Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Amitabh Bachchan filmography/archive1

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 03:01, 30 December 2015 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Amitabh Bachchan filmography[edit]

Amitabh Bachchan filmography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Yashthepunisher (talk) 16:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amitabh Bachchan is considered to be one of the greatest actor of this planet. He has nearly 220 acting credits, including films like Sholay, Agneepath, Aankhen, Sarkar, Black and Paa. This list a well-written and well-sourced listing of his career. Yashthepunisher (talk) 16:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment – Given the length of his career, make sure that all his films are listed in the chronological order of release date. Also, you might want to move the films that he had produced to a separate table to avoid confusion. Also, I cannot find any of his minor works (TV shows, documentaries, etc.,) of the pre-90s era. There must be a few, I guess. —Vensatry (Talk) 07:17, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have arranged the films according to there release date. Out of nearly 220 films under his belt, he has only produced 15 of them. So, i don't think another table is necessary. About his TV work, KBC was touted as his television debut and he had only produced one show before. Also i'm still trying to find any of his work related to documentaries of pre-90's, but most are like his appearances on simi grewal kind-of-shows. Yashthepunisher (talk) 07:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The table lists Saat Hindustani first. However, there seems to be a bit of confusion over the release dates of Bhuvan Shome and Saat Hindustani; the latter was released in Nov 1969. There are sources which say he actually entered films through Bhuvan Shome. I know it's a tedious task, but you are going to carry out this check for every single film of his. I'm not a big fan of unreleased films, but you might consider including this one as the failure was quite notable. I'm saying this because you currently have one uncredited appearance in the table. Coming to the producers list, it should be moved to another table for ease of navigation as he never acted in a few of those. If you're not very keen to have a separate table, make sure that you have secondary, tertiary, etc., sorts, separately for his on-screen and off-screen roles. I'll do a full review if time permits. —Vensatry (Talk) 11:44, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have added Khabardar. Almost every source claims that Saat Hindustani was his debut film. Even in an interview with barkha dutt, he himself said about his experience on his debut film with Khwaja Abbas. Those film whose release date's are available, i have listed them accordingly. Yashthepunisher (talk) 17:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[2], [3], [4] say otherwise. What about films whose release dates aren't available? —Vensatry (Talk) 12:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Listing them after the one's who have a release date was the only choice I had. What should be done about his debut film then? Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:16, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Although the criteria doesn't specifically mention this, I think this should really be taken care of. —Vensatry (Talk) 12:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How? Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We should have sources verifying the same. —Vensatry (Talk) 15:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Vensatry: I have taken care of his debut film issue, with two sources supporting it. Also, if there are any other issues, you can mention them. Yashthepunisher (talk) 08:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you have removed your own comment which was about creating a separate table for 'produced films', with a hasty edit summary. Before I can proceed further, this needs to be taken care of. —Vensatry (Talk) 09:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Irony! you didn't had the time to reply here, but Right after i deleted my own comments, you responded. Anyway, you know what i deleted so, you might wanna create the table for its betterment. Yashthepunisher (talk) 09:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was quite busy for the past three days; I was constantly travelling. You might want to check my edit history. My routine editing resumed just this morning. What's the irony here, care to explain? —Vensatry (Talk) 09:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well if that's the case, please accept my apologies and help. Yashthepunisher (talk) 09:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologize, but please assume WP:AGF with reviewers. I'll review this one in the next couple of days. —Vensatry (Talk) 10:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dharmadhyaksha

  • "Lift Kara De (Remix)" missing from "Music videos" section.
The video features the look-a-likes of Amitabh Bachchan, Dharmendra, Ajit Khan and Dilip Kumar, they aren't real ones.
  • "Mile Sur Mera Tumhara" missing from "Music videos" section.
Added.
done §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Naam Kya Hai missing from "Films" section.
This film don't even have a wiki-article, also i tried to find any source that says he was in this film; but i couldn't. So, its not important to mention it coz every film cannot be mentioned here.
Wikipedia is not complete. ref. Every film can't be mentioned. But how do you gauge which should be and which shouldn't? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any further information regarding the release date or the director of the film. If you find one, you can add it yourself. I don't, but i have been trying my best to make this list as comprehensive as i can. Yashthepunisher (talk) 07:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Added. It was missing from the documentary section.
done §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also feel that his non-acting roles of being a narrator in films should be separated out.
I don't think so, because the title says "Role" and his role in these films are of a narrator.
Being producer is also a "role" in filmmaking. You need to separate out on-screen and off-screen roles. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Read above.
  • Sometimes "Narrator" is written in Roles columns and sometimes in Notes column. That should be uniform.
Done
  • Are off-screen works, like concerts, etc. omitted from this list on purpose?
Yes, because its a filmography not a discography. Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A discography won't include the concerts where he dances either. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Its a "filmography", take a look at other ones. If there are any concerts and other stuffs, they should be mentioned in the biography or god-knows-which-graphy, but not here. Yashthepunisher (talk) 07:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • And continuing what Vensatry said, how are we ensuring that the list includes most of the works? I know that not all works can possibly be included. But what are we doing to make sure that not a large chunk is missed out? My quick search shows 4 missing entries listed above. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:41, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly 8-10 films were missing before i started editing this list, which i added later. Most of films that are important and are known and most who don't even have a article here; all are mentioned. I have also added many uncredited roles of his. But, looking at the gigantic size of his career, again i'm saying its not nearly possible or necessary to add every film. Yashthepunisher (talk) 07:20, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I shall review the list when all of the comments above are addressed. -- Frankie talk 22:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dharmadhyaksha: and @FrB.TG:, If you have any issues, please proceed with it. Yashthepunisher (talk) 07:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Frankie talk
Comments from FrB.TG
  • It is best suitable for the third and fourth sentences to be merged.
The third sentence mentions Anand, while the fourth one is written about Zanjeer; how can they be merged? Still I have trimmed the former one.
Nope, my comments were based on this revision. You seem to have done what I suggested. -- Frankie talk 10:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1973 Bachchan portrayed the role of Inspector Vijay Khanna in Prakash Mehra's action drama Zanjeer" – it should either be "played the role of" or simply "portrayed" as "portrayed the role" is pretty vague.
Done
  • "The same year, Bachchan appeared in Abhimaan and Namak Haraam. For the latter, he received the Filmfare Award for Best Supporting Actor." – again, they can be merged.
Merging it will look something like "..appeared in Abhimaan and Namak Haraam; for which he received the Filmfare Award for Best Supporting Actor". It can create confusion among the reader on whether he won that award for Abhimaan or Namak Haraam.
  • "Sholay (1975), which is considered to be one of the greatest films of all time" – I am not sure people other than those familiar with Bollywood or Indian film industry have heard of the film. It should be one of the greatest Indian or Bollywood films of all time.
Done
  • "the romantic film Silsila (1981), the crime drama Kaalia (1981) and"
Done
  • In the same sentence, all of the films' genres are included but Shakti's – pretty inconsistent.
Added
  • "him the nominations for Filmfare Award for Best Actor" – definite article needed for the award.
Already mentioned in the 9th sentence.
So? -- Frankie talk 10:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is resolved. Right? Yashthepunisher (talk) 11:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1990, Bachchan portrayed the role" – again, "portrayed the role"!
Rephrased
  • I think you should write about how Agneepath despite being a box-office failure, has developed a cult status in India.
Done
  • The last sentence of second para is pretty short; you can combine it with the preceding sentence.
Done
  • I think you forgot to italicize Kaun Banega Crorepati in the lead.
Done
  • Wiki-link Hindi in the Documentaries section.
Done
  • Reference 8 needs to have a page number.
It's not available I think.
It sure is. Page no for ref 8 is 163 while source 9's is p. 99. -- Frankie talk 10:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done
  • Bollywood Hungama – italicize it in ref 20 and de-italicize in ref 22.
Done
Again, I can't see any.
Sure, they can be seen. -- Frankie talk 10:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Page no. should be mentioned at the top or bottom left-right side of a page. I just can't see them there. Please add them yourself. Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You can use this tool. -- Frankie talk 14:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Yashthepunisher (talk) 15:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure Amazon.com (in ref 219) as a source is acceptable. If possible, find an alternative.
Its a case of WP:OSE, but Amazon has been used here. Still i'll try to replace this source. Yashthepunisher (talk) 06:19, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can't find another on to replace Amazon. It should be ok to use, as there is no clear consensus that restricts us from using it. Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – above are my addressed comments. -- Frankie talk 15:12, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comments and the support. Yashthepunisher (talk) 16:22, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Pavanjandhyala
  • To the best of my knowledge, Zanjeer is an action film. Though it had enough drama, i feel that "action film" can be a better choice.
Done
Delinked. My mistake.
  • "These films established his image as the angry young man"—What do you mean by "These"?
Rephrased.
  • Is Kaalia an action film or a crime drama? I think it is the former.
It's actually an action film with a lot of crime in the backdrop. So, "action crime" should suffice.
  • "Despite being a box-office failure, the former garnered him the National Film Award for Best Actor and has since developed a cult status in India." Is this statement reliably sourced?
Added.
  • Who is the director of Paa?
Mentioned.
  • "appeared in the comedy-drama's Shamitabh and Piku."—comedy-drama's? Something is wrong here. Also, i don't think Shamitabh is a comedy drama. It was moody and tragic.
Rephrased.
  • May i know why there was not at least once sentence about his limited work in the South (includes his debuts) and in English?
He has either produced or made cameo appearances in south indian films. I have intentionally restricted his production work with Tere Mere Sapne only, for the betterment of the lead-size. Also, about his hollywood debut, It was a five-minute role. Looking at the size of his career, i can't mention special appearances in the lead.
  • Why Ra.One is missing in the lead as his films as a narrator? It might be a failure, but it surely gained recognition.
He wasn't its narrator, per my knowledge. Yashthepunisher (talk) 11:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This says something else. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 12:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the lead cannot accomodate more than this, considering his work. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 10:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • That 2011 image of Bachchan can be placed beside the "Television" section where you can mention him as the host of KBC. That would be more appropriate IMHO.
The image's size is bigger than the the "television" section table. Placing it there will look bloated.
  • Is there any reason behind the usage of that 2013 image? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 15:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the beautification of the article, like these: [5] [6] [7]. But, I agree with you, and I feel that both those images look unnecessary. Will remove them. Yashthepunisher (talk) 16:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. It is a decent list, considering Bachchan's work in multiple fields. IMO, it satisfies the FL criteria. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 08:00, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments and support Pavanjandhyala, much appreciated. Yashthepunisher (talk) 08:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • 'who has had a prolific career.' So he's not acting any more? If so, to what point?
Rephrased
  • The following sentence is unclear; there is a discussion at the top. The nominator doesn't seem to have clarified this in the article either.
Which sentence? If you are talking about his debut film, I have clarified it per suggested by your sources.
  • In the given context, I'm not sure if 'dubbed' is encyclopedic.
Replaced with "cited". Hope that's encyclopedic.
  • Either 'Two years later he appeared' or '1975' is redundant.
Fixed
  • 'Bachchan then acted in Ramesh Sippy's Sholay (1975)' Are we sure? Sholay appears to have begun filming in 1973.
The film was released in 1975.
But you say 'acted'. —Vensatry (Talk) 10:33, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can't write "He started filming Sholay in '73", as it more belongs to his biography. Yashthepunisher (talk) 14:15, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But we should follow chronology here. This can be rephrased in a better way to provide clarity. —Vensatry (Talk) 08:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is chronological, as i have mentioned both Deewar and Sholay according to there release dates. If it's not good enough, any suggestion then? Yashthepunisher (talk) 09:08, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're not getting my point. When you say 'acted', it has a different meaning. —Vensatry (Talk) 17:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced it with "starred". Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • After 1982, you suddenly shift to 1990. What about Coolie and the injury? It's worth mentioning here.
Added.
  • The article mentions nothing about his retirement and comeback.
Added.
  • 'In 2009, he received another National Award' - He received the award in 2010.
Rephrased.
  • Why is 'p' capitalised in 'Progeria'?
Fixed
  • As I said earlier, 'films produced' should be moved to a separate table or a separate column should be added in the existing one as there are issues with navigation/accessibility in the main table.
I have already requested two editors to do that, including you. As I'm unaware of the length, rowspans and such things.
  • Silsila and Baghban linked twice in lead.
Delinked.
    • I don't think the lead adequately summarises his film career. Plus, there are accessibility issues with the table. He surely deserves far, far better. —Vensatry (Talk) 08:13, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the notable films from every decade of his career is mentioned here. So, no further expansion is required. Yashthepunisher (talk) 09:09, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a problem of coverage alone, the lead needs a complete re-write. —Vensatry (Talk) 08:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why so? But It's nice to see opposes based on personal preferences. Yashthepunisher (talk) 09:12, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, you're welcome! Editors support/oppose nominations based on their opinions of whether or not the article meets the criteria. —Vensatry (Talk) 17:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Vensatry: If you have further issues, you can point them out and I'll try to fix them. Also, your issues are resolved except for the "table" one. But saying "the lead needs a complete re-write.", is not making sense. Can you elaborate? Yashthepunisher (talk) 17:10, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If my comment doesn't make sense to you, why bother about it? —Vensatry (Talk) 12:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then why have you opposed without a proper explanation? The "lead needs a complete re-write" bit should be justified. Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:55, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't it look like a 'proper explanation'? —Vensatry (Talk) 14:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is any such issue in this article that is not easily fixable. It would't have got 2 supports if that was the case. Yashthepunisher (talk) 14:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support After reading through the prose and checking out the references, I'm certain this meets the FL criteria. The references are all formatted correctly (I couldn't spot one issue) and the prose is well written. I couldn't find anything wrong with the table either! JAGUAR  14:15, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment and support. Yashthepunisher (talk) 14:22, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to the delegates – There is some indirect form of canvassing by the nominator. —Vensatry (Talk) 16:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just asked him to leave his comments, which you have misinterpreted for your convenience. It's clear that you don't want this list to pass, but i'll leave this to the delegates to decide. Also, its everyone's own choice whether they want to support someone's work or not. Yashthepunisher (talk) 17:15, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, it doesn't look like a neutrally-worded request at all! It does border WP:CANVASS. I don't really intend to pinpoint your past actions, but have to quote this behaviour here. Do we know who User:Deniroish is? —Vensatry (Talk) 17:38, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's a shame how you are trying very hard to prove me wrong and to make sure you ruin my works. As I had clarified earlier, the account Deniroish was made by someone from the same IP address, who has been performing some other edits as well [8], [9], [10], [11]. Yashthepunisher (talk) 17:52, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And they co-incidentally supported your FLC? —Vensatry (Talk) 18:30, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments (to justify my oppose)

  • 'who is known for his prolific career in Hindi cinema.' Really, was he an unknown figure in the 70s?
Rephrased
  • Bhuvan Shome or Saat Hindustani? Which one came first, this is not clarified till now.
Bhuvan Shome, per suggested by sources provided by you
  • Four 'Bachchans' in seven consecutive sentences in the opening para. The second para contains just one mention that too coming inn the middle.
Removed
  • Given, Anand was an important film of his, why not mention the character he played. His first major award came for that performance.
Done
  • You say a Filmfare Award for ... as well as the filmfare award for...
Fixed
  • The bit about Deewar could be elaborated as it was a cult film.
Done
  • 'considered to be one of the greatest Indian films of all time' - By whom?
By the sources
  • 'During the 1970s, he was cited as the "angry young man" for his roles in action dramas' This should really come right after Deewar.
Done
  • What's special about his dual role in Kasme Vaade? Why not mention the earlier ones - Bandhe Haath and Adalat?
Removed. Neither of them are notable films.
  • About Don? - same as Deewar
Done
  • 'In 1984, he took a break from movies and turned to politics' - Why did he take a break? Is it because of the injury or his political ambitions?
He took a break from movies and turned to politics at the behest of Rajiv Gandhi. Should I mention this?
  • How was Shahenshah (and his performance) received?
Mentioned
  • His 'second retirement' (spanning early to mid 90s) is not covered. After Hum we make an jump to Tere Mere Sapne (1996) and then to Mohabbatein.
Mentioned his brief retirement. He made his production debut while he was absent from screen, and Mohabbatein was a turning point for his career.
  • 'The same year, he made his television debut as the host of the game show Kaun Banega Crorepati.' - Television debut is not sourced in the table either.
Done
  • Year needed for Bhoothnath 'sequel'.
Done
  • Oxford commas missing at various places.
Mentioned at many instances, but this is optional.
  • I've not looked into the sources yet. My primary concern is the lead just reads like a list of cherry-picked facts. For an actor (what one would call one of the biggest superstars of Indian cinema) whose career spans close to five decades, this could do more with how he entered films, how he managed to overcome his struggles in the early part of his career (of course, the films should talk for that), and his comebacks after those two retirements. Another thing I found is the introduction to the subject. It reads very vague – 'AB is an Indian actor ... who is known for his prolific career in Hindi cinema.' I know this isn't a parent article, but this is not the way how we introduce the subject to the readers. As for the table, his acting credits are clubbed with 'Narrator only' and 'Producer only'. This is a serious accessibility issue, if someone wants to group them accordingly. Given all these concerns, I stand by what I said previously about re-writing the lead. Hence my oppose stands. —Vensatry (Talk) 18:28, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it reads like a list of cherry-picked facts as its supposed to, because it's not a biography. Also, I wanted the lead to be as concise as possible. Jaguar had also supported your FAC without any query, is that also invalid? No matter how hard I'll try, you will come up with something and cherry-pick off-topic instances to make sure this nomination fails. As you only appear here, when someone lends his support. Yashthepunisher (talk) 17:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I said earlier, editors are entitled to have different opinions. Where have I said Jaguar's support (or the other two) are invalid? I've never commented about those editors who lent their 'supports'. Just that the list isn't FLC-ready, IMO. As for the prose, one of the prime criteria says the lead (prose) should be engaging. By saying that 'Yes, it reads like a list of cherry-picked facts as its supposed to", you agree that the lead is dull and not engaging? You should understand that we are not going to compromise on the prose aspect in FLCs. I'm sorry, but I think you may have to reread the criteria and make yourself familiarize with the process before attempting further nominations. None of my point are 'off-topic', it's rather you who is quoting such instances. —Vensatry (Talk) 06:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make you understand things better, I'm quoting this: Despite one 'support' your first FAC failed. Unless you have a valid argument from your side, you can't really question either Krimuk90 or Cowlibob for their opposes. —Vensatry (Talk) 06:48, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioning my first FLC here is redundant, there is a huge difference between this list and my first one. Why are you mentioning Cowlibob and Krimuk here? when did I question there oppposes? And you got to stop putting words in my mouth. If you never had problem with the supports, then why did you left a note to the delegates? Looking at the size of his career, the lead is okay and I don't want a unnecessary expansion. Also, i don't think every filmography lead should be the same, and yes It covers everything and is engaging IMO, and of three others as well. All this would have been better, if your actions were in good-faith and you wouldn't have taken everything personally. Yashthepunisher (talk) 07:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Man, I brought out that just to give an example while trying to explain things to you. If you feel it's redundant, why did you bring the totally-unrelated Pinto FAC in first place? Same with Cowlibob and Krimuk. But then, why did you quote jaguar? Care to explain? —Vensatry (Talk) 12:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As for the 'Note to delegates', I felt it was some sort of canvassing. You are not supposed to tell me that I shouldn't express my views. It's clearly not your business. —Vensatry (Talk) 12:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Same goes for you. Anyway, the things you are demanding belongs to the parent article, not here. Like how he struggled, how where his early years. Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Stop being childish. I was only trying to make you understand how things work here. It is up to you to decide whether or not to listen to it. Anyone who goes through this discussion will understand things. My last comment here! —Vensatry (Talk) 16:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean it in that way. All i'm saying is that the writing style of this list is very similiar from this and this FL. Yashthepunisher (talk) 06:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:34, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate note

Okay; this nomination is getting a little out of hand. Vensatry are you still opposing this nomination? Please base your decision solely on the list's content, not on actions the nominator may or may not have taken in regards to this or prior FLCs; that will be taken into consideration separately from the list's quality concerns. --PresN 01:39, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: User:Krish! is willing to leave his comments here, I think that can make a difference. Can you please wait for a while before reaching any conclusion? Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:16, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: This is really long article. I must say Yash, you have done a great job. It surely deserves that star. It would be nice if you can completely remove the line about his roles as a narrator.Krish | Talk 07:54, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Krish! for the support, but I think Big B is also known for his voice, and has done voice-over's in some notable films. So, I think it should stay. Yashthepunisher (talk) 08:08, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prose concerns after re-visit

  • 'He made his debut as a narrator for Mrinal Sen's Bhuvan Shome (1969), and acted in Saat Hindustani (1969)' - The comma before 'and' should be removed.
Done
  • 'He has since appeared in twenty films with the character name "Vijay"' - The source says twenty-odd.
Rephrased
  • 'The same year, he appeared in Abhimaan, and Namak Haraam.' - Why is there a comma after Abhimaan?
Removed
  • 'During the 1970s, he was cited as the "angry young man" for his roles in action dramas' - It's wise to name the films that helped him fetch the title rather than the decade.
Done
  • 'Later he starred in Ramesh Sippy's Sholay (1975)' - Did he star in the film? Dharmendra was the actual hero.
It was earlier "acted" which was questioned by you. Any suggestions then?
  • 'including the action films: Dostana (1980) and Shaan (1980), the romantic film Silsila (1981), the action crime Kaalia (1981), and the drama Shakti (1982) with Dilip Kumar.' - This is awkwardly phrased. It can be separated with semi-colons to avoid ambiguity.
Done
  • 'His roles in Dostana and Shakti earned him the nominations for the Filmfare Award for Best Actor.' It is worth clarifying that it was AB who received those nominations, given that Dilip Kumar too was nominated for Shakti (and eventually won it).
Done. Its already mentioned that it was AB who received the nomination, but I can't mention more about Dilip Kumar.
  • It's not advisable to start a sentence with 'In 19XX'. Three of the last six sentences (of the second para) are phrased this way.
Fixed
  • 'In 1990, Bachchan portrayed the gangster Vijay Deenanath Chauhan in Mukul S. Anand's Agneepath' - Unless the gangster is a real-life character, you cannot say 'portrayed'.
Rephrased
  • In the same sentence, the comma (before and) should be removed.
Done
  • 'and has since developed a cult status in India' - Just one ref. for this exceptional claim? Also, the source doesn't say India. The film and the jury's decision to give him the award was in fact heavily criticized in South India.
Added more sources. Its a sourced fact, and can't be changed because of criticism.
  • 'After 1991, Bachchan took another break from acting' - The source doesn't say he took a break during this period. TO be mroe precise, the break came after the following year.
Rephrased
  • 'Bachchan appeared in a supporting role of a university headmaster' - Either one article needs to be either definite or indefinite.
Can't understand, can you be more specific?
  • Four sentences begin with 'In 20XX'
Removed from two instances
  • 'He then went on to play the role of a short-tempered banker in Aankhen (2002), an ideal father in Baghban (2003), and a conflicted cop in Khakee (2004).' - It should be roles. Except for 'conflicted cop', rest are not as exact as in the source; it says disillusioned father in Baghban, the diabolic puppet-master in Aankhen.
Added "disillusioned father", but I don't think "diabolic puppet-master" is encyclopedic. As his role was offcourse of a banker with temper issues in it.

Final take

  • The primary concerns are still unaddressed: All his films are clubbed together in the table. This was raised multiple times, but the nominator appears to have taken this lightly. This has some accessibility issues as it would be difficult/impossible for the readers to separately find out acting credits, narrator and producer.
I'm aware of this issue and has asked you and another editor multiple times, as i don't know how to do it.
  • Given his prolific career, there should be stuff that explains his ups and downs (obviously not like a bio, but in a line or two). A fine example would be Laurence Olivier on stage and screen. To be very honest, this list doesn't employ that kind of a writing as the nominator says.
Laurence Olivier has done a far lesser number of feature films than him. So, looking at the size of his career, this one seems the only way. A fine example is Morgan Freeman on screen and stage, and I have modeled it on Freeman's one.
  • After Paa, none of his performances from other films are discussed (not in detail, but in a line or two). In the lead, films and performances are arbitrarily picked up.
Bhoothnath and its sequel are mentioned and I have added Piku. Its because after Paa, none of his work were notable.
  • Given all these concerns after multiple reviews, I feel the list isn't FL-worthy. Hence my oppose stands. Not to demotivate the nominator, but the problem with this list is it can't be modeled based on the younger-generation actors' that we have. The list would've largely benefited if he had gone in for a peer review. —Vensatry (Talk) 19:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried my best to resolve your queries, and have succeeded in them. Peer review can be only opened if there are multiple issues raised by multiple editors, which is not the case here. It has got 5 supports, the rest is upto the delegates to decide. Thank you. Yashthepunisher (talk) 07:26, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, last call. Vensatry: still opposing after these last changes? It looks like the one outstanding is that the producer roles are in the same table as his acting roles, which I agree is strange, and you also seem to want narrator roles split out, which I'm more ambivalent about. Is there anything else?

Yashthepunisher: just to correct you, peer reviews can be opened for any reason at all; you don't need to have "multiple issues raised by multiple editors". Also, am I reading correctly that you don't know how to split the film table into two tables- one for acting and one for producing? That's... odd, but if so I can split it for you. --PresN 17:24, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PresN Sorry I didn't know that, and I didn't clearly understood if he meant splitting them or doing something like this. But, please do that If you don't mind. Yashthepunisher (talk) 18:14, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@PresN: While I agree that no article needs to be 'perfect', it should at least be close to the criteria at the time of nomination. In this case, it clearly wasn't. By no means, FLCs shall be deemed as a substitute for peer reviews. I'm re-visiting the article for the fourth time and can still see unaddressed issues. I'm unlikely to change my opinion. —Vensatry (Talk) 10:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Vensatry Can you please be more specific with the "unaddressed issues"? Re the table issue, PresN is gonna do that, as I'm unclear whether you are asking for a separate table or something else. Yashthepunisher (talk) 11:29, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Point #2 of 'Final take'. —Vensatry (Talk) 11:35, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have answered that. But its your POV. Yashthepunisher (talk) 11:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question – "He returned to the screen after a five-year absence with the box-office success Shahenshah (1988)." This sentence implies that he had no releases until 1988 – what about Geraftaar and Aakhree Raasta? "He also earned the Filmfare Award for Best Actor for Hum, following which he took a long hiatus from acting". He had five straight releases after Hum. Not sure if a three-year period could be termed 'long hiatus'. But then, he made 'special appearances' in a few films during this period. —Vensatry (Talk) 17:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Its per the source, he reduced the no. of films he was doing and entered politics at that time. Rephrased the "long hiatus" bit, which wasn't written by me. Yes, they were just special appearances, no major acting roles. Yashthepunisher (talk) 17:28, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've split the producer roles out into their own table. I'm going to be closing this nom today; I want to write up something talking about my reasoning and my thoughts on this nomination. --PresN 17:52, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: I wasn't suggesting to completely fork out the 'producer roles' from the main table. That isn't be a great idea because he starred in some of those films as well. —Vensatry (Talk) 18:04, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Roles he acted in and produced are in both tables. I'm not sure what else you wanted; you actually explicitly state that the producer roles should be moved to another table earlier in this nomination. I'm closing this nomination below, but if you figure out a better solution, the list isn't set in stone now. --PresN 18:20, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing Notes

This nomination is a hard one to close (any nomination with multiple supporters and one oppose is), but now that we've finalized on one sticking point that the nominator and final reviewer can't agree on, I think it's time to do so. Before I come to that sticking point, though, there's something I want to address- the interactions of the nominator Yashthepunisher and the reviewers, especially Vensatry. On one hand, Vensatry got pretty harsh in their review, at times crossing the line into condescending or paternalistic. It's a little much, and I think the reason behind it is that sometimes you're not as clear when you ask for something as you think you are, and you get angry that the nominator doesn't understand you because you think they're just avoiding the issue. That's rather understandable, though, because even just reading this nomination, I got kind of frustrated with Yashthepunisher.

Yash- this is your nomination. When you nominate a list, you're agreeing to fix issues that the reviewers bring up, or explain why you disagree if you do. It's not really cool to try to brush off any problems that seem difficult to fix by asking the reviewers to fix it themselves, or find the sources themselves. There seemed to be a lot of problems around missing entire roles and getting dates wrong, which are kind of the point of the list and kind of on you to fix when the issue is found. It's also not really cool to brush off prose concerns with "I didn't write that"- the lead is only four paragraphs. It's concerning that this nomination is so long, and due to factual concerns more than grammar or formatting.

In the end, though, everything got cleared up except for one thing- the style of the lead. I find it a little disappointing that the nom thinks that the lead is "acceptable", but not actually "good", and is fine with that, though I think Vensatry could have been clearer on what exactly they were looking for earlier on, instead of just "written better". I agree with Vensatry that the Laurence Olivier list is a much better lead example- he had a similarly long and full career, and the lead is well-written, talking about the overall shape of his career. Morgan Freeman's career isn't as long, and has the same issue as the lead here- the lead is just half of the tables, with content chopped out and shoved in a prose format that's harder to read than the table. It just an overlong summary; it tells me nothing about Amitabh Bachchan that I don't then find out reading the table. Literally; all I know about the man after reading the article is that he's been in a ton of films; I don't know why his career shifted over time, not really. Apparently, that's "acceptable", and has passed for other FLCs. I don't like it, but I'm a delegate, not the dictator of lists.

Since the remaining problem is "acceptable", I guess I have to pass this as an "acceptable" FLC. You should consider making the lead more than a list of roles, though, in case consensus changes in the future and FLRC comes knocking. --PresN 18:20, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Amitabh_Bachchan_filmography/archive1&oldid=1136457520"