Wikipedia:Peer review/Sonam Kapoor/archive1

Sonam Kapoor

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Sonam Kapoor is an Indian actress, working in Bollywood films. She, not as successful as her contemporaries, is known more for her dresses than her roles and films, which are not quite entertaining and most of them have failed commercially. In the meanwhile, she has starred in some of the films -- such as Raanjhnaa and the recent Prem Ratan Dhan Payo -- which might be remembered for a short period of time. Recently, the article was thoroughly copy-edited by a user. I would like to nominate it for FA and in order to do so, I would like to see comments on how I can further improve the article.

Thanks, Frankie _talk 19:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Yashthepunisher

Make sure all the issues raised by editors at its recent FAC are resolved.

Yup, they are. The issues were with parts in Media image (now removed) and prose (now copyedited).

"Kapoor was nominated for three Filmfare Awards and won two Stardust Awards." It should be: "Kapoor has received three Filmfare nominations and has won two Stardust Awards".
"She also had a minor role in..", as both films came the same year.
Is it necessary to mention the "volume" and "issue" of ref 3?

I dunno but I don't see anything wrong with it.

Death date of her paternal grandfather seems irrelvent for her biography. You can write: "Kapoor's paternal grandfather was the late film-maker Surinder Kapoor."
Is there any information available on how she recovered diabetes and ovarian disease?

What about this one? Yashthepunisher (talk) 15:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Yashthepunisher: Sorry, forgot to respond to this one. No, I could not find any information on her recovery. -- Frankie _talk 19:55, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Salman Khan had a special appearance in Saawariya. So, Ranbir Kapoor and Rani Mukherji should suffice.

I have to say, the things you have written above are funny. :) Yashthepunisher (talk) 11:51, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. :) -- Frankie _talk 15:50, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are more coming. Yashthepunisher (talk) 16:15, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"In an India Today interview, Kapoor said that.." You can escape the "India Today" bit, and write directly what she feels about the character.
"Nikhat Kazmi of The Times of India.." Wikilink Nikhat Kazmi, and author-link her in the reference.

I have linked the critic in the prose part but haven't authorlinked her as I have decided not to link authors in references.

"The actress then starred in the Pankaj Kapur-directed.." This sentence is quite long. You can merge its second-half with the following sentence.

I don't see how they can be merged as they are completely unrelated.

"it failed commercially[49][50]..". You can place these ref's at the end of the sentence. Will look much better that way.

That is cause ref 49 and 50 are only for the box-office parts.

"Kapoor's role in the romantic drama Raanjhanaa (2013) was a breakthrough,". Quite vague. It should be either "was a breakthrough for her career" or "proved to be a breakthrough for her career".
"..a young Muslim student from Varanasi who is drawn into Indian politics after the murder of her Sikh lover." Off-course she will be drawn into "Indian" politics, not the British politics; if she lives in Varanasi.
"she is also the brand ambassador for the Elle Breast Cancer Campaign." This sentence starts after a semi-colon, but it should be a stand alone. So you can remove the semicolon.

Yeah, it can be but both of them are about breast cancer so they can fit perfectly.

the section name "Personal life and work" is quite confusing. What kind of work? other work, off-screen work or charitable work?
Provide a source for her appearance on "Apna Bombay Talkies" in the table.

That's it from me now. Hope this will pass in its next attempt. Even though i don't like her personally. In the mean time can you please take care of this? Yashthepunisher (talk) 16:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will do the row thing soon. -- Frankie _talk 09:32, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jaguar

"She is close to her maternal grandmother, whom she says has had a major influence on her personality" - this could be written in a better tense; She remains close to her maternal grandmother, whom she says has had a major influence on her personality
"Critics were disappointed with Saawariya, which the BBC's Jaspreet Pandohar called a "misfire on a massive scale"" - might sound better as Critics were disappointed with Saawariya, with Jaspreet Pandohar of the BBC calling it a "misfire on a massive scale" or BBC's Jaspreet Pandohar, if you prefer

Yes, it does sound better however a reviewer pointed out that with two "with" (in a close distance) it might get repetitive.

"Although Shubhra Gupta of The Indian Express calleded" - called
"The film, and Kapoor's performance" - may sound better as The film, along with Kapoor's performance
"As of November 2015 Kapoor was filming Ram Madhvani's Neerja, a biopic" - biopic is already linked before
"About her religious beliefs the actress said, "I am quite religious. It's a great way of reminding myself that I need to be thankful for so much."" - I think this needs to be written out in prose and be less reliant on a quote before nominating it for FAC. I think it's one of those things a FAC reviewer would pick on, so maybe something like Regarding her religious beliefs, Kapoor stated that she is "quite religious", and that it was a way of "reminding myself that I need to be thankful for so much".
"With a Twitter account since 2009 and a Facebook page" - is her Facebook page since 2009 too?

That is not known.

Ref 137 is dead

Those were all of the initial (minor) prose issues I found in my first read-through. A great article overall! JAGUAR 22:06, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback, much appreciated. -- Frankie _talk 08:56, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review from SNUGGUMS

For File:Sonam Kapoor at the Trailer Launch of 'Dolly ki Doli'.jpg and File:Anil Kapoor and Sonam Kapoor at film screening.jpg, I would add locations to their captions
It seems odd to not include a pronoun in the caption for File:Sonam Kapoor promotes 'Raanjhanaa' on the sets of Jhalak Dikhla Jaa Season 6.jpg

I found no copyright issues. Best of luck at FAC. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:04, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TrueHeartSusie3

Unfortunately I don't have the time for a really thorough review, but I hope that you will find the following suggestions helpful:

I wouldn't use 'the actress' to refer to her (too 'magaziney'), I'd stick to Kapoor/she.
Is 'borderline diabetes' a medical term? Or was she just warned by her doctors that she is close to getting Type 2 Diabetes?
How did Kapoor get to know Rani Mukerji?

Well, the actress' father is a well-known actor so they might have known each other before but there is not anything I could find about how they knew each other.

I'd move the stuff about her being cast in Saawariya from "Early life" to the next section.
I think 'debut' is more common than 'début'
I'd reword the para about her first film a bit, just so it's clear from the beginning what character she plays.
Sony doesn't need to be in brackets
You need to cite Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic (or a similar website) if you state that a film got overall negative/positive/mixed reviews – this goes for every film discussed in this article.

Thanks for thinking of that but I don't think that's a good idea. The reviews I add give readers the idea of how the film was received as I pick up a review which most of the critics have written the same way. Besides, none of the current GAs/FAs do that.

On the contrary, I think most GA/FA actor articles (and of course film articles) use Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. I understand your point, but the problem is that readers won't be able to verify that you've actually gone through plenty of reviews unless you also cite RT/MT. I'm definitely not suggesting that you should cut any of the comments from reviews, just that you should also cite those review aggregators.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:26, 23 December 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

I have added sources (not necessarily RT or MC) for verification of the films' overall critical performances.

I'd like to hear how Kapoor became interested in acting and what her thoughts are about her first role/film

Actually she assisted Sanjay Leela Bhansali with the intention of becoming a director and writer but when the director expressed interest in casting her in one of his films, she accepted the offer and instead became an actress. I don't think that needs clarification in the article as it says "Originally wanted to be a director and writer. While Bhansali worked... "

I'd reword "The actress' second release was in 2009..."
I'd reword this as well "She played the eponymous protagonist...", or add something like 'She next played...'
What's a fashion film?
"Kapoor's string of poorly-received films hindered her career" – I'd mention this much earlier.

Among her poorly-received films is also Players, the last film to be mentioned in the para, so it is exactly where it should be.

What I meant was that if you're talking about a period when most or all of her projects failed, for reasons of clarity I would mention this already when you begin to discuss this period, rather than in the end. E.g. "Kapoor's films following her debut were mostly commercial and critical failures..." and then move on to discussing these. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:26, 23 December 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

Actually not all of the films following her debut were failures. And despite her debut film's failure, she fetched some good offers. If I go on and write what you said, I don't think writing about the commercial and critical performances of those films would be worth it as above it would already be mentioned that films following her debut failed.

If she was already nominated for two big film awards for her debut film, how can Raanjhanaa be her breakthrough?

Awards do not necessarily mean breakthrough. The film sank at the box office as did most of the films after it until Ranjhannaa that's why it's considered her breakthrough role.

But 'breakthrough' commonly refers to the role which first raises an actor from obscurity, and therefore I find it strange that someone would be nominated for acting awards and star in a hit film and not be at least moderately well-known? If you mean to say that after a string of failures, in 2013 she finally established herself as one of the top actresses in Bollywood, I'd use a different word than 'breakthrough' or at least specify what type of a breakthrough we're talking about. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:26, 23 December 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

I have replaced it with "turning point". Hope that's good.

"made on a budget of ₹300 million (US$4.5 million), Kapoor received ₹11 (16¢ US) " – this is probably a mistake, surely she didn't earn just sixteen US cents for the role? Also, you should probably only mention her pay if it's notable – i.e. makes her one of the highest-paid actresses, etc.

Yes, she was paid only 16 cents lol but I've removed it anyway.

Why was she paid so little though? It sounds very unusual, so it could be worth mentioning.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:26, 23 December 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

Yes, it is quite unusual for an actress to accept that little amount of salary. She took the salary because of her love for the film and its director.

Dolly Ki Doli – it's not clear why she would be studying confidence tricks for the role; does her character intentionally deceive people into almost marrying her? I'm not entirely sure, but I think "runaway bride" most commonly refers to a woman who gets cold feet just before she is due to be married, there doesn't need to be any kind of deception involved?
"Udita Jhunjhunwala criticised Kapoor's performance in Mint, writing that her "range is too limited to bring alive a character that may have had heaps of potential on paper" – reword so it's clear it was her next film after DKD. Also, one review is not enough to establish whether a film was successful.
"In one of the highest-grossing Bollywood films of all time" – sounds awkward to begin the sentence like this, I'd reword.
In general, the article should discuss the reception of her films overall and quote specific reviews only as examples.
"Regarding her religious beliefs, Kapoor stated that she is "quite religious", and that it was a way of "reminding myself that I need to be thankful for so much"" – What religion are we referring to here?
"In a 2009 interview Kapoor addressed her insulin resistance, and has begun an initiative to increase awareness of diabetes" This is the first time it's mentioned that she is insulin resistant, so it's confusing. If 'borderline diabetic' in Early Life means insulin resistance, I'd mention it already there.
"Although the Indian media has speculated about romantic relationships between Kapoor and her co-stars, she has denied the suggestions.[87][88] Tabloid reports linked her with Ranbir Kapoor during the production of Saawariya, but both denied a relationship.[89] The media then speculated about a relationship with Punit Malhotra, director of I Hate Luv Storys, reporting that it ended in 2013." – I'd remove most of this as tabloid speculation should never be included in BLPs. It's fine to just state that she wants to keep her private life private and has only admitted publicly to dating Sahir Berry.

She never admitted to being in relationship with any of those men so it does not make sense to have the whole para.

I'd replace "ramp" with "catwalk"

As this is written in Indian English and "ramp" is more commonly used there, I think it is okay.

That makes sense, sorry about it, I'm unfortunately very ignorant about the conventions of Indian English – if I've made other similar comments, feel free to ignore them! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:26, 23 December 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

When did she appear in the music video? (also I think "which" might be preferable to "whose", I'm not a native speaker though!)

Whose shows ownership that "which" does not.

I think the listing of polls could be reworded a bit; for example, the bit about her being named one of the most popular Twitter users should be mentioned when her use of social media is discussed.

Like

"Other honours" – I'd specify that it's Indian Vogue/Hello/GQ that we're talking about here.

Hope these are helpful, best of luck with the FAC! :) TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 16:15, 22 December 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

Thanks for your comments! :) -- Frankie _talk 19:35, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! I added a couple of further clarifications/questions. Good luck! :) TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:26, 23 December 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

I have answered your further questions and some unanswered ones, too. Thank you. -- Frankie _talk 23:35, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Giants2008

Debut and career fluctuations: "It was the first Indian feature produced by a Hollywood studio Sony Pictures Entertainment." Comma needed before Sony.
2013 to present: The last paragraph is a one-sentence stub, a type of paragraph that is usually looked down upon at FAC. Try merging it with the previous paragraph, which is about her most recent work.
In reference 134, is the GQ link meant to go to the parent GQ article like it does now, or to GQ (Indian edition)? Giants2008 (Talk) 02:27, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All good now, thanks for the suggestions. -- Frankie _talk 09:50, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tony1

I read from the top down to the end of "Early life". It's hard to find fault with the writing in that portion. Maybe, maybe not remove "also". "who she says has had"—In this clash you go with the major process in the clause, not that fact that she's the recipient of "she says". Tony (talk) 12:45, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Got the influence part but I am failing to see what you're trying to say with not removal of "also". Could you be more specific? -- Frankie _talk 14:59, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Yashthepunisher, Jaguar, SNUGGUMS, TrueHeartSusie3, Giants2008, and Tony1: Thanks for your comments. They really helped further improve the article. Now moving to FAC. Please also leave your comments there if you want to. -- Frankie _talk 20:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]