Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Shefali Shah/archive1

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 8 October 2022 [1].

---

Shefali Shah

Nominator(s): Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:39, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Shefali Shah is an Indian actress who started on Indian television and for much of her career, acted sporadically in films, often playing character roles. Although consistently respected for her talent with awards and praise from critics, it was not until recent years that she gained wide recognition, starting with the internationally acclaimed series Delhi Crime on Netflix. Since then, her career has only been growing, courtesy digital streaming platforms, with substantial leading roles. Having liked her work myself, I thought taking this stub and turning it into something of worth would be a great idea. It was challenging and interesting to find out more about an actor I didn't know much about myself. I'd be grateful to get help from WP peers and promote this article. Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:39, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Image review (pass)

Addressed comments

Apologies in advance as I will not be able to conduct a full prose review of this article, but I wanted to try and help with an image review. Hopefully, this will take some of the pressure and work away from the reviewers who normally do this kind of work in the FAC space. File:Shefali2022 (cropped).jpg: The image has WP:ALT text and a clear and defined purpose in the article. I would encourage archiving the source and author links to prevent any future headaches with link rot and death, but this is not a requirement for a FAC. Would it be possible to expand the caption to include the location/event (i.e. a screening of Jalsa)? I believe further context would be beneficial for readers. File:Shefali Shah 2022.jpg: The image needs WP:ALT text. As with the previous image, I'd suggest archiving the source and author links, but again, it is not required. Do we know in what capacity she is promoting the film (i.e. is this a screening, an interview, etc.)? I am only curious because the current wording seems rather vague. I am guessing these are the only usable images for the article? I hope these comments are helpful. For the infobox image, I only have a question about the caption, and for the second image, I recommend ALT text and I have a question about the caption there as well. I also just have a general question about the amount of images in the article. Once everything has been addressed, I will be more than happy to pass this image review. Aoba47 (talk) 02:00, 18 September 2022 (UTC) @Aoba47: Good to hear from you and thank you for stepping in. First image: From my experience with infobox images, mentioning the location is not recommended. I can add it anyway if you like. The second image has been replaced by a newer one - please have a look (alt and stuff has been added). Also, a new image with her huband. All images have informative captions, ALTs and proper info. Shahid • Talk2me 10:30, 18 September 2022 (UTC) Where is it recommended to not include the location/event for the infobox image? It seems strange to not provide the full context of an image to a reader in a way that easily accessible. FAs such as Oscar Isaac, Lady Gaga, Katy Perry, and Taylor Swift include this information. In my opinion, it boils down to helping the audience. I do not think a reader should look at an image and question where it was taken. As the infobox currently stands, this image could have been taken anywhere in 2022 and that's an issue in my opinion. That's the reason why I'd include the event for the infobox image and File:Shefali Vipul.jpg. There is a Personality rights warning for the image of Shah and her husband. Could you explain this for me as I am not fully aware of what this means? File:Photos-Celebs-attend-the-premiere-of-Delhi-Crime-2-0086-1.jpg looks solid to me. It is a shame that there are not earlier pictures of her, but I can understand the difficulty of finding images in the first place and sometimes there is just a gap in what can find and use. Once the issue with the image captions and my question about the personality rights warning are answered, I would be more than happy to pass this image review. I want to add that I greatly appreciate your work with biographies on Indian actors (such as Dimple Kapadia and Preity Zinta) and it is great to see FA content about subjects outside of the English-speaking world. Aoba47 (talk) 00:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC) @Aoba47: Well, as I said, it's from my experience in my previous FACs :) This was a clear request in my last FAC and I see that Kate Winslet, Michelle Williams, Brie Larson and the likes do not have information of the sort. Having said that, I don't have any problem at all and will be more than happy to provide more information. Please have a look. The Personality warning has been removed as was the other tag because they're both irrelevant for this version. Thank you for your kind words, as always. Shahid • Talk2me 09:49, 19 September 2022 (UTC) Comment - yes, I read WP:CAPLENGTH, and indeed, it is recommended to keep the infobox caption short and to the point, so, if you don't mind, I'll keep it as it suggests. If you insist, I'll restore the full caption. :) Shahid • Talk2me 12:03, 19 September 2022 (UTC) I will pass this image review. It likely boils down to a matter of personal preference. I was honestly confused by where the infobox image was taken, especially since the background is not in focus, so I would have appreciated more context because it honestly just looks like a candid photo of her walking down a street. The WP:MOS is pretty clear about it though so it should be fine. Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 13:29, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Comments from SNUGGUMS

Resolved

From a glance, I'll say this: having otherwise empty sections that solely consist of referral links (what you've currently done with "Filmography" and "Accolades") is lazy and uninformative with no accompanying text, which renders them useless. Either add some text or move the links elsewhere and scrap those headings altogether. More comments to follow later. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:11, 21 September 2022 (UTC) @SNUGGUMS: Totally. I'll follow the format of other FAs, where filmography and awards are part of the career section. Shahid • Talk2me 13:16, 21 September 2022 (UTC) Better now, though don't cut off the full title of the accolades subpage in the referral link. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:18, 21 September 2022 (UTC) @SNUGGUMS: Done. Shahid • Talk2me 18:03, 21 September 2022 (UTC) Now for other parts..... Having "an Indian actress of film, television, and theatre who mostly appears in independent Hindi films" seems rather long for the opening sentence. Maybe cut "of film, television, and theatre" The use of "several" from "several accolades, including a National Film Award, two Filmfare Awards, two Screen Awards, and an Asian Academy Creative Award" is an understatement that implies only 5-10 total, also having this list of awards is redundant when specific ones are mentioned later in the lead. Are you sure husbands and kids are lead-worthy? Tacking that on as the very last sentence makes it come off as a shoe-horned addition. In either case, it reads awkwardly to start a sentence with "Divorced from". The first and third paragraphs from "Early and personal life" are rather short and make the flow of text feel choppy. Either expand on these or merge them with other paragraphs. Under "Early theatre and television work (1990–1996)", you should replace the hyphens in time ranges with dashes like the one used in this very heading per WP:DASH, and its second paragraph uses "she" too much in quick succession. Try to change up the pronouns to avoid monotony. You're missing a citation for "At the 44th Filmfare Awards, she was nominated for the Filmfare Award for Best Supporting Actress and was awarded the Critics Award for Best Actress" from "Breakthrough with Hasratein and Satya (1997–1999)". Within "Intermittent work on stage and screen (2008–2016)", the use of "illegitimate" from "adulterous husband's illegitimate child" gives off a "you're not actually my child" vibe and we'd be better off with something like "child from wedlock" or "child from an affair" Contrary to what the use of "recognised" from "recognised by critics and the media as one of India's finest actresses" implies in the "Artistry and reception" section, being among the "finest" is a personal opinion and not a fact, so let's go with "described", "ranked", "deemed", "praised", or something similar. Continuing from the same section, assuming "women much ahead of her years" is supposed to mean older than Shah, just say that instead. The use of "poor" from "left it due to poor content" also is blatantly subjective. That's all from me. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:57, 22 September 2022 (UTC) @SNUGGUMS: Thanks so much for taking the time to read the article. My changes can be found in this link. To address each point: The opening sentence has been cut as requested. The parts of the awards has been changed from "several" to "various". Since these are the general functions of the awards and not the categories, I believe it is possible to provide a summary of competitive awards and then give the specifics (like it's done on Kate Winslet, for one). Removed part about the husband. Merged paragraphs from Early life and rewrote parts of it. Now there's one section. Changed pronouns as suggested Dashes applied across the board - thank you for noticing this. Citation added for the award. Part rewritten as follows: "accepts the child her adulterous husband had out of wedlock" Changed "recognised" to "described" Changed to "women older than herself"; changed the other part to "she left it citing poor content", which takes out the implication that this is the writer's opinion and clarifies it's hers. Shahid • Talk2me 10:58, 22 September 2022 (UTC) Comment - award list in lead has been removed as suggested. Shahid • Talk2me 11:54, 22 September 2022 (UTC) Almost there: the use of "citing poor content" reads awkwardly, maybe just write "dissatisfied with the content" or "not liking the content" or something similar. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:36, 22 September 2022 (UTC) @SNUGGUMS: Great idea! Thank you, done. Shahid • Talk2me 17:45, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

You now have my support for the nomination. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:13, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Source review – pass

I will do a general review soon but a source review for now. Version reviewed; spot-checks not included.

• I suggest archiving the sources using this tool so that you don't have to deal with the headache of dead links in the future.
• Linking of the publishers/newspapers/magazines is rather random. For sources like The Tribune, it's done consistently for every entry, but then we Hindustan Times, which is linked randomly (not in 1, 2 but in 13, 16). I suggest remaining consistent: either link them all only in their first instances or link them everywhere.
• Watch out for MOS:QWQ in ref. 6 title.
• I would remove The Times Group in ref. 12 and 21 (and wherever else I haven't mentioned) since you haven't listed publishers for newspapers elsewhere.
• The newspaper for ref. 45 is The Indian Express, not Screen. Although Screen (magazine) is owned by the same company, it's not the article's publisher.
• Ref. 46 - Bollywood Hungama's previous name was IndiaFM, not indiaFM.
• Ref. 53 - link Screen (magazine) to Screen.
• WP:SHOUTING in ref. 63.
• Ref. 76 - I would remove The Sunday Tribune from the title.
• Gandhi, My Father should be italicised in ref. 78 and 78 titles as per MOS:CONFORMTITLE.
• Ref. 93-96, 104-108, 111-114, 118, 125-127, 129, 173-176, 178-184, 186-190, 196, 198 - see my point about CONFORMTITLE above.

Mostly formatting issues; sources are all reliable. FrB.TG (talk) 17:59, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

@FrB.TG: Thanks so much! Okay - all your comments have been addressed. Tool used as suggested for archives; only the first link of each publication is now linked across the board; MOS:QWQ point fixed; The Times Group removed; IndiaFM capital I applied; SHOUTING removed; redundancies in #76 title removed; CONFORMTITLE has been applied across the board (never heard of this guideline re italics in ref titles). The only one that hasn't been changed is the use of Screen in #45 - the link is actually to the magazine and not the newspaper - in the late 1990s, the link to the magazine was not screenindia.com (as it was later known when it got its own independent address) but indianexpress.com/screen. Thanks for this meticulous source review. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:18, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Comments

• "Shah's acting career started on Gujarati stage" => "Shah's acting career started on the Gujarati stage"
• What is a "nested film"?
• "her work in the social" - what do you mean by "the social"?
• "Shefali Shah (née Shetty) was born 22 May 1973" => "Shefali Shah (née Shetty) was born on 22 May 1973"
• "Her first stint with acting happened on Gujarati stage" => "Her first stint with acting happened on the Gujarati stage"
• "but spent most of her studential days" - I don't think "studential" is a word. "Student days" works OK.
• "an artists' residency in Bandra" - never heard of Bandra as a (?)town(?) so wikilink it as it clearly isn't that well known
• "1995 marked Shah's first film appearance in Ram Gopal Varma's Rangeela (1995), in a brief role" => "1995 marked Shah's first film appearance with a brief role in Ram Gopal Varma's Rangeela (1995)"
• "an extramarital affair with another married man" => "an extramarital affair with a married man" ("another" doesn't work, as no other married man has been mentioned)
• "In Happy Birthday Mummy Ji, she plays Suchi" - earlier "Mummyji" was one word.....?
• In some places the refs after a sentence are not in correct numerical order
• That's what I got! :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:32, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude: Thanks so much for your helpful comments, as always. All suggestions have been applied. The last point about the correct numerical order for refs has been addressed as well. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:54, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:21, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Comments by FrB.TG

• "has received both local and foreign accolades" - I would remove "both" as redundant.
• "After a number of small parts on television"
• "Shah wrote and directed two self-starring COVID-themed" - COVID is a little colloquial. I would use COVID-19 and probably link it.
• "Shefali Shah (née Shetty) was born" - I would cut Shah and say "Shefali Shetty was born" as she wasn't a Shah then.
• "Her first stint with acting happened on Gujarati stage when she was aged 10"
• "which serves both Indian and international cuisines" - prose redundancy. Words like "both" are very often unnecessary. I realise some of these are just dropping single words but if something can be said with fewer words, we should do that (especially if we're aiming for FA). Even Ms Shah agrees with me in her explanation of her approach to acting.
• "1995 marked Shah's first film appearance with a brief role" - I suggest not starting a sentence with a number.
• "to play her first lead role as Savi, a married woman in an extramarital affair with a married man" - this sounds as if it were her first lead role to play a woman named Savi (meaning she had played other lead roles before), not on television in general.
• "$33 million" - MOS:NBSP needed
• "Shah's husband Vipul cast her in his Hindi stage production Bas Itna Sa Khwab, directed Chandrakant Kulkarni" - directed by?
• "it marked Shah's return to the stage after a decade in the role of a middle-class housewife opposite Kiran Karmarkar" - ambiguous. It sounds like she spent a decade in "the role of a middle-class housewife opposite Kiran Karmarkar".
• "Three years later, Shah played Jyoti, a brothel madam in Nagesh Kukunoor's social problem film Lakshmi" - I would mention the year instead of "three years later" as the reader has to jump back a few sentences to figure out the year.
• "The film was one of the highest-grossing Hindi films of 2015" - film used twice within close proximity.
• "Both the film and Shah's performance"
• "Critics noted her ability to communicate emotions through gestures and expressions,[135][136] with Kriti Tulsiani writing" - I would advise against using fused participles like "with + (pro)noun + verb-ing". Something like "...and expressions; Kriti Tulsiani wrote" is much simpler.
• "In Happy Birthday Mummyji, she plays Suchi" - not sure about the sudden use of present simple tense to describe one of Shah's roles. Talking about the older Someday, you use "played".
• "and revealed to have grown so emotionally invested" - words like reveal should (almost) never be used in Wikipedia as it has a NPOV, suspense-dissolving kind of effect.
• "The film was reviewed positively,[176] and Shah received rave reviews for her internal performance" - I'm not sure what internal means here. Also, I would simplify the sentence to "The film and Shah's performance received positive reveiws"
• There's an unnecessary space between "words" and the cited source in "minimal use of words [193]".
• "stop accepting parts of the sort" -> "stop accepting such parts"
• "The rise of OTT platforms" - not everyone is familiar with the abbreviation. I would suggest writing it out.
• "as it brought about an influx of film offers"
• is "homely, chatty but with a sensible head firmly screwed onto her shoulders — a regular Indian woman who deals with life by wearing a velvet glove over an iron hand."[43] Full stop after the quotation mark; see MOS:LQ.
• "While reviewing Jalsa (2022)"
• Suggest italicising "au naturale".

That's it. Admirable work on what would be the first FA on a non-leading Bollywood actress if it passes. This makes me want to watch more of Shah's films, especially her leading roles, as I have only seen her in supporting parts so far. FrB.TG (talk) 17:00, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

@FrB.TG: Thanks so much for this review. All your points have been addressed with one exception. The use of "reveal" is, indeed, discouraged per MOS:SAY but I believe not in the current case because it speaks about her feelings and not something that could be contested so it's even better than "said".

The part where "three years later" is mentioned has been revised as follows (I want to highlight her absence from film work and not just jump to the next year): "After three years of absence from the screen, Shah returned as Jyoti, a brothel madam in Nagesh Kukunoor's 2014 social problem film Lakshmi, alongside Monali Thakur."

Among other points, "internal" was replaced with "understated" (I use "rave reviews" against positive reception to the film, because her performance was even better received than the film itself).

Everything else is done as suggested. Thank you so much for noticing such tiny nuances. By the way, loved your comment that "Even Ms Shah agrees with me in her explanation of her approach to acting." It put a smile on my face and showed how thoroughly you read the article. If you want to watch a film with Shah in the lead, I'd recommend starting with the short film Juice which is available on YouTube with subtitles. Thanks again, Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:46, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Support. Excellent work. FrB.TG (talk) 08:22, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

@FAC coordinators: : Hi there, I wonder what is the current status of this FAC following three reviews, an image review, and a source review. Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:59, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

It's been open for less than three weeks. Let's give it a little longer and see if it can attract further comments. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:05, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Thank you for this reply. Makes sense. Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:14, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Aoba47

• I have a question about this part, in an episode titled Kabzaa. I do not know if this is cultural and regional differences, but I believe episode titles are put in quotation marks and not in italics. I have a similar question for these parts, the well-received Highway and in the fourth segment Ankahi,, as well as any other instances in the article that I may have overlooked.
• I would avoid sentence structures like the following, with critics Subhash K. Jha and Mihir Fadnavis observing. I have seen this note quite a bit in FACs (i.e. do not use the "with X verb-ing" structure), and although I do not have a strong opinion on it, I know it is not considered appropriate for a FA so I would revise this instance, as well as others in the article, out of the prose.
• For this part, Karan Malhotra's remake of the 2011 sports drama Warrior, would it be beneficial to clarify that Warrior is an American film?
• I have a comment for this part, conduct human trials for new drugs. I do not think the link entirely works here as I was not expecting it to lead to the drug test article so it comes across as an WP:Easter egg to me.
• I have a question about this sentence: Darlings became the highest-viewed non-English Indian original on Netflix. When I look at the film's article, it includes this citation which says it had "the highest global opening ever for a non-English original Indian film". The phrasing in this article makes it sound like it was the most-viewed of all time. Could you clarify this point?

I hope these comments are helpful. Once everything has been addressed, I will read through the article one more time to make sure I did not miss anything. Have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 22:19, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Thanks so much for stopping by. Resplies to your comments (one by one):

• You are absolutely right per MOS:MINORWORK. Applied everywhere.
• I'm aware of the recommendation to avoid such structures - that is why you'll find no other instances like this one on the article. The reason this one is used here is because it's a short sentence, with no and it makes it easier to read. I could rewrite it if you think it's crucial.
• Specified country.
• I think the problem is settled now when I use the link as follows: trials for new drugs.
• That's right, but the second source says the following: "Darlings continues to be the highest viewed non-English Indian original film", which supports the text in the article.

Thanks so much for taking the time to offer your helpful comments. Shahid • ^Talk2me 23:06, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any feedback for my current FAC, but I understand if you do not have the time or interest. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 00:44, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:40, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.