors. You can go ahead with Fail. - The9Man ^(Talk) 06:06, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

To add to the above, I don't have any problems with your suggestions. But it will be a humongous task for such a major overhaul. Not just editing but also will be facing reverts, different point of views in what to add and what not to add in BLPs etc. I guess it's good to let it go and use my time for more constructive things. - The9Man ^(Talk)

I'm sorry you felt my suggestions were too vague. I had spent some time looking at the article, and then giving what I felt were detailed reasons for why I feel the article doesn't meet GA criteria, plus a plan for how contributors could work to make the article meet the criteria. I apologise that I wasn't clear enough. I do agree with you, though, that the article does require some work. I have worked on a good number of GA reviews, and in my experience the work that is needed here can be done in two to three weeks. But it would require editors experienced at working to GA standards, and who are keen and energetic. Sadly, most of us don't have that combination of experience, knowledge, skill, energy and commitment. As such I agree that closing the review is the best outcome at the moment. However, I hope the suggestions I have made will prove useful for moving forward with the article. Regards SilkTork (talk) 10:13, 15 December 2020 (UTC)