Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Alia Bhatt/archive1

Alia Bhatt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/Alia Bhatt/archive1

Nominator(s): Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the FAC grind after very many years with another Hindi film actress bio. Might be a bit rusty, but looking forward to constructive comments to get this one to its best version. Cheers! Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text

• File:Alia_Bhatt_at_the_promo_launch_of_'Student_of_the_Year.jpg: source link is dead. Ditto File:Alia_Bhatt_2016.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:47, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria: alt texts added. I've replaced the former pic with a different one that has a working source link, and have updated the sources of the latter pic. Thank you for the review! Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there a citation in the lead's first sentence as it is particularly controversial information or wording?

Her British citizenship leads to a lot of vandalism/edit-warring, which is why the refs & hidden note were added.

• I'd revise "troubling circumstance" in the lead as it is pulled directly from the CNN quote in the article.

Done.

• This part, (One of India's highest-paid actresses, Time magazine), is referring to Time as one of the highest-paid actresses.

Tweaked.

• By "victim of drug abuse", do you mean drug addict? If so, I'd use that. The current version reads a tad sensationalized to me.

"drug addict" wouldn't technically be correct in this context, coz in the film, her character is forcefully fed drugs, so a "victim of drug abuse" seems more apt.

• I do not know about the "titular prostitute" phrasing. I get it is more descriptive, but why not "title character"?

Changed.

• Do you know anything further about where she was born other than just the country?

This has been a bit controversial, and no definitive information exists about it.

• I have a clarification question based on a discussion on the talk page. That discussion claims that India does not allow for multiple citizenship. So is Bhatt no longer an Indian citizen? Would it be worthwhile to clarify that? Also, when did she get her British citizenship? Some further context may be helpful.

Well, India doesn't allow dual citizenship, and she is a British citizen by birth. Unfortunately, no other definitive information exists beyond this.

Apologies in advance for the stupid question. My knowledge about India is extremely limited. How is she a British citizen by birth if she was born in India? I get that according to the citation that she has a British passport, but as an outsider, I am unsure on this. Aoba47 (talk) 14:35, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Times in the UK reported that her mother is British, which is why she has a British passport.

• I do not think it is necessary to say "has said" for the quotes. I believe you can just say "said".

Yep, removed.

There are still a few instances of this in the article. Aoba47 (talk) 14:35, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• This quote, ("I don't remember much of the shoot. I would go to the sets only for the food"), seems unnecessary to me.

Removed.

• This quote, ("a washout. Not only is she inelegant in the dance numbers, but her expressions are limited; and the digital retouching of her face throughout the film is a distraction"), is rather long. I think it would be better to paraphrase it.

Tweaked.

• I am uncertain about this part, (Bhatt was keen to play a better role). It implies in Wikipedia's voice that Student of the Year was a bad role, and I think that should be avoided for something more neutral.

Tweaked.

• I would be mindful of WP:SEAOFBLUE in areas like (Imtiaz Ali's road film Highway).

Tweaked.

• I would avoid one-word quotes like ("surprise" and "stupendous") as it does not really add much to the article.

Removed.

• This sentence is trying to convey too much information: (She played a Punjabi girl who has an affair before her wedding, in Humpty Sharma Ki Dulhania, directed by Shashank Khaitan, which was described as a tribute to Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge (1995) by Johar.)

Tweaked.

• What is meant by "accomplishments" in this sentence: (Her accomplishments in 2014 established her career.)? Critical reviews? Box office? It also seems a bit tacked-on at the end of the paragraph.

Changed.

• IsCentral Board of Film Certification controversy with Udta Punjab notable enough to mention in this article? It seems to be more about the movie than Bhatt.

Removed and condensed.

• Would it be possible to find a link for "a ghetto dialect"? I am an American and I likely have a very different reading on this.

Linked and changed wording.

• How did death of Sushant Singh Rajput lead to a debate on nepotism? It is not clear in the article.

Tweaked the wikilinks so people can read up on the nepotism debate caused due to his death.

• I am unsure of this sentence: (The year 2022 was key for Bhatt.) I get it is a topic sentence, but I am not sure if it is worded the best, particularly when done in Wikipedia's voice.

Tweaked.

• Memoirs of a Geisha is about sex work to some degree, but I would not lump geishas and prostitutes together generally. I just do not really think of Memoirs of a Geisha under the header of "films about prostitution" as done in the article.

Removed.

• Because Bhatt's personal life is so separated into its own section, this sentence came off as very abrupt: (Filming and release were delayed by a few months due to her pregnancy.)

Is there any other way you'd suggest to include this?

• For this part, (the unplugged version), is "unplugged" referring to an acoustic performance? If so, I'd use "acoustic" instead.

Done.

• In the "Singing and stage performances" subsection, there are a few sentences that start with "In X year". I would be mindful of that as it does make the prose less engaging and come off more as just a listing.

Tweaked.

Welcome back to the FAC process. This review goes up to the "Personal life" section. Apologies for not doing it all in one go. I hope that these comments are helpful. I will continue my review once everything has been addressed. I hope you have a good weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 02:23, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So good to have you review my work again, Aoba. Looking forward to the rest of your comments. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad that I could help. Thank you for addressing everything. I will post the rest of my review momentarily. I have left two responses above. One is a clarification question and the other is pointing out that there are still instances of "has said" in the article. Aoba47 (talk) 14:35, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about missing out on those. Should be done now. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I have similar issue with titular prostitute in the article as I did for the lead.

Done.

• This was recently added to the article: (As per the Netflix engagement report, it received nearly 110 million views, making it the second most watched film in the second half of 2023.) I wonder if there is a way to condense it. Something like (According to Netflix, Heart of Stone was the the second most watched film on the platform for the second half of 2023)?

Trimmed it further to just say "The film had strong viewership on Netflix", which I think is sufficient for her bio.

• I think it would be worth linking trolling.

Done.

• I would condense (for being a beneficiary of nepotism) to (for benefiting from nepotism).

Done.

• I am not entirely sure of the relevancy or need for this part, (which journalist Malavika Sangghvi described as an extension of the dumb blonde stereotype). It is already established that people were trolling her intelligence based on this so I do not think that this specific journalist and this specific stereotype adds much beyond that.

Removed.

• Is "clicking pictures" is correct? I am mostly seen it as "taking pictures".

Changed.

• This is more an observation, but I am unsure about the third paragraph of the "Media image and artistry" section. It comes off more like an indiscriminate listings of lists that involve Bhatt. I would be curious if there was a way to present this information in a more engaging manner. Right now, it seems like a lot of a lot and is a bit repetitious. I am not saying you need to change it, but it is something that caught my attention.

I can understand this, although I've tried to make the text flow in the most engaging way, much like how it has been written in other FAs such as Deepika PadukoneorPriyanka Chopra who also regularly feature in such lists.

• I would italicize film titles in the citation titles per MOS:CONFORMTITLE.

Done.

• Could you explain to me how works/websites are linked in the citations? I am not entirely sure I follow it. For instance, I do not see The Indian Express being linked.

I've gone through the refs, and have linked the first occurrence of each publication.

• Citation 27 does two authors in the byline (Neha Sharma and Navdeep Kaur Marwah) so that should be added to the citation. Citation 99 also has an author credited in the article (Namrata Joshi), but not included in the citation. It would be probably worth double-checking through the citations to see if there are any other instances of this.

Added.

Thank you for addressing this. The authors are missing for the following citations: Citation 90 (Stutee Ghosh) and Citation 103 (Simon Abrams). Aoba47 (talk) 20:25, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Citation 159 is missing a work/website parameter (in this case India Today).

Added.

This should be everything, but once all of my comments are addressed, I will read through the article a few more times to make sure I have not missed anything. I have actually seen Heart of Stone so I was honestly surprised to remember that I have seen Bhatt in a movie. Aoba47 (talk) 14:48, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the detailed review, Aoba47. Do let me know if there are further improvements to be made. Also, Heart of Stone is one of her weakest films, and definitely not a good barometer to judge her abilities. Haha. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought Heart of Stone was just okay, but I would imagine that she would be better in a better role (and just a better movie lol). I have three quick comments on the citations below:

• Do you think that The Live Mirror should be linked? There is nothing wrong with red links, but do you think that there is potential for an article here?

I've replaced the source.

• Citation 16 no longer leads to the article. Citation 124 is dead.

I've replaced citation 16 with a better one. Updated the other ref, which is now # 123.

• For Citation 15, I would clarify in the citation that it accessed through Google Books with the "via=" parameter.

Done for both the book sources.

Once these are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 20:22, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All should be done now. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 05:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Just wanted to point out that my above comment on Stutee Ghosh and Simon Abrams not being attributed in the citation still needs to be addressed. Other than that, the article looks good to me. Aoba47 (talk) 06:23, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, so sorry. Didn't see that comment. Done now. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing everything and for your patience. I support the FAC for promotion. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any help with my current FAC, but I completely understand if you do not have the time or interest. Best of luck with the FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 06:37, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your thorough review, Aoba! :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:17, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Drive-by comment, as this is outside my area of expertise; the lead somewhat bowdlerizes the description of Gangubai Kathiawadi; the film, and Bhatt's role in it, were pathbreaking precisely because they examined sex work, and avoiding naming it in the lead does them a disservice I think. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Vanamonde93, thank you for your comment. I've added that she played a prostitute in the lead. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I see Aoba47 said the opposite above: if "prostitute" sounds too crass, how about "sex worker and activist"? Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess Aoba47 didn't like the phrasing "titular prostitute" and not the word "prostitute". Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for jumping into this conversation. I did not have an issue with the word "prostitute". I had an issue with the phrase "titular prostitute" as it sounded off to me. It could just be a matter of personal preference on my part. If other editors think that "titular prostitute" would be better, I would not be opposed to it being reinstated as it is not a major point for me. Aoba47 (talk) 18:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Three weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few academic sources that might be worth using.

• https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-15-0191-3_17 - a prominent book on Hindi cinema with one chapter dedicated to Bhatt.
• https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-981-99-5700-2 - Bhatt appears in two chapters here, including Young Women.
• https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/26607476 - this is "merely" a review of Bhatt's performance in Raazi but I still think this can be included to offer some variety of the reviews of her performances in the article.

I can't say if the list of academic sources is exhaustive though since my research didn't take very long. FrB.TG (talk) 11:54, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FrB.TG, thank you for the links. But how do I get access to these books as I am unable to read them in full. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:07, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delayed response; I’ve been down with a very bad fever for the last few days. You should be able to access at least the JSTOR one with WP:TWL. The Springer ones might also be available. FrB.TG (talk) 20:21, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, FrB.TG, I hope you're better now. I added the one JSTOR "review" of Raazi, but did not get much else of value there. Unfortunately, I could not get access to the Springer ones. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another drive-by from me: the first of those (Stardom in Contemporary Hindi Cinema) has such poor grammar in its abstracts that I cannot see how it a heavy-weight source. The second, however, seems necessary to incorporate. WP:RX should be able to help, if you cannot access it through a library. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:22, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, FrB.TG and Vanamonde93 I've paraphrased the analysis on her personal life from the two chapters in the Being Bollywood source. Do let me know if this works. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:04, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. This gives the article a much more comprehensive feel even if it's just a few sentences. FrB.TG (talk) 13:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the help. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:25, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to review this, seeing that there haven't been many reviews, and I have an ongoing FAC, so might as well help out.

• (Lead) – "In addition to acting, Bhatt has launched her own sustainable clothing brand, Ed-a-Mamma, an ecological initiative, CoExist, and a production company, Eternal Sunshine Productions." - Considering how much of the article is about her filmography to this point, I think the last paragraph could take a bit more time expanding on her other interests. This is a lot for one sentence, so I suggest start with whatever one happened first, and then go from there.

Tweaked.

• (Early life) – Alia Bhatt was born on 15 March 1993[3][4] in India. - what state? Do you have a city?

This has led to discussions before. Unfortunately, no definite information exists beyond the fact that she was born in India.

Are you sure? I'm reading a lot of Google searches saying her birthplace was Mumbai. This source backs up up. India is too big of a country, and Alia too big of a star evidently, for me to be OK with just listing "India". ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was always ready to add Mumbai (which logically too makes the most sense), but had been challenged before. Anyway, I've added it back now. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Four sentences in the Early life section start with "She". The writing could be improved by some variety, instead of the same sentence structure.

Tweaked.

• I feel like you could get the point of the second Early life paragraph without using the quotes, and just describing it, but if you feel strongly about the quotes, I won't object, because on the other hand it's nice to have quotes describing an event.

I've tried to not use too many quotes. I'd say two of them (which are not too long) should be fine.

• "She next appeared in Vikas Bahl's short film on women's safety, entitled Going Home." - any more about this? "appeared" is vague, as is whatever the film was, and when it was, and the importance of it. If it's not important, should it be removed?

Expanded, for clarity.

• So I just noticed you mentioning currencies in the article. I appreciate you listing both the Indian and the US. It might be worth putting a note somewhere whether the box office totals are unadjusted or inflated. I presume it's just box office sales. And this is a bit of a picky note. I'm enjoying the read so far.

Since she's only been active for a decade, I don't think "inflation" would be much of a factor anyway, so all figures are unadjusted.

• "This led to vote brigading on the film's trailer on YouTube, on which it became the second most-disliked video." - apparently it's number three, but wow.

Added, "to that point".

• "Even though she learnt to speak her lines in the language, a dubbing artist eventually voiced her lines." - the "eventually" feels unnecessary, and almost pointed.

You're right. Removed.

• "Earning over ₹3.5 billion (US$42 million) worldwide, it emerged as one of the year's highest-grossing Hindi films." - why not specify it was 7th? "one of the" feels wishy washy

Done.

• " she walked the ramp to support the cause" - is "walked the ramp" a well-known phrase? It seems odd to me that would be such a significant event worth noting

To me, it's pretty common to use this phrase, in Indian English.

But what does it even mean? As an American, I've never heard of this phrase. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It refers to a ramp walk. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To do a random source spotcheck, I used a random number generator between 1 and 203 (the number of references).

• 25 - checks out, the source covers the information, and is properly cited.
• 202 - yup, covers the information and is properly cited.
• 79 - covers a significant moment and is properly cited.
• 144 - backs up the information and is properly cited.

Thank you for the source review.

I get the picture. One last thing, should Bhatt's political views be mentioned in the article? Her views on Gaza I thought were good, calling for peace. On the other hand, Alia Bhatt attended the opening of the Ram Mandir. I know Bhatt is known for being an actress, but given her widespread activities in other ventures, there should be more about what she actually believes, says she believes, that kind of stuff.

This is a tricky one. She has never been vocal politically or religiously, which might have to do with the kind of trolling one receives these days. Having said that, I didn't find including an Insta story re-share to be particularly notable enough to include. As for the Ram Mandir inauguration, she did so without speaking about the whys or whats, or lending supporting to the ruling party, which is why I once again did not really find the need to include it. I'm keen to hear your thoughts. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 10:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hope my comments aren't too difficult to address. I enjoyed the read, not really knowing anything about her (other than having seen RRR, incidentally). Let me know if you have any questions, Krimuk2.0 (talk · contribs). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the thorough review, Hurricanehink. Hope to hear back from you soon. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 10:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick replies! I'm OK with not having the political views (after all, she's an actress), so the only thing left is her birthplace. Also, is it worth mentioning the name of Alia's daughter? I'm guessing that you opted not to for editorial reasons, which is fnie, but if the daughter starts acting in films like her mother at some point, then it should be added. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Her daughter's name had been removed by someone else. I've added it back now. All should be done now, Hurricanehink. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support now! Thanks for the fixes. Good work on this. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:26, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SC

Very enjoyable article. Just a couple of comments:

• "walked the ramp": I'm not sure what this is - you may need to make it clearer
• There's some inconsistency in your capitalisation in the sources, with some having every first letter caps, and others being sentence case. These should be consistent.

That's my lot. - SchroCat (talk) 16:26, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind words, SchroCat. Your first point has been addressed. I just have a doubt about the second one, and would like to clarify it. I've followed the capitalisation in titles as written in the source itself. Shouldn't that be the case? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, they should be formatted consistently, rather than as the source. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. All done, SchroCat. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. All good for me; this meets the FA criteria on prose. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a spotcheck took place above. Given what is says on paid news on The Times of India, I must ask if the sources have been checked for the presence of paid news. Source #12 has a "{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)" error message. Firstpost seems to have a questionable reputation. I doubt that JSTOR links need archives. Why does #168 need a red padlock when other uses of this source don't? What makes bollywoodhungama.com a reliable source? Reliability-wise, I must caution that I am not deeply familiar with the reliability of Indian news media. Also, are there biographies? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Times of India and Firstpost, along with numerous other Indian media sources, may carry paid reporting. I have taken caution to use these, as well as other sources such as NDTV or Hindustan Times with due caution. As for the portal Bollywood Hungama, it has been used as a significant source for Hindi film FA-class articles for over a decade, including in Deepika PadukonetoPriyanka Chopra, and has such never been challenged.

Sources 12 and 168 are now fixed. JSTOR archive removed.

No reliable biography of the actress has been published, as yet. Thanks for the comments, Jo-Jo Eumerus. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 09:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]