297:. Why do you need entire sections for these? It is well understood that any major film star from any major film industry would have some artistry, wealth and popularity (unless there is seriously different story to tell). That part is already covered in the body of article, and whatever is necessary, though there can't be much essential stuff in these two sections, to keep can be integrated into the rest of the article.
369:
Even without deleting important information, it is possible to reduce word count in this article, as Aditya exemplified. Why 2011-2013 section is named major commercial success? He already had major major commercial success. What is different in 2011-2013? Mere numbers (100 crores) do not make these
313:
Thanks, but this is really not what I was hoping to hear. I am about to add more info, particularly in the early life section, since I got a copy of Chopra's book. There is just a lot to say about the world's biggest movie star. Its going to be hard to trim, but I will try, particularly in the
339:
You are correct that there is duplicate information in the
Artistry section. I can probably make that one go away, but some of it will get integrated elsewhere, and the article will still be very long. We have already split off his filmography and awards into their own articles. Is there a
396:
It was already copy edited to make it more tight, but I will look for further examples like those. I may also reduce the content in the career section by not covering so many films. What do you think? Also, I am open to ideas for renaming the later career sections.
575:
Agreed. In the past I tried multiple PRs, posting the PR to relevant project talks, and posting comment templates, along with indivudally requesting interested or potentially interested editors. But, all that is a lot of effort. FAC is better.
433:
has 10,000 words. Article length is subjective. But, I assume that you are planning to make this article as excellent as possible. And, at that it could reduce verbosity and redundancy, which are enlarging it needlessly. My two paisa
283:
Eliminate some stuff that are trivial in comparison with the big and important information. Example: "After the release of the film, Khan took a six-month break from acting, during which he said he "just enjoyed the feeling of being
437:
Have you given any thought to making his producing career more accessible? That part of his story is still strewn all over the article in between long narrations on his acting career. Not very accessible.
238:
There once was a producing section, but it seemed to duplicate info already spread throughout, so it was removed. Since he usually stars in the films he produces, it would be hard to mention those films
594:- I have reworked that artistry section into a public image section and added the modelling stuff there. I have added a section for other film work that includes both production and singing details.
615:
It is disappointing that there is so little activity here. At FAC, they get really picky, so it would be better to get it cleaned up first. Oh well, I will put it up there soon. Thank you guys.
153:
I've listed this article for peer review because I intend to take it to FAC, and want to get out any obvious flaws ahead of that. It made GA two months ago, and had a thorough copy edit.
279:
Make the prose a little less verbose would also help in places. Example: "disowns him for marrying a girl (Kajol) belonging to a lower socio-economic group than his family" : -->
275:
Shorten long sentences. Example: "1996 was a disappointing year for Khan because the four films he appeared in were critical and commercial disappointments." : -->
76:
126:
231:
His career as a producer is strewn all over the article and it is very difficult to figure that part out. Can you streamline that part somewhat?
122:
738:
206:
Are you sure that he sang, or was it more like talking/rapping. Is this very important, since you are already talking about the length?
107:
340:
precedent for splitting even further? One of the FA criteria is comprehensiveness, and I would hate to throw away good material.
99:
69:
652:
If you want more comments in PR, you can message, or even email, individual editors who may be interested in this topic.--
199:("Main To Hoon Pagal"). Some of these songs were quite successful, I think. Don't you want to have something on that?
498:
And, probably a bit on his estate. He owns a lot of stuff - property, luxuries, companies, cricket teams and so on.
449:
62:
452:
it notes which films he produced in the table and footnote. Here is what the producer section used to look like:
50:
495:
Perhaps you can also consider a bit of his modelling career. I did walk for Lakme
Fashion Week and so on. Right?
318:, was accepted with 7798 words, compared to this one currently at 8628. Let's see what others have to say.
713:
661:
631:
610:
582:
566:
547:
521:
471:
413:
387:
356:
334:
308:
259:
222:
172:
44:
17:
657:
562:
383:
706:
624:
603:
540:
464:
406:
349:
327:
252:
215:
165:
115:
269:
589:
577:
516:
478:
And, the songs. I believe he sang for the movies, and some of the songs became quite popular.
303:
668:
653:
558:
448:
I already posed the question above: How to do this without adding more redundant info? In
379:
315:
443:
Looks like the earlier version had a pretty nifty idea to organize his producing career.
698:
616:
595:
532:
456:
398:
341:
319:
244:
207:
157:
92:
732:
684:
676:
554:
430:
276:"In 1996, all four of Shahrukh Khan releases flopped critically and commercially."
426:
697:- Could you make some comments here so that I don't get killed at FAC? Thanks,
692:
557:. I'd say go for it, and you'll get (hopefully) much better feedback there.--
553:
Although I have not read it in details, seems like the article is ready for
268:
The article is way too long - over 100 KB prose and 8,000 words. Check
453:
141:
134:
103:
486:
No, I am afraid. How good are IndiaGlitz or GlamSham?
506:
Fashion modelling too? Or is it not very important?
481:I cannot find reliable sources for these, can you?
280:"disowns him for marrying a poor girl (Kajol)".
70:
8:
314:sections that you mentioned. My previous FA
150:This peer review discussion has been closed.
272:. There are a few things that can be done:
77:
63:
32:
35:
370:films significantly more successful,
7:
243:in a separate production section.
24:
378:despite perhaps earning less.--
191:("Khaike Paan Banaraswala"),
187:("Ek Hockey Doongi Rakh Ke"),
1:
714:14:47, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
662:14:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
632:13:22, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
611:03:07, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
583:05:31, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
567:19:18, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
548:00:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
522:17:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
472:18:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
414:18:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
388:15:36, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
357:13:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
335:12:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
309:06:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
260:12:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
223:12:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
173:01:08, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
429:is 5,000 words long, while
755:
739:November 2014 peer reviews
450:Shah Rukh Khan filmography
374:is more succesful than a
183:I believe Khan sang in
295:Wealth and popularity
18:Knowledge:Peer review
195:("Aankhen Khuli"),
180:Some observations:
515:More forthcoming.
302:More forthcoming.
289:The two section -
142:Watch peer review
87:
86:
746:
711:
705:
701:
696:
688:
680:
672:
629:
623:
619:
608:
602:
598:
593:
580:
545:
539:
535:
519:
469:
463:
459:
455:. Is that good?
411:
405:
401:
354:
348:
344:
332:
326:
322:
306:
257:
251:
247:
220:
214:
210:
170:
164:
160:
139:
130:
111:
79:
72:
65:
47:
33:
754:
753:
749:
748:
747:
745:
744:
743:
729:
728:
707:
703:
699:
690:
682:
674:
666:
625:
621:
617:
604:
600:
596:
587:
578:
541:
537:
533:
517:
501:Already there.
465:
461:
457:
407:
403:
399:
376:Chennai Express
350:
346:
342:
328:
324:
320:
316:Priyanka Chopra
304:
253:
249:
245:
216:
212:
208:
166:
162:
158:
145:
120:
97:
91:
83:
51:Manual of Style
43:
31:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
752:
750:
742:
741:
731:
730:
727:
726:
725:
724:
723:
722:
721:
720:
719:
718:
717:
716:
641:
640:
639:
638:
637:
636:
635:
634:
570:
569:
529:
528:
527:
526:
525:
524:
513:
512:
511:
510:
509:
508:
507:
496:
493:
492:
491:
490:
489:
488:
487:
476:
475:
474:
446:
445:
444:
435:
419:
418:
417:
416:
391:
390:
366:
365:
364:
363:
362:
361:
360:
359:
300:
299:
298:
287:
286:
285:
281:
277:
265:
264:
263:
262:
233:
232:
228:
227:
226:
225:
201:
200:
152:
147:
146:
144:
90:
85:
84:
82:
81:
74:
67:
59:
56:
55:
54:
53:
48:
38:
37:
30:
28:Shah Rukh Khan
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
751:
740:
737:
736:
734:
715:
712:
710:
702:
694:
686:
678:
670:
665:
664:
663:
659:
655:
651:
650:
649:
648:
647:
646:
645:
644:
643:
642:
633:
630:
628:
620:
614:
613:
612:
609:
607:
599:
591:
586:
585:
584:
581:
574:
573:
572:
571:
568:
564:
560:
556:
552:
551:
550:
549:
546:
544:
536:
531:Anyone else?
523:
520:
514:
505:
504:
503:
502:
500:
499:
497:
494:
485:
484:
483:
482:
480:
479:
477:
473:
470:
468:
460:
454:
451:
447:
442:
441:
440:
439:
436:
432:
431:Peter Sellers
428:
425:
424:
423:
422:
421:
420:
415:
412:
410:
402:
395:
394:
393:
392:
389:
385:
381:
377:
373:
368:
367:
358:
355:
353:
345:
338:
337:
336:
333:
331:
323:
317:
312:
311:
310:
307:
301:
296:
292:
288:
282:
278:
274:
273:
271:
267:
266:
261:
258:
256:
248:
242:
237:
236:
235:
234:
230:
229:
224:
221:
219:
211:
205:
204:
203:
202:
198:
194:
190:
186:
185:Chakde! India
182:
181:
179:
178:
177:
176:
175:
174:
171:
169:
161:
154:
151:
143:
138:
137:
133:
128:
124:
119:
118:
114:
109:
105:
101:
96:
95:
89:
88:
80:
75:
73:
68:
66:
61:
60:
58:
57:
52:
49:
46:
45:Copying check
42:
41:
40:
39:
34:
29:
26:
19:
708:
626:
605:
590:Aditya Kabir
542:
530:
466:
408:
375:
371:
351:
329:
294:
290:
254:
240:
217:
196:
192:
188:
184:
167:
155:
149:
148:
135:
131:
117:Article talk
116:
112:
93:
27:
669:Dr. Blofeld
427:Jackie Chan
270:WP:SIZERULE
193:Mohabbatein
104:visual edit
700:BollyJeff
654:Dwaipayan
618:BollyJeff
597:BollyJeff
559:Dwaipayan
534:BollyJeff
458:BollyJeff
400:BollyJeff
380:Dwaipayan
343:BollyJeff
321:BollyJeff
246:BollyJeff
209:BollyJeff
159:BollyJeff
733:Category
685:Vensatry
677:Krimuk90
291:Artistry
197:Baadshah
156:Thanks,
127:history
108:history
94:Article
36:Toolbox
579:Aditya
555:WP:FAC
518:Aditya
434:there.
305:Aditya
284:sad"."
693:Vivvt
136:Watch
16:<
709:talk
658:talk
627:talk
606:talk
563:talk
543:talk
467:talk
409:talk
384:talk
372:DDLJ
352:talk
330:talk
293:and
255:talk
241:only
218:talk
168:talk
123:edit
100:edit
189:Don
735::
689:,
681:,
673:,
660:)
565:)
386:)
140:•
125:|
106:|
102:|
704:|
695::
691:@
687::
683:@
679::
675:@
671::
667:@
656:(
622:|
601:|
592::
588:@
561:(
538:|
462:|
404:|
382:(
347:|
325:|
250:|
213:|
163:|
132:·
129:)
121:(
113:·
110:)
98:(
78:e
71:t
64:v
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.