Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Abhishek Bachchan filmography/archive1

Thank you, FrB.TG. I will fix the issues by tomorrow. Jim Carter 17:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG: I have shortened the article. It is now 2828 characters (485 words). Comparing to Shah Rukh Khan filmography, Khan is 3672 characters (597 words). I'm also doing some copyediting. Please tell me what you think now? Jim Carter (from public cyber) 07:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are many issues in the refs. and the lead. I suggest to review other filmographies, to withdraw this and open a peer review.--FrankBoy _(Buzz) 14:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes remove details about non-notable films like Naach Phie Milenege --Tito Dutta (talk) 01:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @FrB.TG: It would be better if you point out the issues in the refs and the lead before I consider withdrawing this FL. @Titodutta: I'll remove them. Jim Carter 04:44, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Jim Carter: The publishers of the references should be linked only at first instance not with each, such as Bollywood Hungama has been linked so many times. --FrankBoy _(Buzz) 13:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG: I think this has come up before. Overlinking doesn't apply to references and it can indeed be useful to have them all linked as we don't which reference is going to be clicked first. Cowlibob (talk) 20:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing this to featured filmographies, I think it would look better if overlinking is avoided. It closely follows similar lists of other actors. Anyways I am not insisting on it. Except this one, it looks fine. --FrankBoy _(Buzz) 20:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jim Carter: Both linking at first instance and linking all publishers at all occurrences have been used in previous filmography FLs so it's up to you, which you would prefer. Cowlibob (talk) 14:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not considering this an issue. It was just a personal preference. One more thing! It will be good if a reviewer reviews the image on Commons. Or it should be directly asked from a reviewer to have it confirmed. --FrankBoy _(Buzz) 16:50, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

• Remove the critic review for Refugee as sole critic reviews are POV. However you can mention that he was nominated for the Filmfare Award for Best Debut for this role (with a ref). - (Fixed: I haven't added about Filmfare nomination as I couldn't find any good source)
• We can't use words like "moderate breakthrough" without a source backing it up. Also the poorly received bit needs sources with examples of poorly received films during that period. (Fixed: I have remove "moderate breakthrough". I have added a film with a source)
• "fully fledged", I think you're trying to say that this film is what finally made him famous but you need a ref for that and need to rephrase it. (Fixed)
• I would probably not use any reviews in the lead. Just mention awards he won or was nominated for, if you want to elaborate on the recognition he got for those roles. - (Fixed: Removed all the reviews)
• I personally don't like to mention successes of films in terms of box-office in filmographies unless they are record breakers but if you want to use "commercial success", you have to have refs backing it up like Box Office India refs. Don't use terms like "hit", you can use commercial success. - (Fixed: I have mentioned three films in terms of box-office- Dhoom, Dhoom 2 and Dhoom 3. They all are record breakers of their release year. They are backed up by sources like Box Office India and Rediff. I have removed the word "Hit")
• In the lead you only need to mention certain films not the majority of them. I don't know this actor well but from a quick look at his filmography, I would mention Refugee, a few of the films that you said were poorly received in 2001-03, Kuch Naa Kaho, LOC Kargil, Run, Yuva, Dhoom, Phir Milenge, Bunty aur Babli, Sarkar, Dus, Bluffmaster!, Kabhi Alvida Naa Kehna, Umrao Jaan, Dhoom 2, Guru, Sarkar Raj, Drona, Dostana, Delhi-6, Paa, Raavan, Khelein Hum Jee Jaan Sey, Bol Bachchan, Dhoom 3, and Happy New Year. I've probably missed a few. - (Fixed: I have mentioned one film that was poorly received in 2001-03. I have kept only those films in the lead which you mentioned. I haven't removed Zameen (although you haven't mentioned) because it a important one.)

Table

• Remove the credited as column, nearly all his roles have been acting roles so no need for this column. Any films he produced, you can add producer in the notes section - (Fixed)
• Remove note a, you've mentioned it in the lead so no need to repeat it in the table. - (Fixed)
• Remove note b and simply add Bengali film to the notes section of the films
• As the director column sortable all entries should be wikilinked.

Ref

• Do a thorough check of the refs to make sure that they are RS. Ones that jump out at me are: dnnworld, glamsham, naachgaana, tellychakkar, bollyspice. Basically if there isn't a independent article on wiki about it, it's probably not a RS. Also that the refs back up the info in the table e.g. year of release, his appearance in the film, his role in the film, that he produced it, director, any appearances in songs. - (Fixed: I hope, I have fixed the issues. Note: I have not removed tellychakkar as it doesn't appear unreliable to me.)
• They should also use the correct format for refs. For newspapers/ magazine sources they should be cited like this (examples): <ref>{{cite news|url=http://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/bollywood/i-hate-producing-films-abhishek-bachchan/|title=I hate producing films: Abhishek Bachchan|work=The Indian Express|publisher=Indian Express Group|date=18 October 2014|accessdate=24 January 2015}}</ref>

For others: <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cnbc.com/id/39981442/Bollywood_s_Top_Earning_Celebrities?slide=5/|title=Bollywood's Top-Earning Celebrities|publisher=CNBC|date=|accessdate=25 January 2015}}</ref> - (Fixed)

• Only use enough refs required to back up the info. I see there are five refs for Bol Bachchan which is probably too much. - (Fixed)

Cowlibob (talk) 11:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cowlibob: I have fixed the issues you noted. Please take a look. The only thing I was unable to fix is I can't wikilink all entries in the director column as many of the directors don't have their articles and as the Featured list criteria says, "minimal proportion of items are redlinked.". Thank you. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 12:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jim Carter - Public: Please note that it's not appropriate to "cap, alter, strike, break up, or add graphics to comments from other editors".--FrankBoy _(Buzz) 19:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG:  Fixed Please review again. Jim Carter 09:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "His supporting role in the romantic comedy Main Prem Ki Diwani Hoon (2003), for which he was nominated for the Filmfare Award for Best Supporting Actor, marked a turnaround for his career" is not what the source says. Also, having some knowledge about his career, this statement is untrue. Yuva was the film that proved a breakthrough for him.
• Why is the first occurrence of the Filmfare Award for Best Supporting Actor not wikilinked?
• The usage of "xxx-directed" is overused in the lead. Please tweak.
• "In 2013, he starred in the action thriller Dhoom 3, opposite Aamir Khan, the film became the highest grossing Bollywood film of all time"." A semi-colon after Khan would make the sentence a little bit better.
• In the television appearances section, please do not include appearances for film promotions. The appearances are too many, so unless all of them are included, it makes no sense to cherry-pick some.
• The fact that Dhoom3's record was broken by PK is quite redundant here, because Bachchan had nothing to do with the latter.

From what I can see, the prose needs quite a bit of work. There is a significant lack of flow between your sentences; they seem like a listing of one film after another with little additional value. I don't want to discourage you, but a peer-review would probably be beneficial before an FLC nom. Cheers! -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 06:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Krimuk90: I've redone this list as per your comments. Timeline was sketchy for me as this actor is unfamiliar to me. Basically I want to get across: Refugee + series of flops --> Yuva (first critical acclaim), Dhoom (first hit), Then a series of acclaimed supporting roles (three consecutive Supporting Actor Awards)-->Dhoom 2, Guru -->Paa-->more flops-->Bol Bachchan (next hit), Dhoom 3, Happy New Year. Cowlibob (talk) 10:20, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That sums it up perfectly, though in his final three hits he had supporting roles to other male superstars. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 11:33, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Krimuk90: Clarified the last sentence now to reflect that he was supporting. Cowlibob (talk) 14:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "However the film was a box office failure, which he followed with appearances in a string of films which performed poorly at the box office such as Bas Itna Sa Khwaab Hai (2001), and Shararat (2002)" ==> "However, the film was a box office failure, as were a series of his subsequent films, including Bas Itna...."
• "turnaround" is used twice in the lead. Maybe something else?
• "appeared in the Karan Johar-.."
• "in the action thriller sequel..."
• "The following year, Bachchan appeared in the biographical film Guru (2007), his performance was positively received." Not a grammatically correct sentence. Please tweak.
• Too many consecutive uses of the phrase "the following year"
• A mention about his sole Bengali film will be beneficial in the lead.
• " Bachchan then suffered a brief setback in his career after he appeared in another series of films which poorly performed at the box-office". He didn't suffer a setback after the films flopped. He suffered a setback because one film after another flopped.
• In general, there is hardly any mention of the roles he played in the films. For example, he played a police officer in the Dhoom series, a goon in Yuva, a businessman based on Dhirubhai Ambani in Guru, are all critical information.
• This is a personal preference, but a film-related image is always better in an actor's filmography page. There are quite a number of options from Commons.
• Check the format of Ref. No 12.
• Ref Nos. 40, 50 and 91, for India Today, needs fixing.-- KRIMUK90 ✉ 03:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Cowlibob, have you taken over the nomination from Jim Carter? -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 03:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Krimuk90: Jim Carter sorted some and I've sorted some of the other points above. Could you please point out what's wrong with ref 12? Also with India Today as I thought IndiaToday.in was it's online arm. Could you point out some good quality pics ones of him from recent times on Commons? My googlefu failed me. I'm not taking over just ensuring it's in good standing as I've put some effort into it, I'm certainly not taking it to its conclusion as I'm shortly going to be leaving Wikipedia for a while. Cowlibob (talk) 10:26, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref. 12 is now Ref. 14, and there is a formatting error, it currently shows as: "Pressurising Farah to make 'Happy New Year' sequel: Abhishek Bachchan". The Indian Express (Indian Express Groupdate=16 November 2014). Retrieved 4 February 2015.
• India Today refers to the magazine, so it should be formatted using the cite news template. The publisher for the magazine, the various sister news channels, and the website are of course owned the India Today Group.
• Among other options, this image, can probably be used after cropping to focus on his face. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 12:32, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I see a mention has been made of his role in the 2002 film Desh. I see that he only had a cameo in it (though that information is missing in the filmography table). A mention, thus, must be made of Antarmahal in the lead in which he had a full-fledged role. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 12:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Krimuk90: Corrected the above points. India Today Group now known as Living Media. Website seems to be in lower case. I think the picture can stay, it's relatively up to date for his appearance which is the main goal for the lead pic. Cowlibob (talk) 17:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]