Talk:Dimple Kapadia/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

we have to begin sommewhere, and I hope ur energies could have been used more productively by adding some more content than the delete tag. Iam going to expand the article, like I have done hundred others, and please remove the del tag from the articlevogon77 02:06, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

BetacommandBot 22:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 17:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Useful links

[1]/[2]. Shahid • ^Talk2me 23:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

"Gulzar did not let Dimple Kapadia blink even once in Lekin. The endless, fixed gaze gave her a feeling of being surreal." Web link: http://www.tribuneindia.com/2004/20040104/spectrum/book2.htm. Better ref link would be Gulzar's biography "Because He Is…" written by Meghna Gulzar. http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=Rsz9Tu6FAc3n-gbU2sy2AQ&id=mgFlAAAAMAAJ&dq=because+he+is+gulzar&q=blink -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 14:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much, it's there now. Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Is this worth going in Did You Know? -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 10:39, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

No I don't think it will be accepted, it's not new, and even though my expansion has been significant, it was not that short before. I'm planning to take it to WP:GA soon, though. Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Split

Good that Career section is growing. Should it be split now? But i too am wondering where to cut it into two. From DCH? -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 21:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

It's done per decades now. Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Images

Okay, I would like to have images for three of her films - Bobby, Rudali, and one of her latest films (DCH?). An image that would really increase readers' understanding of the topic and make the reading experience better is probably this one. Any other suggestions? Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Rudaali's pic is good. I couldnt find any better. We should try to find full profile view somewhere. Another option for Rudaali. For Bobby we can go with polka top which is vastly refered in article or the Koli girl look. For modern look DCH would be fine. But her role in DCH wasnt very important as was in Leela or Luck By Chance. Leela's pics are not glamorous and wont be showing any different look of her than her old films. From LBC we can have this one which suites the "Crocodile in chiffon" statement. Or.... can we go with any award ceremony's snap? --Animeshkulkarni (talk) 15:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Is adding a picture of her from Saagar worthwhile? I thought it was one of her best movies. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 18:59, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeh, but it must be an image of some significance - can you think of one? Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

As of now, one image that surely will increase readers' understanding of what they read is the one from Luck by Chance (thank you Animesh!). Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Dimple kapadia 54.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Dimple kapadia 54.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Dimple kapadia 54.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dimple Kapadia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Vensatry (talk · contribs) 12:04, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• I'll review this article. Will have a look at it soon. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 12:04, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Initial comments

• Is "Dimple Chunnibhai Kapadia" her common name.

• As far as I can tell, "Dimple Chunnibhai Kapadia" is her full name (shown in a number of general i'net searches, but no references in Google news or Google books), while "Dimple Kapadia" is her common name (much larger showing in general i'net searches, plus numerous refs in Google news and Google books). - SchroCat (talk) 09:21, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• The lead should precisely start with the common name. However, her birth name can be included in the brackets. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 15:23, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not sure it should - as per WP:BIRTHNAME. I think we have followed the format suggested there? - SchroCat (talk) 18:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• My bad! Also there should be a mention of her stage name in the lead according to the convention. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 07:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• The Debut section is dominated by quotes.

•  Done Balance of quotes and cited info. - SchroCat (talk) 06:23, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• I'd advise to remove the bracketed year in "Comeback (1984) and work in the 1980s" as it's a bit redundant.

•  Done - SchroCat (talk) 05:42, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• "after a common friend had notified Sippy about her willingness to come back to movies" is unsourced.

•  Done - SchroCat (talk) 09:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• "The film was a critical success and was eventually chosen as India’s official entry to the Oscars that year", ditto.

•  Done - SchroCat (talk) 05:42, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• What makes "buzzintown" a RS. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 07:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done

• Last three lines of the second para in the comeback section are unsourced.

•  Done - SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• Link art-house.

•  Done - SchroCat (talk) 05:42, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• "earned her a third Filmfare nomination" not verified by source.

•  Done - SchroCat (talk) 06:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

My initial impression with this article is that it's very close to GA stuff. However, there are a few glitches with respect to MoS compliance and sourcing. I'll revisit this article to provide a detailed review with in the the next couple of days. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 15:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Doc seems to have retired perhaps, if you don't mind, I'll address the issues that are brought up. Thanks for taking the review. TheSpecialUser ^TSU 10:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Further comments

• National Film Awards and Filmfare Awards are completely unsourced in the "Awards" section.  Done
• Make the filmography table sortable.  Done
• She is a Hindu?

Where is this?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• Why is the first occurrence of "Rediff.com" (in the debut section) not linked and the second occurrence (Comeback and work in the 1980s) linked.  Done
• Also in references either link all or just the first one alone. Done
• "The film was acknowledged as the Best Hindi Film of that year at the annual National Film Awards" unsourced. Done
• Last four lines of the third para in the 1990s section rely on a single source. Done
• Last two lines of the next para, ditto
   Done

—Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 07:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Check against the criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I'm awarding this article GA-status. Congrats and keep up the good work! —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 06:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Vens for the decent review, got there eventually!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 10:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Dimple Kapadia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100323115221/http://downloads.movies.indiatimes.com/site/nov2000/ivw7.html to http://downloads.movies.indiatimes.com/site/nov2000/ivw7.html
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130202152743/http://www.screenindia.com/news/Dimple-Kapadia-s-Interview/7457/ to http://www.screenindia.com/news/Dimple-Kapadia-s-Interview/7457/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110525234252/http://downloads.movies.indiatimes.com/site/oct2001/ivw5.html to http://downloads.movies.indiatimes.com/site/oct2001/ivw5.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://movies.indiatimes.com/articleshow/843650.cms
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.bangaloremirror.com/index.aspx?page=article&sectid=76&contentid=20090130200901302044304630061598&sectxslt=
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120911065614/http://www.screenindia.com/news/luckbychancehindi/419189/ to http://www.screenindia.com/news/luckbychancehindi/419189/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Dabangg/680036/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140822124609/http://movies.ndtv.com/movie_review.aspx?id=498&cp to http://movies.ndtv.com/movie_review.aspx?id=498&cp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:36, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments anyone?

I wouldn't want to take this article to a peer review now, but if anyone who keeps it on their watchlist and sees this message has any comments for improvement, they'll be much appreciated. Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:04, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

The article is now nominated for FA. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Parents' religion

So far Kapadia has never spoken about her religion. But we can find information about her parents. The only sources that mention her religion are the following:

First, her mother was Muslim based on the book Raj Kapoor, the Fabulous Showman:

Chunnibhai Kapadia was — and is — a maverick. A rebel in the stronghold of Gujarati conservatism, Chunibhai had from his early days been a non-conformist in everything. He was an attractive catch in the wealthy Gujarati community's marriage-market because he belonged to the wealthy Kapadia industrial family. Chunibhai, however, took his non-conformism seriously enough to by-pass all the huge dowrys and wealth that went hand-in-hand with making an arranged match with a girl from another wealthy Gujarati family. Instead, he opted for a love-marriage. Falling for a pretty young Muslim girl whom he nicknamed Betty, Chunibhai married her. The marriage created a furore, shaking as it did the very foundations of this community's traditionalism. And it was Chunibhai's eldest daughter Dimple, now about fourteen years old, who Mrs. Raj Kapoor's close friend Munni Dhawan had mentioned as a good choice for the title role of Bobby.

"Chunibhai, who had taken quite a few years to persuade his father to get adjusted to a daughter-in-law from outside their community, dreaded to think how his father and his uncles would react if he now lit another firecracker under their feet - no , it was simply impossible to make his father live with the idea of any grand - daughter of his becoming an actress! “I had to refuse not only this, but some other good offers too,” Chunibhai revealed. "My father would have thrown a fit! My family would never have agreed."

As for her father, there are two sources:

Open magazine (2019) in a piece about Dimple Kapadia's daughter says (link:

...nurtured in an eccentric lapsed Ismaili Khoja family ... Her maternal grandfather, Chunibhai, was infamously disowned by his father, Laljibhai—who had embraced Hinduism, but continued to regard the Agha Khan as his religious mentor—when he allowed his daughter, Dimple, to act in Bobby

India Today (1985) (link):

The wealthy Khoja family, which embraced Hinduism only with Chunibhai's father, Laljibhai, and which accepts the Agha Khan as its religious mentor even now, disowned Dimple's father the day he agreed to Raj Kapoor's proposal to let her sign for Bobby.

Based on these sources, I've added the following sentence on the article:

Chunibhai belonged to a wealthy family of lapsed Ismaili Khojas who accepted Hinduism but continued following Aga Khan as their mentor; Bitti was Muslim

If there are any other suggestions or changes, please give them. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:28, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, since the big argument is this one. First, you're saying her father was a Hindu. Do you have a source for that (other than your conviction)? I mean, initially you were utterly convinced he was Muslim and now you think he was a Hindu. I really am confused. What would you suggest that we write? Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:26, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Your first source is reliable, the other two are not. I think you should not say anything about the father's religion, only that he came from a conservative family. The mother is Muslim, but the Khoja stuff is unreliable. It may be true, or it may not, but we can't use DK's daughter's stories for that. Similarly, the Aga Kan story is implausible, best left out. I'm sorry, but this is really all I have time for. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:14, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Now, after citing her daughter's interview on the FAC, you're dismissing its validity here. Her mother was Aga Khani, why not mention it. I can't see a reason to dismiss India Today. As for her father, an RfC might be called for here to determine what we should be doing. Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:46, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Sources and Inference

I have examined the sources in the Lead, sections 1, 2.1, 2.3, and 2.6. Better ones are often available and their views are at variance with that of the article. The conclusions drawn are not always supported by the sources. Important details of DK's background, childhood (the makings of a child star), and marriage (the toxic relationship with her husband) are not made explicit. Unimportant details of adult life, such as DK's candle-making hobby, are dwelled on. Unfavorable views of DK are largely avoided, making the article complimentary in tone. Much is made of Indian film awards such as Filmfare which seem to be vanity awards. There is a dutiful enumeration of her films, which on account of her having made over 90, constitutes the bulk of the article. In the instances in which third-party (i.e. NY Times, for example) views are available, they seldom match those of the Indian sources. In the period 1985–2020, the Indian sources used seem to be given to adulation. I am adding the evidence below. I would request the nominator, or others, to comment either at the FAC or in the responses section below, but not to interrupt or fragment my evidence. (I am also preserving a copy on a user subpage. User:Fowler&fowler/Sources in Dimple Kapadia) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:15, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler's Evidence for Sources, Paraphrasing, and Inference for the Dimple Kapadia FAC

Fowler&fowler's Evidence for Sources, Paraphrasing, and Inference for the FAC

Lead 1 She went on to establish herself as one of the leading actresses of Hindi cinema in the 1980s. (cited to: [1] Bumiller, Elisabeth (1 June 1991). May You Be the Mother of a Hundred Sons. Penguin Books India. p. 185. ISBN 978-0-14-015671-3. The American edition is: a The source is reliable; b but it is inaccurately paraphrased: Bumiller says, "The Hindi commercial movie should not be confused with art films by directors like Satyajit Ray that are shown by film societies in New York, Paris, or Rome. ... The three leading commercial Indian actresses throughout the mid- and late 1980s were indisputably Rekha, Dimple Kapadia and Sridevi. ... no other commercial actress came close to touching their star quality." (pp 184-185) Section 1 2 "Chunibhai was from a wealthy Ismaili Khoja family, whose members had reportedly 'embraced Hinduism' without relinquishing Ismaili loyalties; Bitti was an Ismaili, too, and the couple followed Aga Khan as a religious mentor. a None of sources say anything about "Betty/Bitti being an Ismaili. However this is found in another source. Quote: "Inspired by her maternal grandmother, who would drag her to the Ismaili jamatkhana (community centre), Noni and her sister Binni were originally supporting characters in the novel she began writing as a teenager." 3 Evaluation of the relevant quote in Mitra Quote: "But there was something oddly rebellious about Chunibhai himself, the scion of the family that owned the Killicks Nixon group of industries, ... The wealthy Khoja family, which embraced Hinduism only with Chunibhai's father, Laljibhai, and which accepts the Agha Khan as its religious mentor even now, disowned Dimple's father the day he agreed to Raj Kapoor's proposal to let her sign for Bobby." a The source is not reliable in this sentence for the following reasons b through e:. b The family that "owned" were the five Kapadia brothers. They had majority shares in Killick Nixon and Company, which they had acquired in 1965. They were the subject of numerous queries and discussions in the Indian Parliament (the lower house). The five brothers were 1. Maganlal Chhaganlal Kapadia 2. Popatlal Chhaganlal Kapadia 3. Mohanlal Chhaganlal Kapadia 4. Laljibhai Chhaganlal Kapadia 5. Nimjibhai Chhaganlal Kapadia. (See: ) c The managing director of Killick from 1965 to 1976 was: Popatlal Chhaganlal Kapadia, see: (i) "In 1969 the Kapadia group was led by the shrewd and aggressive Popatlal Kapadia, who had already acquired control of the fund laden British Burma Petroleum Co Ltd (BBP) utilized ... (ii) "P. C. Kapadia (Managing Director. Registered Office: “Killick House", Charanjit Rai Marg, Fort Bombay-1" (See: here.; there are many others) d This death notice editorial condolence: "Condolence SHRI POPATLAL C. KAPADIA, well-known industrialist and Managing Director of Killick Nixon Ltd., expired on Sunday the 30th May 1976. Since a long time he was closely associated with the nationwide constructive renaissance programme of the Vishva Hindu Parishad." (See here.) d (ii) See also: "At the beginning a Condolence Resolution was passed on the sad demise of Shri Popatbhai Kapadia of Killick Nixon of Bombay and a Trustee of Vishva Hindu Parishad." From from page 43 of the same volume. Added later. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC) d (iii) See also: a biography of Raj Kapoor, published in 1988 by the National Film Development Corporation of India: "A rebel in the stronghold of Gujarati conservatism, Chunibhai had from his early days been a non-conformist in everything. He was an attractive catch in the wealthy Gujarati community ' s marriage - market because he belonged to the wealthy Kapadia industrial family . Chunibhai , however , took his non - conformism seriously enough to by - pass all the huge dowrys and wealth that went hand - in - hand with making an arranged match with a girl from another wealthy Gujarati family . Instead , he opted for a love marriage . Falling for a pretty young Muslim girl whom he nicknamed Betty , Chunibhai married her. The marriage created a furore , shaking as it did the very foundations of this community's traditionalism." e The VHP is the most militant of the Hindu nationalist organizations in India.(Added later: The US Central Intelligence Agency designated the VHP to be a religious militant organization in 2018. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:37, 5 June 2020 (UTC)) This does not jibe with a Khoja Muslim family which had embraced Hinduism but had continued to be Aga Khan IV's disciples/mentees. (Added later: It is hardly likely they would have been on the board of trustees of an extreme Hindu nationalist organization even in 1976. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:37, 5 June 2020 (UTC)) 4 "When barely a month old, Dimple was given the name Ameena (literally, "honest" or "trustworthy" in Arabic) by Aga Khan III, although she was never referred to by it.") Quote: "I didn’t think about my name then. Dimple sounds a bit frivolous, it has no character. When my sister Simple and I’d travel together, officials at the airports would ask, “Are your names for real?” I suppose Dad had a crazy sense of humour. Actually, I was given another name by the present Aga Khan’s father. It was Ameena but no one ever called me that." a This citation and wording are in part my doing. The problem though is with the source, whether we can use it, and if so, use it in such paraphrasing. b We don't know that Dimple Kapadia was given that name, only that she has stated this. c Aga Khan III died one month and three days after DK's birth. She was born on June 8, 1957. According to the NY Times Obituary,, the Aga Khan was ailing for a long time at his villa in Versoix, a suburb of Geneva, having been flown there from Paris on June 18 to escape the heat. It is highly unlikely that he was in India in the preceding 10 days if heat it was he was staying away from. d So, howsoever she was given the name, it was very likely not in person. At the very least, therefore, it requires some clarification or finessing. 5 The family resided in Santacruz, Bombay and she studied at St Joseph's Convent High School.) a Not in the source b It doesn't say anything about a family residing in Santacruz, only that, "Plucked out of obscurity, the St Joseph's Convent girl went from baby doll to trophy wife in one year. ... "If I had to do it all over again, I would still get married at 16," she says, seated in her Juhu home, ..." c It is actually another source that speaks of Santa Cruz: "My father was shaving in the balcony, he looked good. I was telling him that I want to be an actress. This is a very strong visual. I must have been five years old. We used to stay in Santa Cruz in Bombay, in a one-bedroom hall." (In Indian English, "stay" is legitimate use in the meaning of "live." (OED)) 6 There is a gap in the biography. It jumps straight to marriage and her first movie, Bobby (1973), but neglects the child star in the making a for example, the source in 5 tells us: b Mom would sing loris like "Chanda mama door ke" to us. Perhaps, she could have become an actress. It’s not that I became one because she couldn’t. It’s just that she was the asli (real) movie buff while dad liked to socialise with film people. c Sound recordist Manna Ladia and character actor Sundar were our neighbours. Dad was friendly with the Rawails, Rajendra Kumar, Joy Mukherji. Everyone said I could be a child star. Maybe that’s where it all started. The door to our house was open even when we shifted to Juhu. There was little privacy. d I was to play the kiddie version of Vyjayanthimala in H. S. Rawail’s Sunghursh. But tragically, I looked older than the junior Dilip Kumar. Actually, because of my tomboyish looks, it was felt I’d look older than Rishi Kapoor in Bobby. I nearly lost the role. e Bunny Reuben, says, " 'My contacts with the film industry began in the early sixties, ' Chunibhai Kapadia told me. 'At that time in the building where we were staying we had as our neighbours two film families: the comedian Sunder , and the music - director Roshan. Anjana Rawail during her lifetime had been a leading filmland socialite and very fond of hosting parties where everybody could get to know everybody else.' Once Anjana began to include Chunibhai in her parties he became a filmwallah too , though at this time only a peripheral one. Inevitably , when Dimple entered her teens, people in the film circles in which the Kapadias had begun to move started to eye her as a prospective candidate for stardom . In 1970 , for instance, Anjana Rawail offered Chunibhai the Guddi role for Dimple. Gulzar had written its script and they felt Dimple suited the role. f Dad’s father objected when Raj Kapoor chose me. Dad took him on and was thrown out of the family business. 7 She retired from acting for eleven years to raise her two daughters, Twinkle (born 1974) and Rinke (born 1977). Reportedly, it was Khanna who disapproved of her acting career following the marriage, though Kapadia once noted that "career has always been secondary" to her. a from other more reliable sources: b Elisabeth Bumiller: "The film (Bobby) made Dimple into a sensation, but instead of using it to launch her career, she married, at the age of fifteen, the country's most popular leading man at the time, Rajesh Khanna. He promptly told his new wife that her acting days were over. 'My husband believed that my place was at home,' Dimple said. 'It was not a husband-wife relationship---it was father-daughter.' After two children and ten years of marriage, she finally walked out." c "But Kapadia’s success as a star was truncated by an early marriage to superstar Rajesh Khanna, a man twice her age who forbade her from working in the industry. Without understanding what her heady success really meant, the idea of being proposed to by the nation’s foremost superstar, she later recalled, was an even headier experience. After a courtship that lasted a week, she married, quit working in films, and by the end of three years had two daughters." Section 2.1 8 Bobby was a major mainstream and critical success, and Kapadia was lauded for her performance, which won her the Filmfare Award for Best Actress (tied with Jaya Bhaduri for Abhimaan). a It was box-office success to be sure, but it was a critical failure: b The editor of the Illustrated Weekly of India wrote in his end of the year editorial on December 30, 1973: "Every film critic has pronounced against it; the rating is either poor, below average, or just passable. Nevertheless, from all accounts Bobby is on its way to breaking box-office records. ... Why not make peace with yourself by admitting that we are a people with poor tastes which can only be catered to by second rate story-writers, ham actors and actresses and third-rate producer-directors who haven't an original idea in their heads." (See Editorial.. c Who was the editor of the IWI? He was Khushwant Singh, whose Britannica page (he was that notable) says: "Khushwant Singh, Indian writer and journalist (born 1915, Hadali?, Punjab, British India [now in Pakistan]—died March 20, 2014, New Delhi, India), produced some of the most provocative and admired English-language fiction and nonfiction in post-World War II India. ... He served as editor of the Illustrated Weekly of India (1969–78) " (See here.) d See also Bernard Weinraub in his review in the NY Times 12 December, 1973: "The plot leans heavily on surging background music and profound, silent glances between Dimple and Rishi. 'The film is a sad reminder that the old moth-eaten formula of dream merchandising still works wonders with the masses,' said the critic for Shankar's Weekly of Bombay. 'Of course any resemblance here and there to Love Story and The Graduate must be purely accidental! But even such resemblance does not lend substance to the hackneyed rich-boy-meets-poor-girl theme.' (The critic was QH (see below))" See here. e "Kapoor followed this legendary flop with a 1973 box-office hit, “Bobby” (Sunday at 5:45 p.m. and Monday at 6:30 p.m.), in which he cast his son Rishi as a rich boy who falls in love with the family maid’s granddaughter (Dimple Kapadia), frustrating his family’s plans to marry him off to a mentally impaired heiress. Ah, Bollywood!" In Retrospective of Raj Kapoor 1948 to 1973: Museum of Modern Art, by David Kehr. 9 Qurratulain Hyder of The Illustrated Weekly of India noted that she acted with "natural ease and freshness". a Qurratulain Hyder in her review in the IWI, October 14, 1973, actually says a bit more (in addition to repeating what she said in Shankar's Weekly above): "Rishi and Dimple act with natural ease and freshness. Had Dimple not married you-know-who in such a hurry, she might have turned out to be an actress of considerable talent." and in the caption, "Bobby ... remains pointless in the true tradition of Hindi films. The public is flocking to see the film because they want to know what the much publicised Mrs Rajesh Khanna looks like on the screen." (See ) b And who is QH? Her Britannica page (she too is that notable) says: "Qurratulain Hyder, ... Indian writer, editor, scholar, and translator who helped the novel become a serious genre of hitherto poetry-oriented Urdu literature. Her masterwork, Aag ka darya (1959; River of Fire), has been compared to those of Colombian novelist Gabriel García Márquez and Czech novelist Milan Kundera." (See here.) Section 2.3 10 Much is made in the article of awards, e.g. Filmfare Awards. Here is another view of them: a From NY Times: "Bollywood’s Oscar obsession could be linked to the fact that the industry’s own awards ceremonies are increasingly eyed with suspicion. The Filmfare Awards and the state-sponsored National Film Awards have both been around since 1954. But the Filmfare Awards, once considered truly independent, are now widely seen as vanity prizes, doled out to popular stars to get them to appear at the awards ceremony. Dimple Kapadia’s performance at the 1993 Filmfare Awards added fuel to the rumors: When presenting the prize for best actor, she famously walked up to the stage and made the announcement without even opening the sealed, “secret” envelope." Section 2.6 (2000s) 11 (Leela) "In 2002, Kapadia portrayed the title role in the drama Leela, an American production directed by Somnath Sen and co-starring ... Reviews in India were similarly approving, with The Hindu finding her condition to be "enticingly vulnerable"." The Hindu review is so full of adulation that it strains credulity as film criticism (e.g. DIMPLE KAPADIA is a very special woman who carries herself with rare dignity. ... Here in Leela ... she is a charmer all the way. Exhilarating is the air she breathes, bewitching is the glance she casts and enticingly vulnerable is her condition.... With her poise and polish, she makes you yearn and pine. Driven by the tide of time, perfidy stares her in the face." In contrast, David Kehr, "Leela, played by the veteran Bollywood actress Dimple Kapadia (Saagar), is a visiting professor who arrives at the university in a swirl of pastel saris, tossing her raven locks with appropriate imperiousness. Much of Leela, which opens today follows the line of the immigrant melodramas of the 1920's and 30's. The old-country parents see their Americanized offspring as selfish, ungrateful and unappreciative of their cultural heritage; the children see their parents as hopelessly square. But unlike, say, the Yiddish-language melodramas of the early 30's, Leela acknowledges that America might have something to offer the old world, too. As directed and written by Somnath Sen, Leela veers between the light naturalism of American television and the pulsing melodrama of Bollywood entertainment."

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:15, 4 June 2020 (UTC) Updated. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:31, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Non-existence fashion culture

I forgot to add one sentence from section 2.1 which makes claims about a fashion culture that did not exist in India:

12 Sentence in Section 2.1

12 (section 2.1) "Several of her lines in the film became popular, particularly, "Mujhse dosti karoge?" ("Will you be my friend?"), and the "miniskirts, midriff-baring polka dot shirts, and fabled red bikini" she wore made her a youth fashion icon of the times in India. a The source Joshi from which this quote is taken, says: "Dimple Kapadia's miniskirts, midriff-baring polka dot shirts, and her fabled red bikini were visual enticements of an audacious teenage sexuality hitherto unseen on Bombay's screens," which stays away from implying that such a fashion culture existed in India. b The source Raheja which is also cited makes retrospective claims about Kapadia in Bobby and about an attendant fashion culture which is at variance with what had existed in India, often even with what has continues to exist. Says Raheja: "Her expressive eyes effectively conveyed teen angst. And when she emerged nymph-like from the pool in a red bikini, Dimple, despite her puppy fat, had teenagers enthralled. Her knotted polka-dotted blouse and earphone hairstyle were wildly emulated." c Contrast this with Murray Pomerance in his book Where the boys are: Cinemas of Masculinity and Youth "Bobby starred the director's son Rishi as the eighteen-year-old Raj and the newcomer Dimple Kapadia as sixteen-year-old Bobby, whose Christian character allowed her to appear in a famous bikini. ... Although Rachel Dwyer and Divia Patel acknowledge that Bobby “epitomized youth culture and 1960s fashions,” they also tellingly note that its psychedelic poster “was not implying that this culture existed in India, rather it alluded to a period associated with youth culture, fun, romance, and rebellion” (2002, 169). This is a subtle distinction but seems accurate insofar as it describes the depiction of an “international” youth culture that seems more borrowed or quoted than fully assimilated." d See also Dwyer and Patel, who say: " The Hindi cinema's most controversial outfit is the swimsuit, popular in films of Raj Kapoor, whether his Awara (1951) or Bobby (1973), but deemed unsuitable for a round in the Miss World contest held in India in 1996."

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:31, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Source review

• 13 Finally, another note on the sources used (as of 00:45, 5 June 2020 (UTC)). Of the 249 citations in the article (including multiple counts), 214 are to Indian newspapers and magazines published after 1985. In contrast, the FA Pather Panchali (promoted 2014) has 189 citations (including multiple ones); only 10 are to Indian newspapers and magazines. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:45, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Responses and discussion

• Comment Considering that her career only really took off around 1985 that's exactly what you would expect. Verification is most important. The book coverage of her isn't great.† Encyclopædius 19:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment

References

FAC

I think the article has improved considerably. Waiting for the release of Tenet before putting it up for a second FAC. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

It has? How?

• The FAC was archived on 13 June 2020. Here is a diff of changes since. What is there except some change of sources and the addition of two or three short sentences? Any changes of prose?
• The peer-review has gone unanswered.

• General-purpose nonsense continues to litter the article:

• "She was discovered," (about a 14-year-old whose family had been a willing participant in soliciting Bombay's movie establishment),
• "his teen romance" (matter-of-factly, in a country in which there was no tradition of romances, which the 50s and 60s changes in youth culture passed by),
• "Bobby (1973), to critical and commercial success," about a movie which was a standing joke among film critics in India of that time, see articles by Khushwant Singh and Qurratulain Hyder.
• "In that same year, she married the Indian actor Rajesh Khanna ..." (about an underage girl who falls for the wiles of a man more than twice her age on a moonlit walk on Juhu beach, Bombay, is made to throw her "friendship ring" given by her teenage co-star into the murky waters, and illegally marries this man five days later to the horror of her family and Hallmark Cards (Indian version) for the invitations were sent by telegram).
• "... and retired from acting" about an underage girl who had no choice in the matter, for her husband laid down the Indian Penal Code for married minors. If this is not creepy I don't know what is. The phrasing of the article does nothing but omit or modify everything indelicate, let alone anything offensive to women.
• "Kapadia returned to films in 1984, two years after her separation from Khanna." for a young woman who fled from her spouse to her parents' home)
• That was just the lead. In the early life section, the article continues to say, "Chunibhai was from a wealthy Ismaili Khoja family, whose members had reportedly "embraced Hinduism" while still regarding Agha Khan as their religious mentor;" when he family, Kapadia group, were Hindus, their leader a trustee of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad. Aga Khan III died in one of his homes in a Geneva suburb a few weeks after DK's birth, he had been ailing for months and had retired to Switzerland on account of the heat of the Parisian summer. So how was she named, by flying a newborn out to Switzerland, by flying AKIII to the heat of a Bombay summer, by telegram, by a long-distance phone call? The article continues to repeat tales spun by DK and her family and further enhanced by Bollywood's fawning press.

• Mainly there has been no rewriting, none of the prose. What is the point of FACs then? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:59, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Nobody turned out at the peer review. How sad is that. † Encyclopædius 16:03, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I understand. People have their obligations, ties, and responsibilities that bind, especially during a global pandemic. Why this mad rush by the nominator? Is the goal one of receiving a bronze star, come what may, or improving the article, writing it with empathy for the character, and not as a bone dry list of deeds done. People who have an abiding interest in a topic, nurse it for years, adding a little nugget here, another there. I really have no idea what is going on here. The lead has remained untouched. It hasn't even been edited for changes made in the main body. I see this at FAC all the time. I can't speak to their motivations, but I see it, the nominators importuning the referees with the same old thing, the supporters of old lining up with minimum effort to support again, and the independent refs flabbergasted. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:40, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

First, I meant that it has improved since it was nominated for FAC. Secondly, you were invited to comment on the peer review, which you didn't do. And third, you are more than welcome to offer your automatic oppose when it is up for FAC. I have absolutely no doubt you will do that no matter what shape the article takes, and it's okay. And please, judge in accordance with WP:V and not your own logic. If you have suggestions about what should be changed, then do it instead of just complaining. What would you write instead of "retired from acting"? She did, indeed, retire even if her husband made her do it, and it's actually written down in the relevant section. I for one, could agree that "launched" is better than "discovered", but even if her husband her contacts, how does it change the fact that she was indeed discovered? More than anything, sorry but as a Wikipedia editor, I trust "Bollywood's fawning press" more than I trust your personal predictions, so if you think her father was a Hindu, please provide a reliable source. What do you want me to do? Mention your names in the references? You are not a reliable source, fowler&fowler, you are a WP user so you better act like one. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:07, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, fowler, you said "Is the goal one of receiving a bronze star, come what may, or improving the article, writing it with empathy for the character, and not as a bone dry list of deeds done" - funny you should say that. I was waiting for you to show up on that peer review, I invited you despite everything, because I believed you sincerely wanted to help improve it. And apparently, when it was not on FAC, you didn't care about its fate, and you didn't even care to post a single comment! If you have comments, go ahead, post them now, suggest an alternative version for each part you consider problematic, I'll be following you if I agree. It took two months for you to start a real review on the FAC. Why wouldn't you keep going here? Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:17, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't have time to offer a peer review. Please see the top of my user page. I am working on only two pages, the FA Political history of Mysore and Coorg (1565–1760), an FA, and Mandell Creighton a FAC candidate from ten years ago, and in addition India which I have been maintaining for 13 years, and Kamala Harris. But my unavailability is not an excuse to deem your article magically FAC worthy. Examine my Mandell Creighton. It is in much better shape, in my view, than DK, but I am still waiting to read an older biography of Creighton. I'm sure it could pass FAC if I chose to play the game. But my values are involved here. (To thine own self be true. And it must follow as the night the day.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:38, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

First, excuse me but some modesty would be more appropriate here, you're giving yourself far too many props. The fact that I'm willing to work with you and value your input does not justify your sentence "my unavailability is not an excuse to deem your article magically FAC worthy", which shows that you genuinely believe that the article's FA worthiness depends solely on your opinion or support of it. This is not the case. It would be of note to remind you that the FA coordinator let you know that the article was archived despite your oppose rather than because of it, and that several respected editors supported the nomination. By the time the FAC was archived, it had already improved tremendously, with Encyclopædius striking his oppose, but the FAC was already a mess with your comments appearing all over the place. No prose change is needed then.

This attitude is also evident in your comments, which are often based on personal convictions and not Wikipedia policy. For instance, I didn't get your comment about teen romance; or your problem with her marriage and separation in the lead (what do you want the lead to say? That she was not allowed to act? Both relevant in the lead - enough said later on. That she fled home? She didn't flee, she left - they separated, that's what the sources say). The article omits nothing, it states the facts and does not make personal conclusions which you seek to make. The Aga Khan part should be reworked, I agree. As for Creighton, it's easy to say it could pass, first do it and then talk.

If you are still willing to offer a serious, policy-based review, I can wait. I do understand that you're busy but I find this habit of yours of stopping by to merely express your disregard to the article without going through the whole thing quite unfair. Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:39, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not willing to offer anything other than these posts made during random free time. I especially do not have time for Wikilawyering, especially not with editors who have the gumption to turn a newborn (not even a month old) to a child because they want to finesse an implausible story. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:28, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

This was a lame attempt, I have to say, but it's okay, the article is good enough without your random posts. A whole lot of WP editors dismissed your comments on the FAC and you were even warned right after by the coordinator for your methods, which border on the disruptive. Wikilawyering? Some WP terminology is quite refreshing here. Do you even know what Wikipedia is all about? Did you ever cite a single policy to justify your OR- and POV-based, unsubstantiated comments? Come on, you're the last person to preach anyone. As for the infant stuff, she said she was a child - see the source, these are her words. It might actually be the present Aga Khan (IV) who gave her that name, so we can't tell. I think she might have been wrong about him being the father of the present one. Anyway, I'm not going to waste time on users who have the gumption to take everything personally, completely ignore the spirit of Wikipedia, its rules and policies, and embroil in constant, fruitless fights over non-issues just for the sake of it. Feel free to take part in the FAC when it comes along, your contribution to it is easy to predict. Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:40, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Mandall Creighton is riddled with issues, any respectable, experienced editor knows not to begin sentences with "However" , "But" or "Today" for a start. Many problems with tense (by the summer of 1900, his doctors were suspecting a stomach tumour. etc) and word usage, I wouldn't pass it as a GA let alone an FA, honestly.† Encyclopædius 18:37, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Those are prose niggles I could fix in a few hours. The reason why I haven't resubmitted is that it is too reliant on one source, and I have only recently found another. Not sure it will be enough, but perhaps with Lytton Strachey's essay on Creighton, the ODNB, and a few articles with a scant mention here and there, I might scour enough. I haven't edited the article in the last ten years. The problem of not having good sources is a much bigger problem in Dimple Kapadia. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:06, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

From what I see, Dimple Kapadia has a great many sources, all of which meet WP:RS: numerous books, scholarly magazines, newspapers, film magazines. For an actor BLP, I dare to say it is well researched, particularly after Encyclopædius's brilliant source review (and even some of your comments, I'll give you that). Throwing unsubstantiated claims must be fun, but it won't cover up the flaws of the Creighton article. Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:49, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

OK, I'm back. There are definitely hundreds of sources for DK. Some are reliable, those are usually the international ones; many are not, those are usually the Indian ones. Creighton has one major source, a painstakingly researched one by an American author. The others, mostly older British ones, are fluff. I will next examine Encyclopedius's handwaving about "Many problems with tense" and "However and But." But first, let me find the actual sentence from Creighton. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:30, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

The sentence is: "By 1899, these had increased in severity, and by the summer of 1900, his doctors were suspecting a stomach tumour." So, Encyclopedius please tell me what is wrong? Please don't tell me, "It should be 'his doctors suspected a ...,' " but what is wrong with the past continuous? Does the verb "suspect" not take the past continuous in the transitive form? Granted it is rare, but it is used, more commonly in AmE, but also in BrE. The past progressive "were suspecting" is more tentative, less definitive, emphasizing an unfolding process. It is used in that fashion in medicine. Obviously, if you are objecting to the usage, it must have to to do with that verb, because we can certainly say, "By the winter of 1908, Scott was starving his huskies." More on however, but, etc in a minute. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:49, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Are we talking about experienced editors, or experienced FACers? How many "Howevers" would you like me to find, in fiction, in nonfiction, of old or new? Here's Doris Lessing, "However, it was not more than three weeks after they were bought that they were found lying stretched in the sun, ..." (Oh, why did they giver her the Nobel), and Hugh Trevor-Roper, "However, he had afterwards inherited an 'ample forune' and ..." (Oh, why did the give him that Regius Chair at Oxford?). I could go on, but you can look them up yourself. It might be a feature of MOS, but then you should state that. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:07, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Experienced editors should know to not start sentences with But and to not use However or Today in here. Particularly editors with experience reviewing FACs. "we're suspecting" = suspected. Let's not go off on a tangent here anyway..† Encyclopædius 07:01, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay, please take this Creighton discussion where it belongs and out of this section. I'd appreciate Encyclopædius's valuable feedback and move on. By the way, I see someone who shows great sensitivity when their work is being questioned, but no sensitivity at all as they throw baseless, generalized comments about others'. Shahid • ^Talk2me 08:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Let's see, "experienced editors." Hmm. Who would be more experienced than the managing editor of Encyclopedia Britannica, and in which article would he be minding is p's and q's more than his own beloved EB? So, let's begin the reading: "The first edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica was published and printed in Edinburgh for the engraver Andrew Bell and the printer Colin Macfarquhar by “a society of gentlemen in ... But it did challenge comparison with all previous dictionaries of arts and sciences, large or small, because of its new plan ... However, the fourth edition excluded the supplement to the third edition, of which Bell did not possess the copyright. ... Moreover, that same team of editors regularly revise and update existing articles to reflect new developments in those realms of knowledge" (said Mr Lambkins, 'Compose yourself, Bumble, and answer me distinctly. Do I understand that he has used But However and Moreover after he had eaten the supper allotted by the dietary MOS?'He has Sir,' replied Bumble). Not a good idea to play prescriptive grammarian with me. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:39, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm gonna have to ask again to leave this conversation out of this talk page before it is reported, this page is not a chat and reading WP:TALK might help. Encyclopædius, please do not reply this blah message, it's boring and useless. This unprofessional and self-absorbed conduct is not worth your time. Shahid • ^Talk2me 03:46, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I think the article would benefit from a proper peer review with solid comments that the likes of Tim riley and SchroCat get, but you ask anybody to review an Indian cinema article and it's a bit irritating, I know how I feel when I get people posting on my talk page asking to review things.† Encyclopædius 09:35, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Blofeld, I think the prose issues were mostly taken care of and HJ Mitchell was happy with the work done in this regard. I'll write to him. Your source review helped put everything into the right place. Stability was a problem because the FAC was messed up, with editors who supported the nomination being addressed and the article having gone through massive changes through the course of the nomination, and that's why the archiving is understandable and justified. I still want some opinions from other editors I'm looking for right now to polish it a little more, and those you've pinged are excellent options. I'll ask for another source review as well. Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:14, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Sourcing

As for the sources on Kapadia, if there are unreliable sources, as you put it, you better say what they are, and not just "the Indian ones", unless it is the fact that they're Indian that makes them unreliable, in your book. I should remind you again that the reliability of sources is determined by Wikipedia policy. It's called WP:RS, and not your personal, subjective judgement. You said once Rediff.com is not reliable. But according to Wikipedia, it is. Now, if I have a book and a website for one claim, I'd rather use the former, obviously. I do acknowledge that the reliability of sources could be relative, both to other sources and particularly to the subject, as common sense would dictate. For every instance, I tried to use the best sources available (among the reliable ones, of course), spending hours to replace them. I have to say that compared to other FA BLPs on actors, the sourcing is really good here now. I see several FAs where not a single book is provided. Shahid • ^Talk2me 08:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Unsolicited comments from His Lordship which may or may not lead you astray, so feel free to ignore them if they do not feel right to you

I note you have asked for comments regarding prose improvement. I am not a professional editor; I beleive more talented people than I will soon review your article, but I do have opinions on the subject after stumbling across your article. My interest lies solely in writing which is readable, succinct and interesting - at least to my eyes and ears - so if my thoughts conflict with any guidelines from Wikipedia's Manual of Style, or conventions for Feature Articles, then ignore my comments and listen to those who can better help you achieve your goals for the article.

That said, I have some suggestions for you. 1. Review prose for redundant words or phrases; once identified, eliminate them

Consider the following quote:

"Kapadia returned to films in 1984, two years after her separation from Khanna. Her comeback film Saagar (1985) was released a year later, and revived her career."

In the first sentence, you state the year 1984, which serves as a reference point for her comeback, to which you refer in the second sentence. In the second sentence, you provide the release year of Saagar - 1985 - but you also state "a year later". There is no need to state both 1985 and a year later, because every reader familiar with the Gregorian calendar knows 1985 is one year later than 1984. You should therefore only have one of those references. I would modify those two sentences like so:

"Kapadia returned to films in 1984, two years after her separation from Khanna. Her comeback film Saagar was released [edit: deleted my original choice of "a year later"] in 1985, and revived her career."

In my experience, it is hard to identify redundant writing as you write the article, because you tend to write the first words which come to mind, so I would suggest a read through of anything you write after it has been finished - preferably after you have gone away from the article and done something else for a while.

Another example of redundancy can be found later in your article:

"Kapadia returned to acting in 1984, two years after her separation from Khanna in 1982."

Note that not all redundancies will relate to numerical references. I also found this in your article:

"Discussing her performance, she said that during shooting she was "a bag of nerves", which eventually ended up benefitting her performance as her own state coincided with her character's inner turmoil"

In that case, "eventually ended up" is a redundancy, because eventually refers to the future (relative to some prior reference point, which in your case is being a bag of nerves during shooting), as does ended up. Your sentence could have been written like so:

"Discussing her performance, she said that during shooting she was "a bag of nerves", which ended up benefitting her performance as her own state coincided with her character's inner turmoil"

Or, with a slight change to the following word, could have been written

"Discussing her performance, she said that during shooting she was "a bag of nerves", which eventually benefitted her performance as her own state coincided with her character's inner turmoil"

In fact, it could be argued the words "eventually" or "ended up" are not needed in the above sentence, but if her nerves hindered her performance at first then the words are warranted ("...which eventually benefitted her performance..." means her performance was not benefitted at first, but was by the end of filming, whereas "...which benefitted her performance..." would be understood by most to mean the nerves was beneficial from the beginning).

Here is one last example:

"Some of her later film credits include leading roles in Hum Kaun Hai? (2004)"

That could have been written as

"Her later film credits include leading roles in Hum Kaun Hai? (2004)"

because "some of" and "include" refer to the same thing. In fact, it can be further reduced to

"Her later credits include leading roles in Hum Kaun Hai? (2004)"

because she is an actress, so her credits will be for film (unless she has also acted in plays, in which case the use of the word film to avoid ambiguity is warranted) and since you use the phrase "leading roles", it can only refer to acting, not other jobs on a film, such as director, writer etc...

2. Review your prose for chains of sentences which begin with the same word

Warning: this is, for some, a matter of style, so consider what I have to say, but do not automatically take this as gospel truth.

Starting a string of sentences with the same word, or alternating between two words for an extended period of time, can be irritating to some readers. Consider this section of your article:

"She was discovered at age 14 by Raj Kapoor, who cast her in the title role of his teen romance Bobby (1973), to commercial success and wide public recognition. She married the Indian actor Rajesh Khanna in the same year and retired from acting. Kapadia returned to films in 1984, two years after her separation from Khanna. Her comeback film Saagar (1985) was released a year later, and revived her career. She won the Filmfare Award for Best Actress twice for Bobby and Saagar. She went on to establish herself as one of the leading actresses of Hindi cinema in the 1980s.[1]"

6 sentences, 4 of which start with "She" and the other two also start with words referring to the actress.

Why do some people advise against this? Because some people find it tiresome to read; it gets monotonous, sounds harsh and does not always flow.

I do not enjoy reading such prose, but again, this is a matter of style and others may not object, so make up your own mind.

If you wish to change it, what is a possible solution? One option is to rearrange the subject-object ordering of some of your sentences. This will conflict with the view on active vs passive sentences: there is a widely held belief that you should write in the active voice wherever possible as it is usually shorter and easier to understand(as I once read in The Economist style guide, A hit B is better than B was hit by A). However, I think this can be broken on occasion in order to avoid a hurricane of sentences beginning with the same word. Consider the following rewording of the above quote:

"Aged 14, she was discovered by Raj Kapoor, who cast her in the title role of his teen romance Bobby (1973), to commercial success and wide public recognition. In the same year, she married the Indian actor Rajesh Khanna and retired from acting. Kapadia returned to films in 1984, two years after her separation from Khanna. Saagar (1985), released a year later, was her comeback film and it revived her career. She won the Filmfare Award for Best Actress twice for Bobby and Saagar. During the 1980s, she went on to establish herself as one of the leading actresses of Hindi cinema.[1]"

Granted, it could be improved further, but I think it sounds nicer than it did before.

I note your article contains many sentences which begin with Kapdia, She, Her, or something similiar. This is unsurprising in a biographical article, but if you can, avoid strings of sentences which start with the same word.

As mentioned previously, people may disagree with the above, so seek further opinions on the subject, but I think it is worth considering.

3. Consider whether there are shorter ways of saying what you want to say

edit

3. Consider whether there are shorter ways of saying your message

As with my first point, this is hard to correct as you write your article. It will require revisions to be made once your article is complete; it also requires a good understanding of vocabulary and a critical eye. If you possess the last two of those, the principle is usually shorter is better.

Alas, whilst I consdier myself capable of condensing prose, I do not think I am good at explaining rules for doing so. However, looking at your article, I can find examples which may be of help to improving your writing:

"She went on to establish herself as one of the leading actresses of Hindi cinema in the 1980s."

When you see "the ___A___ of ___B___", consider if changing that to "B's A" is possible and desirable. For instance:

"She went on to establish herself as one of Hindi cinema's leading actresses in the 1980s."

Shorter and in this case it also reduces the repetition of the word "of" in quick succession (if you can avoid repeating a word in short succession, it is usually considered good to do so).

[Edit: You could also phrase the original quote as "She went on to establish herself as a leading actress of Hindi cinema in the 1980s" as that also means the same thing; this relates to my point below] — Preceding unsigned comment added by ViscountDiarrhoea (talk • contribs) 20:48, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Look for situations where one word means the same as a string of three or four. The following example can be rewritten:

"despite not having ever reunited, they were seen together at parties"

"never" means the same as "not having ever"; it will necessitate a change to reunited, but can allow for the following:

"despite never reuniting, they were seen together at parties"

Another example:

"Having been a candle enthusiast and finding candle-making therapeutic, she went on to develop this skill in Wales"

can be rewritten to:

"Having been a candle enthusiast and finding candle-making therapeutic, she developed this skill in Wales"

And another:

"Her business venture was reported in the press to have inspired other candle fans to start their own businesses of the sort"

"Businesses of the sort" are similar businesses, thus:

"Her business venture was reported in the press to have inspired other candle fans to start similar businesses"

I don't know how to explain this, but sometimes rearranging the subject-object order of a sentence can condense it. For the above sentence, now consider this:

"Press reports stated her business venture inspired other candle fans to start smilar businesses"

That's all I have to say for now and probably overall. I apologise if my lengthy explanations sound patronising and especially if you understood them before I was finished, but I do not know to what extent you understand the concepts I have tried to explain, so I have erred on the side of caution. Forgive me if I have taken up more of you time than I should have.

Please solicit the opinion of others as well, especially those who will copy edit your article and those who will approve it (or not) for featured article status, as they will have more influence on your article's future than I. However, I honestly think the above will improve not just the writing of your article (to be honest, I think the prose could be improved further), but everything you write in the future.

All the best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ViscountDiarrhoea (talk • contribs) 20:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@ViscountDiarrhoea: Thank you so much. I really ppreciate the time you took to post your valuable comments; I've addressed most of them. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:56, 10 December 2020 (UTC)