Talk:Preity Zinta/Archive 6

message: Ok. Bollyvista—"About us" says, "Through years of hard work, Bollyvista.com has been able to assemble a syndicate of reporters and dedicated technical staff to bring the best of Bollywood to its viewers around the world." So it is not a fan-managed site. It has proper staffs, and offices etc. Disclaimer says, "Bollyvista.com expressly disclaims any and all warranties, express or implied, including, without limitation: (a) Any warranties as to the availability, accuracy, completeness or content of information, products or services that are part of the Bollyvista.com web site..." 
The disclaimer is pretty generic; indiatimes "terms and conditions" says, " All the contents of this Site are only for general information or use. They do not constitute advice and should not be relied upon in making (or refraining from making) any decision"; rediff.com disclaimer says, "REDIFF .COM AND/OR ITS RESPECTIVE SUPPLIERS MAKE NO REPRESENTATIONS ABOUT THE SUITABILITY, RELIABILITY, AVAILABILITY, TIMELINESS, LACK OF VIRUSES OR OTHER HARMFUL COMPONENTS AND ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION, SOFTWARE, PRODUCTS, SERVICES AND RELATED GRAPHICS CONTAINED WITHIN THE REDIFF SITES/SERVICES FOR ANY PURPOSE."
So, disclaimer-wise, bollyvista is comparable to rediff and indiatimes. And it is not a fan-managed website. Yes, it is smaller in size than ToI or rediff. And it is not as widely read/consulted as indiafm. So, what may be it's reliabilty??? My opinion, it is reliable for non-exceptional claims, if properly considered along with the context (just like any other media reliable source, where context should be taken into consideration while deciding reliability). It seems to be "trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand". Comments?--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bollyvista

message: This is a website from INDOlink , which "...is the first Ethnic portal serving Asian-Indians worldwide since 1995. INDOlink is a US Corporation, located in San Ramon, California - with satellite offices in New York, and Bombay, India".
In its terms of service, it has similar disclaimers,disclaiming inaccuracies etc. So, it seems to be not a fan-managed site. However, on checking a few articles, most of them seemed to be written by someone named "Abid". Also, no formal statement on office or stuffs have been made. So, my view on planetbollywood is, it is probably not reliable. It is definitely less transparent than bollyvista or indiafm.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, my question is, can we use review from these site? It is an active site and every new released film receives a review there (not from this Avid, by different writers. Shahid • Talk2me 18:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, we should not be using for reviews too. Instead it would add more value to the article in terms of credibility, if we use well-accepted sources mentioned above. - KNM  Talk 19:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I cannot answer Shaid's question right away. I am not an expert in examining WP:RS. My opinion is it will be better not to use this site, as it's RS-ness is debatable. You can ask in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, and, wait for other editors to express their views here. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Planetbollywood.com

message: I could not fine out any "about us" or 'disclaimers' in the website. It is hard to prove it's reliability, even if to support some non-exceptional claim.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Apunkachoice

message: Can someone check the reliability of this site? Gnanapiti 22:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indiantelevison.com seems to be reliable in the context in question, and for non-exceptional claims. The about us and the disclaimer clearly state about the eponymous private company, and their office, and their strving towards accuracy. It is not a blog/fan site, with considerable transparency about their way of working and the content.--Dwaipayan (talk) 01:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: indiantelevision.com

message: It seems to be RS. Is it? Shahid • Talk2me 19:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: www.fullhyderabad.com

message: I've already proved its reliability. I followed the instruction of some editors, to get an evidence to this or another site being reliable, and looked for it in different RSes. And I've found it! See please Indiatimes and ToI mentioned it on several occasions, writing "According to boxofficeindia.com..." - . I think if it is mentioned in reputable sites which. And it's not only mentioned. If these reputable RSes use boxofficeindia.com as source of information for themselves, it is definitealy reliable. User:Spartz and User:Nichalp support me now. Regards, Shahid • Talk2me 15:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: boxofficeindia.com

message: Guys, we need the spelling to be consistent. So what do you say? American English or British one? I think we need to take on British, as it is an Indian related article. Shahid • Talk2me 21:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean American or British? Gnanapiti 21:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My bad, that's what I mean yes (LOL), I've corrected. Shahid • Talk2me 21:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All India-related articles use British English.--Dwaipayan (talk) 23:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

text:  - turned to British. Shahid • Talk2me 02:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  American or British? 

message: There was a notice on this page, but looking at the date of the last archive, it appears it was archived.  As a result of a lengthy discussion at good article reassessment, there was a clear consensus to remove this article from the GA list at this time, as the article does not currently meet good article standards.  Some concerns were raised over POV and other stylistic issues with the article.  One editor, who wished to keep this article on the GA list, noted that it had met A-class status.  It should be noted that while the overall scheme of Wikipedia grading does rank "A-class" above "GA", the two are not assessed in the same manner and along the same set of standards.  A-class evaluation is done by individual projects, and GA assessment is done by comparing to the WP:WIAGA standards.  There is nothing incongrous with this result.  It is entirely possible for an article to meet A-class standards, and not GA standards, since they don't necessarily measure the same thing. An archive of this discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 32. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article removed from GA list per [[WP:GAR|good article reassessment]] discussion