Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Urmila Matondkar filmography/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 16 May 2017 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Urmila Matondkar filmography

[edit]

Urmila Matondkar filmography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Krish | Talk 13:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because the extremely underrated Urmila Matondkar is one of the most beautiful and versatile actresses of Indian cinema and one of the few actresess who can really dance. I think the list meets the FL criteria. Looking forward to lots of feedback on this.Krish | Talk 13:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Skr15081997
  • "box-office hits" can be replaced with a better phrase.
  • Cant' India TV, Koimoi and Book My Show citations be replaced with better ones?
  • Are all of the YouTube links free from copyright infringement?
  • Citations should appear at the centre of the column.

More later on. --Skr15081997 (talk) 13:55, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Skr15081997: Done. Koimoi is not suitable to cite box office figures, so. I had to use IndiaTv and other sources because there are no better sources available and, yes, Youtube links are fine as those are the official distributors of the respective films.Krish | Talk 08:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • critics public alike --> critics and public alike
  • Source for Satya being 1 of the greatest films?
  • possessed woman can be linked
  • the 1947 partition of India, simply the partition of India
  • Needn't link the Filmfare for Ek Hasina Thi
  • Sort the roles column by last name
  • Either link RGV at all instances or merely at the 1st mention.
  • Why list her awards and noms in the "Notes" section when there's a separate page for that?
  • Her TV presence deserves mention in the lead.
  • In Ref 5, News18 shouldn't be italicized.
  • I understand that the 90s film cast list are hard to find, but you can use other sources to cite the newer ones instead of Bollywood Hungama. 54 out of the 76 citations are from BH.
  • Are all of the character names cited? --Skr15081997 (talk) 09:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Skr15081997: Done with most of the things. If you didn't see the same News18 source lists greatest claims. I have worked on several FLs and all of them have awards listed in the notes section and no one sorts character names. Coming to your other queries, I would like to say that I wasn't even able to find that "recent" film Shabri article on any major Indian movie database (which aren't any apart from BH). Plus, her tv career boasts of forgotten tv shows and she has never been known for her tv roles or work, so I don;t think it requires a single mention in the lead.Krish | Talk 17:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ever wondered why {{DEFAULTSORT}} is used in articles? Please check a few of the recent FLC promotions and you will realise how common it is to use {{Sortname}} or {{Sort}} in the tables. If you are mentioning the important awards in the lead and there's also a separate page (Awards and nominations received by Urmila Matondkar) then I don't see the need to let them clutter the notes column. I just checked Google for "Jaanam Samjha Karo" "Chandni" Matondkar site:rediff.com and it shows a 3 April 1999 article. What I mean is that BH sources can be replaced with others if necessary otherwise the list relies heaving on it. You can check Ajay Devgan filmography. She played a cameo in Shabri so a name for her character wasn't really necessary for the story. --Skr15081997 (talk) 05:01, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Skr15081997: Okay, so I have sorted the character names. But I don't think I will remove the awards, which is listed in every Bollywood awards list. What I wanted to say about Shabri is that the reviews don't even mention Urmila's appearance.Krish | Talk 10:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, leave out Sabri, if that's really hard, at least work on the others. There are still 54 uses of BH sources. Yashthepunisher has raised the same concern. --Skr15081997 (talk) 08:17, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Aoba47
  • I would be careful with the phrase "accomplished dancing skills" in the second sentence of the first paragraph as it reads like a fan wrote it. According to the source cited, the actress "is known for her dancing", which does not translate to "accomplished". I would also specify the type of dancing that she is known for if possible, as dance is a rather diverse field.
  • I am still not completely sold on your second sentence. I appreciate that you have removed "accomplished", but I do not see anything in the source that support that her beauty helped her to gain popularity. Aoba47 (talk) 08:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would rephrase "acting skills" as it reads rather informal to me. I would simply say "Apart from acting" or something along those lines.
  • I do not believe the "Later" transition in the first paragraph is necessary, especially since the date of the film is cited.
  • I would simply say (1983) rather than (1983 film) for consistency.
  • Something sounds very wrong with the phrase "her adult role debut". I would revise this as it makes me think of an adult film (a porn film).
  • In the sentence about Rangeela, I would rephrase it to avoid the repetitions of the word "success". Also how did this film in particular mark her "successful" transition from child actor to adult actor? I am not quite seeing the connection.
  • I have tweaked a bit. Well, I have heard that her Rangeela success was equivalent to that of Kate winslet's Titanic. The film was a craze and so was she, her looks and her costumes.Krish | Talk 08:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I understand your point, I would just remind you that all of this should be supported through citations. If you want to put this information in, then you must have a citation that fully backs it up. I think the sentence looks much better now, and it is fine as it currently stands. Aoba47 (talk) 08:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The film Satya is not on the list article (List of films considered the best) linked in the lead. In the same part, you say that Satya has been cited as one of the best film in Indian cinema, but the source cited says "a modern masterpiece, perhaps one of the best films of the last decade". I do not think that translates to what you are saying in the lead. I would honestly remove this part altogether as this is a rather large claim that is not fully supported, with the author of the original source even further contextualizing this with "perhaps". Again, it raises some concerns with POV/language from a fan's perceptive. You could replace this part with information on the role she played in the film instead.
  • The phrase "box-office hits" is rather informal and I would recommend revising it.
  • I would revise/rephrase the transition "These were followed by a" as it reads rather awkwardly to me. I would use stronger language here instead.
  • I would revise the prose for the third paragraph as a majority of the sentences rely on the same sentence construction (i.e. she plays X role in X film).
  • According this page, her last film was in 2014. Did she retire or provide a reason for her absence/hiatus from acting? I would recommend adding something to the end of the last paragraph to address a reader's potential question on her recent activity. I even went to the person's main page to make sure she had died or anything like that as there is a definite cut-off point in terms of where she stopped acting altogether.
  • Well, this is Bollywood. Bollywood actresses are punished for ageing (40s) unless you are married to a notable actor, director, producer. Urmila is a complete outsider and she don't even have offers so I don't know what to add there.Krish | Talk 08:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would recommend using other sources other than YouTube to support her appearances in film. I would even rather have you cite the films themselves.
  • I would still discourage the use of YouTube links to reference her appearances in films, but it is fine if you believe that it is the best way. Aoba47 (talk) 08:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I would like to tell you that we have no Bollywood database such as Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, Allmovie etc for Bollywood films. So forget about the regional films which are not even covered well. There is just one Bollywood Hungama which only provides information about Bollywood films. There are no sources available to cite these regional films and those links were the only choice for me.Krish | Talk 17:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree Skr15081997's comments, and I believe you should address those as well.
  • @Krish!: Great work with the list; my primary concern is with the prose, particularly some of it coming across as too much like it is from a fan. I can tell from the nomination that you really like this actress, but you want to be as objective as possible in the actual list. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this. Aoba47 (talk) 00:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Aoba47: Fixed: Well, everybody loves Urmila. She was the best looking (and talented) actress of her generation and still is. She is one of the few who can really act, dance, and look great at the same time. You should watch her films mentioned in the lead. I chose this nomination because she's always been underrated and underappreciated. She actually changed the way actresses used to dress in films and in general. It's also another thing that the she was ruling the industry when I was six or seven and I used to watch her film songs and later her films on TV, an innocent crush maybe.Krish | Talk 08:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Krish!: Please strike out the points that you have addressed so I can keep a proper tally of what you have addressed in the article. I have added a few responses to my comments. There are only a few areas that I believe that still need some improvement. I found one source that is dead. I cannot find the support for her beauty being a factor in her career and her success in the source cited. I believe that my comment about Satya still needs to be addressed. Otherwise, I think that you have done excellent work with this, and I would be more than happy to support this once my comments are addressed. My remaining comments are relatively minor, but let me know if you have any questions or comments about them. Aoba47 (talk) 08:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Yashthepunisher
  • Delink 'Indian' in the opening sentence per WP:OLINK.
  • Matondkar gained popularity for her.. --> has also gained popularity for her dancing skills.
  • " She made her acting debut as a child in Shreeram Lagoo's 1980 Marathi film Zaakol." It should be 'child artist'.
  • I guess it can be merged with the next sentence that talks about Masoom.
  • Provide a link that says Masoom was critically acclaimed.
  • You should mention Ram Gopal Varma somewhere near Rangeela.
  • You can't use 'portrayed' unless its a real life character.
  • Again you are extensively relying on a single source (BH). The same thing you did here.

Yashthepunisher (talk) 17:00, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kailash
  • "later appeared in Shekhar Kapoor's critically acclaimed drama Masoom (1983)" - it's a Hindi film, right?
  • His last name is spelt "Kapur". He may have done this to avoid being confused as a member of the Kapoor family.
  • "Her portrayal of Mili Joshi opposite Aamir Khan" - if the term is not wikilinked, you may describe the character a bit.
  • "In 2003, she essayed" - say "portrayed" or "played", whichever term is used less in the list.
  • "This was followed by a series of commercial flops" - failures.
  • Mere Sapno Ki Rani links to the iconic song from Aradhana. But that's not what you mean to link to, right?
  • For those films where she played more than one role/one character with multiple names, please add a footnote.
  • Who is this director named "Various"? You could italicise the term, then add a footnote saying who the directors are. --Kailash29792 (talk) 08:17, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I guess not. This has my support. Kailash29792 (talk) 18:25, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Pavan

She was so fun in this which made me laugh watching such a gloomy RGV film. Great work, with two issues i could actually spot. Both minor though.

  • In 2003, she played a possessed woman in the 2003 successful horror Bhoot, which won her the Filmfare Critics Award for Best Actress. -- Why 2003 twice? And, what you intend to say by "successful" in this case? Please explain it there.
  • It is Ram Gopal Varma. Verma would redirect again which is not encouraging.
  • Links are fine otherwise.

That's all from me. ** Pavan Jandhyala ** 14:10, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, source review passed- still leery of the youtube sources, but I see that's been discussed up above so I'll let it go. Promoting. --PresN 16:27, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Urmila_Matondkar_filmography/archive1&oldid=1138479525"