# Talk:The Sky Is Pink

Chinar(Message) 07:14, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Saucy[talk – contribs] 08:31, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
@Saucy: I want protection for this page The Sky Is Pink so that no person less than auto comfirmed can edit it. Chinar(Message) 12:12, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 Not done: requests for increases to the page protection level should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. —KuyaBriBriTalk 13:41, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Film's Domestic and Overseas BO collection should be Mentioned  on this Page ! Nitesh Chetnani (talk) 04:09, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Please provide a written policy that states what your edit summary claims that "Rotten Tomatoes are not used for Bollywood films". Also, why would you remove reviews from reliable sources such as The Guardian and Scroll.in? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 20:31, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Does this source has included all the Bollywood reviews before giving a score of the film? And I removed those two sources because the film has plenty of negative reviews already and the film did not have mixed reception.Krish | Talk To Me 20:34, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
The text says that "On the review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, the film holds a rating of 68% based on 19 reviews", which it does. The text does not claim that Rotten Tomatoes holds a X% rating based on all published reviews of the film. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 20:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
"removed those two sources because the film has plenty of negative reviews already and the film did not have mixed reception" Says who? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 20:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
So you will add all the negative reviews that the film has received but then why not all positive reviews?Krish | Talk To Me 21:07, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
@Betty Logan: Might I please trouble you to give an opinion about the WikiProject Film community's preference for how and when to use Rotten Tomatoes? I know that I've asked at WT:FILM before and I was under the impression that we typically want there to be a critical consensus, which we don't usually get when we only have 17 reviews, and I feel like you personally have expressed an opinion that 17 reviews might not be statistically significant. On the other hand, I feel like I've also heard people say that it is OK to add newly developing RT scores for a newly released film, which wouldn't be consistent with that. However, I could be wrong in my understanding. Thanks in advance. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:29, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Review_aggregators#Limitations recommends against including aggregator stats if there are fewer than 10 reviews. At List of films with a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes the threshold is set at 20 reviews, or failing that a critics summary (which represents a standing consensus). If it got one more review (it is currently on 19), the score would go up to 70% or drop to 65%, so you could argue that the consensus isn't going to change that much on 20 reviews i.e. roughly two-thirds of the reviews will be positive and it will still be rated fresh etc. Betty Logan (talk) 01:40, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Betty Logan I have listed below about all the reviews the film has received and as you can see Rotten Tomatoes has nearly all the negative reviews the film has received added but only like 15% of positive reviews it received. So how can we use it even after 20 sources? The film has around 50 positive sources and 4 mixed and 4 negative. How is Rotten Tomatoes useful for Bollywood films when it does not even include all the reviews?Krish | Talk To Me 04:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Per WP:AGG "Review aggregators are not arbiters of critical consensus" i.e. they are surveys that only speak for the reviews they aggregate. To the best of my knowledge reviews are submitted to Rotten Tomatoes, so they are not necessarily representative. It is not uncommon for Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic to reach different conclusions. There is nothing wrong with that however, provided the methodology and metrics are clear to the reader e.g. "Rotten Tomatoes surveyed 19 reviews and judged 13 of them to be positive." If you can find other summaries of the critical reception that is great too, because it then builds a picture of how the film was received. Betty Logan (talk) 05:49, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Positive

The New York Times
The Hollywood Reporter
IndieWire
Los Angeles Times
India Today
NDTV
Gulf News
Filmfare
The New Indian Express
Firstpost
Rediff.com
Deccan Herald
The National
The Stesman
The Quint
Huffington Post
The Print
The Economic Times
The Times of India
Arre
Hindustan Times
Anupama Chopra
Suchitra Tyagi
Film Inquiry
The Week
Republic World
Khaleej Times
India TV
Mashable\
Outlook
The Telegraph
Koimoi
Daily News and Analysis
Mid Day
Aaj Tak
Navbharat Times
Mumbai Mirror
Rahul Desai Film Companion
Bradwaj Ranjan
Loksatta
Patrika
Hindustan
Lokmat
CNN-News18
Times Now
Sify
National Herald/Subhash K. Jha
Mint
WION
Yahoo!
Mixed

Scroll
Bollywood Hungama
Rajeev Masand
Deccan Chronicle
Negative

Variety
The Hindu
The Guardian
The Indian Express
So I was writing the "reception section" and Krimuk2.0 as usual reverted my edit and added several negative reviews. I have presented above the reviews that the film had received. The film had 50 positive reviews, 4 mixed reviews and 4 negative reviews. This shows that the film had received over 90% positive reviews but according to this editor (as he says above) is mixed reception film. This editor added all the negative reviews that the film received in the section. "Reception" sections are written to give all POV according to WP:DUE WEIGHT and I had done that. So my version of the article had its whole last section filled with considerable criticism. But I was reverted and this user added all the available negative reviews, giving more WP:UNDUE WEIGHT, to show that the film had equally negative reviews. As per my observation of this editor has been doing only this to Priyanka Chopra-related articles and me. So now I would like to ask Kailash29792, SNUGGUMS, Numerounovedant, Bollyjeff, Veera Narayana and especially Cyphoidbomb to look here because this user has been trying to get me into edit warring. He adds misleading content to Chopra's article, particularly about reception of films and performances (mostly showing them as negative when I have time and again proved on talk pages that those performances/films are positive) and reverts me everytime I expand one of her articles and threatens/intimidates me of ANI/getting me blocked. This is a pattern and it needs inspection. This intimidation needs to stop as I don't feel safe on Wikipedia because of his constant harassment as accusation.Krish | Talk To Me 21:26, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Though I generally agree with Krimuk’s edits, I cannot support him here since his bias against Chopra is quite visible. Krish, you don’t believe the article will bloat if you restore the content deleted by Krimuk? Kailash29792 (talk)  03:52, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Kailash29792 Same thing happened at Bajirao Mastani's article and same happened at Chopra's article. I can understand showing panned films/performances as panned but what is this logic behind showing her acclaimed/positively reviewed film/performances as negative? If this is not bias than what is it called as this is a clear violation of Wikipedia policy. One thing I just don't understand, why target her acclaimed films/performances though? And, Kailash, restoring the article won't be that hard. It will take a lot of time though.Krish | Talk To Me 04:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)'
Another attempt to mislead by providing false information and misquoting me.

Firstly, no part of my edit makes any such claim that the film received mixed or negative reviews. Infact, the very first statement that it received positive reviews, stays.
Secondly, the reception has three paragraphs worth of positive reviews and quotes (while one paragraph is devoted to the mixed/negative reviews). The first three paras contain reviews which are highly positive of the film and its actors, all of which remain as is. The only change I made here, was reduce a run-in quote about Chopra Jonas, and include the fact that all four stars were praised by the Rediff.com reviewer.
Thirdly, the user has randomly categorised reviews as "positive" and "negative" above, which amounts to WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. A large number of these reviews, such as Variety, Los Angeles Times and Rahul Desai Film Companion, among others, highlight both positive and negative aspects of the film, without any "rating" as such. Categorising them as either is blatant original research.
Fourth, WP:SYNTHESIS tells us that we should "not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." This user is making assumptions about what these sources are saying about the film's reception and reaching a conclusion which none of these sources explicitly says, and removing the one source that does. And as Betty Logan so kindly said above, that "Wikipedia:Review_aggregators#Limitations recommends against including aggregator stats if there are fewer than 10 reviews." In this case, there are 19 reviews, so there is no policy that forbids its use, as opposed to what the user claims.
Fifth, I have been contributing to this article, since 2018, and have made 85 edits to it, while the user was indefinitely blocked. So claiming that I am targeting this article now is a false WP:CONSPIRACY. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:47, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
So tell me, Kailash29792, Cyphoidbomb, Shshshsh, which of these amount to "bias"? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:47, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Krimuk2.0, unlike Krish I have no ill will against you. Maybe I mistakenly believed you were deleting the comments praising Chopra's performance due to bias against her and bias towards those who you made FA (like Padukone and Vidya Balan). So apologies. And Krish, I'm not defecting from your side (spoiler alert: I was not on either side from the beginning). I just want there to be a balance. Let Krish add content, let Krimuk cut down for conciseness, but don't any of you delete anything out of potential bias. Kailash29792 (talk)  09:05, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Its's not a conspiracy theory, I clearly said It was an observation at all of Chopra-related articles. Second you had added The film emerged as a Box Office Bomb when the source you provided says nothing about box office bomb. So what should we conclude with that? That source does not say abpout budget and losses so how did you come to conclusion that it was a "box office bomb"? You used this on Chopra's article too. While nothing of this sort is used in Chhapaak, another article you have been editing since January. In fact it says it was a moderate success or to quote exactly "average". Box Office India states that Chhapak was a "huge flop" and a "rare loser in Bollywood" yet I don't see even a mention of "box office flop" but instead it says "average run". Is this also misleading and false information from my side?Krish | Talk To Me 14:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
My version of the article has two sources: ONE that review aggreagated five Bollywood sources and concludes that the film had received positive response and another that states that the film had critical acclaim and this is how most of the Bollywood articles were/are written as we don't have a proper review aggregator as RT does not include all reviews and provides a score. So I did not do Original research for it as it was already written in the sources. Above When I said the film did not have mixed reception, your reply was Says who? It's clear that it was your WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH that the film had also received equally negative reviews. I posted all the reviews above just to show that the amount of negative reviews you added were against WP: NPOV. It was not to aggreagate or WP:SYNTHESISE. It was just to show that you had added all the negative POVs of the film received. The section's entire last paragraph was already showing the negative/mixed POV so what was the neccessity to add more negative reviews when there number is already very small?Krish | Talk To Me 14:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Also, when you accuse me of WP: ORIGINAL RESEARCH which I did not as the sources says the film had positive reception. You forgot two rules related to it that are WP:NPOV and WP:VERIFIABILITY which says "Because these policies work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with all three." When incorporating research into an article, it is important that editors provide context for this point of view, by indicating how prevalent the position is, and whether it is held by a majority or minority. If your viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents It does not say add all the all minority POVs but the prominent ones, means a small chunk. The film already had POVs from both sides even from the reviews that are positive such as The Times of India, Anupama Chopra and Outlook, then the mixed ones such as Rajeev Masand and then had entirely negative ones such as Variety and The Indian Express. But you added the other negative reviews the film had received which is a clear violation of Wikipedia: NPOV and WP:UNDUE WEIGHT. I rest my case here.Krish | Talk To Me 14:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Okay, without going deep into the reviews and the arguments. First off, Kailash, I object to your reference of Krimuk as biased against Chopra. On the contrary, he's been incredibly helpful in making her article better by toning it down and balancing it out.
I think we all can be a little biased though, and that's why this habit of summarising a review as strictly positive or negative is indeed a little problematic. When there's a disagreement between editors as to the verdict of the review, I would suggest using quotes without trying to be the critic's speaker, or noting the ratings whenever these are available. Otherwise I'd like to believe that critics are much more complex than positive or negative and wouldn't rush to reduce their reviews to merely positive or negative.
I notice that conflict pertains the summary of "positive" or "generally positive" (sigh). I think we should settle for looking for good review aggregators and avoid OR ("a rating of 68% based on 19 reviews" by RT is not very positive, I have to say), or maybe some newspaper article which summarizes the critical reception and would spare us all the need to make our own conclusions. Shahid • Talk2me 15:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Shshshsh There is already an article that summarises the reviews and says that the films had positive reviews.Krish | Talk To Me 15:46, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
So you are fine with using this article which cites only "5 reviews" to make this claim but not okay using the RT source which cites "19 reviews", saying above that the latter source does not include all reviews published of the film. Interesting. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 15:54, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
For long, reviews summaries of Indian publications like these are used to cite reception. Also, the article already had this source and it says "the film had a positive reception". Shshshsh Does "renaming sections to show that phase of her career was not successful" also count as toning down for balance? Should that balance be not achieved on Zinta, Padukone, Balan, Kapoor and other actresses' articles?Krish | Talk To Me 15:59, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
"For long, reviews summaries of Indian publications like these are used to cite reception." Please provide a written policy that states that, and also why a source that uses "5 reviews" should be used to summarise instead of one that uses "19 reviews". Plus, this article and discussion isn't about any other actresses. It's not even about an actress. It's about the reception of The Sky is Pink. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:03, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
It's a long practice among Bollywood Wikipedian. And if you really want to get into that then how about we start with articles written by you: [[Kabhi Khushi Kabhie Gham...]], [The Dirty Picture]], Agneepath (2012 film)|Agneepath]] and Ek Main Aur Ekk Tu, most of which do not even use a summary of any source, just the summary of the section? It's not about 5 summaries or 19 summaries, it's about a source specifically saying the film had "positive reception". The Rotten Tomatoes sources says nothing.Krish | Talk To Me 16:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
No articles are "written by me" -- they are written by very many editors, of which I am one of many. Also, nobody is removing the fact that the film has received positive reviews. It's in the article, and nobody has removed it. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:13, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
"Rotten Tomatoes sources says nothing" no, Rotten Tomatoes says that "the film holds a rating of 68% based on 19 reviews, with an average rating of 6/10". Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:13, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Relevant discussion from 2015? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:15, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
I didn't understand your claim about renaming sections, Krish.
Why is it even that important if the film was "generally" or not "generally" well received, as long as it was well received. Keep it at "generally" and that's it. That means exactly the same thing, only with some critics who were less positive of it. This also goes in line with RT's summary. Shahid • Talk2me 16:12, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
I want to add, Krish, that your lists are entirely your work here. Looked at the review from The Hollywood Reporter for one, and it's really quite negative. Shahid • Talk2me 16:19, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

What about this biased behaviour of of Krimuk2.0? He added a criticism of Chopra'a make up so that it can look that the critic found her distracting yet this editor has problems with Padukone's performance criticism being added in Bajirao Mastani article, which he removed it. This person found this section a violation of WP:SYNTHESIS yet he and Shshshsh voted for Chopra's performance in 7 Khoon Maaf being shown as negative based on synthesis on talk page. How is this not biased? Kailash29792, Bollyjeff, and especially Cyphoidbomb?Krish | Talk To Me 21:13, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Stop tagging me.  I don't care about this film which I have not seen, and I am so tired of your rants and raves.  Is editing Wikipedia for the benefit of Priyanka Chopra your full time job? Bollyjeff | talk 23:58, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
I am sorry for the trouble but I really never expected such a rude reply or a rather accusation. And, no I don't work for Chopra. I work for one of world's biggest multinational companies but as a film fan I like editing film articles. Anyways, I have been editing Wikipedia only after the sun goes down as when the sun is up, I am currently working from home like the rest of the world because of a lockdown. Anyways, I won't be tagging you or anybody else from now on as I don't think anyone here even tries to listen to an editor in need. So I would take the bullying and intimidation from that editor alone. Sorry again!Krish | Talk To Me 01:46, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Place your responses below this disclaimer and table (after the hr code). Remember to sign your name at the end of all of your statements by typing in ~~~~; Do not edit the article as it will cause conflicts for me and the tools I am running on the page. I will reformat this discussion to keep everything neat and orderly and we will have a lot of discussions. Thank you GalendaliaChat Me Up 05:20, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments:
I have changed most of the wording to comply with American English, please continue to follow this throughout the article.
As I to can make mistakes, here are some recommendations as part of a peer review process:
The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.
The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.
Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.
This article has no or few images. Please see if there are any free use images that fall under the Wikipedia:Image use policy and fit under one of the Wikipedia:Image copyright tags that can be uploaded. To upload images on Wikipedia, go to Special:Upload; to upload non-fair use images on the Wikimedia Commons, go to commons:special:upload.
This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, then an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.
Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: mustache (A) (British: moustache), organize (A) (British: organise), organise (B) (American: organize), criticise (B) (American: criticize), aging (A) (British: ageing), grey (B) (American: gray).
Expand any contractions you may find that are not part of a quote
After 10 days. please resubmit the article to go through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas.
Statistics:
Reading time: 38 min 8 sec
Speaking time: 1 hr 13 min
Readability score: 2 (In the Flesch reading ease test, higher scores indicate material that is easier to read. This test is likely to be understood by college graduates but may not be easy for many to read.)
If you have any questions, please feel free to leave me a message on my talk page.
Best of luck and happy editing,
GalendaliaChat Me Up 06:35, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I am converting the article from American English to British English. Please do not edit the article at this time, as it will overwrite my changes. Thank you GalendaliaChat Me Up 22:02, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

This change was inappropriate and has been fixed; this article is in Indian English. This message can be safely ignored. Baffle☿gab 03:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Why was Chopra's photo removed from the critical reception section? Yes, whole cast was praised (and got little equally criticised) but Critics have called Chopra's performance and the film as "the film is Priyanka Chopra’s show", "alone must watch for Priyanka Chopra", "Priyanka Chopra's restraint defines the film", "enhanced appreciably by the presence of Chopra", "Priyanka Chopra is the soul of the film", "Priyanka Chopra is the highlight of the film", "particularly Priyanka, in top-form", "the film is shouldered by Chopra". In fact many of these reviews and sources are in the article. Also there is even a criticism for Chopra's "make-up and clothing" which distracted a critic from her performance but no criticism of other three cast members. What's up with this biasness?Krish | Talk To Me 06:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

"Yes, whole cast was praised" ==> in that case, everyone's picture should be included, not just one. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Next time before you revert my edit for the 100th time, try reading WP:STATUS QUO. Plus, you don't WP:OWN any article and are not suppose to revert unless and until it is a violation of WP guidelines. Constant revert on Wikipedia is considered as a WP: PERSONAL ATTACK and is forbidden here. I would like to urge Cyphoidbomb to look into this as this user is again back to constant intimidation. Now coming back to Chopra's performance, well, several critics have singled out Chopra's performance in the film which is present in the article and added in the sources. Just like several film articles on Wikipedia and it is not even controversial. I have observed that your edits have constantly downplayed Chopra's achievements and performances which is according to Wikipedia rules comes in the category of WP: SYSTEMATIC BIAS. So let's call other editors and see what they have to say Kailash29792, SNUGGUMS, Numerounovedant and Yashthepunisher (please don't get made at me for pinging you guys).Krish | Talk To Me 08:07, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
If Chopra's performance was singled out for praise, I don't see why a picture of her should not be used. But when the whole cast was praised, you can use their pictures too. Kailash29792 (talk)  08:25, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Kailash29792 This user did the same on Bajirao Mastani where Chopra's performance was hailed as the best by several critics. This habit of this user, to downplay Chopra's achievements is so against Wikipedia guidelines. I am tired of having discussions about something which is so non-controversial. Almost every film article has a picture in the reception section singling out actor's performance (if that performance is hailed by critics). So I don't understand this bias against Chopra. Majority of critics have called Chopra as "the soul of the film", and "highlight of the film" while her other costars did not get these kind of reviews for their performance.Krish | Talk To Me 10:03, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
From what I see, Chopra did get significant praise. So did Akhtar and other members of the cast. But Chopra stands out for her ability to get nominations at all major film awards, which the others don't. Consider this: Both Stone and Gosling were praised for their performances on La La Land, but Stone won the academy award and there's her picture in the article then. And similarly here, makes sense to have Chopra's picture in the article if you ask me with her getting the award nominations in the captiob. VedantTalk 11:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Wasim got acting nominations at both Filmfare and Screen. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 12:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
This and this works for me too. VedantTalk 13:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Numerounovedant Chopra has got 3 nominations and critics remarks such as "Priyanka Chopra is the soul of the film". A lot of critics have said that Wasim was okay/decent/under used/in the background etc. Also we are talking about critical response not awards.Krish | Talk To Me 13:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Unless critics overall thought her performance was a particular highlight over other cast members, I don't see any convincing rationale to only include a picture of Chopra. We regardless could also play it safe by not using any cast member images there at all. That's all I have to say on the matter. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
SNUGGUMS That's exactly what I said above. Chopra's performance in this film was singled out among the cast. If it was not the case, I would not have added that in first place.Krish | Talk To Me 16:05, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Comment: Since I was pinged, here are my thoughts--Do I think Krimuk2.0 has over-reverted Krish! in the past? Yes. Does that mean that every reversion is part of that pattern? No. Do I think we should replace one of the four images that depict Priyanka Chopra with an image that depicts her singularly? No. Do I think that maybe Krish! has trouble editing objectively in areas that involve Chopra? Yes. Do I think that this could eventually lead to a topic ban? Yes. Do I want to be involved in that process? No. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:02, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Cyphoidbomb So quoting reviews mentioned in the article and sources shows "my lack of objectivity"? But manipulating reviews to show the positively reviewed performances as negative/mixed in Chopra's article and deleting entire criticism of an actor whose performance received considerable criticism in Bajirao Mastani is what "Noble-prize winning" editing skills? Wow! Also, I am very sorry for pinging you and If it makes you feel any good, I won't be pinging you from now on.Krish | Talk To Me 16:05, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
I haven't said anything about your review quotes. I'm speaking broadly. You constantly have problems in this subject area, you get upset about it, and that to me suggests a lack of objectivity. I'm pretty sure that I have noted before that you should be careful in this area because you could wind up topic banned. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Since everyone in this discussion agreed on "if her performance was singled out", which she has as per the reviews in the article, then "I see no problem why can't her picture be not there". So what's the final call? Should I re-add the photograph  Kailash29792, SNUGGUMS, Numerounovedant?Krish | Talk To Me 02:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Why is "I see no problem why can't her picture be not there" in quotes? Is that something most people said, or is that something you are saying, and you are quoting yourself? I see that Kailash said "If Chopra's performance was singled out for praise, I don't see why a picture of her should not be used. But when the whole cast was praised, you can use their pictures too." Maybe Kailash should clarify what he meant there. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
I concur with Cyphoidbomb. Not interested in commenting here any further. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Cyphoidbomb That's what Kailash's first line read and it's not my quote. Vedant too said that since Chopra's performance was singled out, her photo should be there and Snuggums said the same but felt "we can also use no picture". How am I quoting myself? Since I have come back, you have been only consistently criticising me as if I have not written about 50 good/featured content, that too without drama but everybody is acting like I don't know how to write film articles. But suddenly my every addition to articles are being questioned and dissected. Yes, criticism are good but everyday and on every article that too for non controversial edits and additions which can be found on majority of film articles on wikipedia? I don't see other people being criticised this much the way I am.Krish | Talk To Me 03:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
@Krish!: I must be an idiot, because you are claiming ignorance as to how you could be quoting yourself, but nowhere on this page do I find the words "I see no problem why can't her picture be not there" except in your post above and in my query as to where this alleged quote came from. If you were paraphrasing other people's responses, then you probably shouldn't have phrased it as a quotation, since we're now discussing where this idea came from, and you so far haven't clarified it. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:16, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Cyphoidbomb Kailash said "If Chopra's performance was singled out for praise, I don't see why a picture of her should not be used" and Vedant said "Chopra did get significant praise. So did Akhtar and other members of the cast. But Chopra stands out for her ability to get nominations at all major film awards, which the others don't" and suggested adding the picture. I did not made it up and Snuggums said something similar to this too. This was done in Bajirao Mastani article as well where her performance was praised byt the picture was removed. Writing articles is a hard job especially transforming stubs into big articles and all I get for doing that is accusations, questioning of my edits and no respect while problematic editors get a pass with the right to revert every edit of mine and a right to manipulate an actress' critical notices for her positively reviewed performances while propping up another actress for her panned performances, that too in several films. I'm done here.Krish | Talk To Me 04:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Krish, go ahead as long as nothing is misleading. If Krimuk undoes it, he'll be questioned. Kailash29792 (talk)  05:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Sorry but one editor who routinely reviews the other editor’s articles, agreeing with him is not not how consensus is achieved. Start an RFC for comment by uninvolved people. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 05:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Just my last comment here. I do agree with the comments about the article having too many photographs here. So here's a suggestion. A photograph of Zaira Wasim in the Casting section considering it was her was her last role (which could be highlighted in the caption); The group photograph in the Marketing and release could stay as it features Bose; and Reception could have a Chopra/Chopra and Wasim/a group photograph mentioning the positive response to the performances of cast. VedantTalk 08:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
"a group photograph mentioning the positive response to the performances of cast" would be my preference as well for the reception section. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 08:12, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
I am sure your another preference will be adding something like "Chopra gave her worst performance in the film" as well which you kind of did in the last line of reception section to make her performance look like it was criticized while no criticism for other cast members and removed a performance criticism  entirely in Bajirao Mastani. Like you have misrepresented/mislead reviews in her article and Bajirao Mastani; downplaying her achievements while propping others which has been my observation. News flash you don't WP: OWN Wikipedia articles and you don't get to decide what will happen. Also, the cast did not get praise equally. Critics have singled out Chopra for her performance calling her "the soul of the film" and "highlight of the film"; they did not say "whole cast is soul of the film".Krish | Talk To Me 12:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Sky Is Pink/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Raymie (talk · contribs) 04:42, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
This article is nearly there, but it could use a bit of work in the lead section and in avoiding long direct quotes.
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
I wonder if the lead is a little long, particularly the second paragraph.
The lead reflects the body of the article which is huge. So I think the lead is justified and I have written several articles with big leads. Perhaps, I should break the second paragraph into two, what's say?Krish | Talk To Me 14:38, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 
There are some long quotes where paraphrasing might prove useful, such as in the "Development" subsection and to a lesser extent in "Themes and analysis". I really want to see trimming down of the direct quotes in "Development" especially. Have you considered using quote boxes for important quotes?
I have paraphrased mostof the quotes. Is is okay now?.Krish | Talk To Me 14:38, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 
Most contributions have been by the nominator and as part of a GOCE copy edit.
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
Appropriate captions in use. The only non-free image is the movie poster, which has an FUR.
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
Giving this 7 days to look at trimming down the lead and eliminating lengthy quotes in the aforementioned sections.
Pinging nominator Krish!. Raymie (t • c) 05:06, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

All done, Raymie. Thank you for your review. Is there something else?Krish | Talk To Me 14:38, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
@Krish: Not that I saw. I did see a couple grammar items to clean up, but that's it. Raymie (t • c) 18:51, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
@Krish!: (oops!) I am passing this for GA. Raymie (t • c) 22:44, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Andaman Islands india.jpg
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:36, 6 July 2022 (UTC)