314:
I think it would be best to preserve all of the humanitarian information in the media article and summarize it in the main, because that stuff is more about media than actual 'work', and I was told by another reviewer that it makes him look too pious in the main. I would rather move the IPL stuff to
272:
I was wondering the same thing. I would probably wait and see what the others have to say about this. Personally, I would summarise the humanitarian work under his "other works" section in the main article. And given the length it saves, I would go on and add a bit about his IPL team and endorsement
378:
Even if not the only one, he's one of the very few to have a complete nude shot. The other four mentioned above weren't exactly fully nude. Anyway, the information is surely important. I have read Chopra's book on him and there are several paragraphs dedicated to the explicit sex-scenes in the film
249:
both include a duplicate 'Humanitarian causes' section. Do you think that I should remove it from here or there? If I remove it from here, perhaps I could swap the commerce section (IPL cricket team and/or endorsement sub-sections) from there, into Other work section here, as it seems less about
162:
I've listed this article for peer review because the last peer review did not generate much interest, and then the FAC nomination turned into a discussion about the article's length. It has now been trimmed significantly and some information was moved into a sub-article courtesy of Dr. Blofeld. I
406:
Hmm, you'd think I would have noticed that when I read the book. This goes against what she said on page 112, that he never kissed a co-star on-screen, and the other source that said his first on-screen kiss was in 2012. Are you sure that this scene was released in theatres, or perhaps it was
467:, all but a split second was censored, and then the rest came out on the internet in 2008. Chopra describes a slanderous article that SRK reacted to, not about controversy of the film itself. I may add a sentence, but cannot add what you said without definitive sources.
797:. I have used Rupees where available. I don't think there is a template to convert from Dollars to Rupees. If not dark or negative, what about villainous or antagonistic? Risky is from the sources; meaning that it could be detrimental to one's career.
300:
IMO, I think "Humanitarian Causes" should be removed from "SRK in the media" and, like Krimuk90 said, be a sub-section of "Other works". Again, as Krimuk90 said, you can add a "little bit" about the IPL, which I see you have already done. —
372:
584:
of stuff, and even then some of the reviewers said it was too big and refused to read it. I hate to say it, but some stuff has to be left out if there is any chance of passing FA.
729:, in which he starred alongside Divya Bharti as the second male lead behind Rishi Kapoor, was released first in June 1992"..... quite a mouthful, and it would help to specify
428:
I don't have the book with me anymore. I had borrowed it while working on his filmography page. Btw, the scene is available for viewing on youtube. Several results turn up on
490:
Okay, so we can mention about him filming a controversial sex scene in the film, in which he performed a nude scene. I can see the sources are contradictory on the topic. --
189:
The length is much more manageable: 6,200 words of readable prose compared with about 8,000 last time I looked at a version of the article. Only a couple of minor points:
163:
still want the article to achieve FA, but the moderator suggested another peer review first. Please see if there is anything stopping this from reaching FA now. Thanks,
706:
In the lead, his net worth is listed as $ 400 million in
American dollars, but later in the article is said to be between $ 400 million and $ 600 million. Be consistent.
34:
364:
in which he had a highly controversial nude scene. He's actually the only
Bollywood star to have done such a scene. Why has this information not been included?
85:
135:
250:
media to me. Any opinions on that, or anything else related to the sub-article? Obviously, I cannot add much overall length at this point.
464:
131:
429:
116:
536:
This is a personal preference, but the images in his career section take up a large amount of space. How about reducing the size? --
757:"Sukanya Verma of Rediff.com referred to it as Khan's best performance"..... include some detail on what Verma particularly enjoyed
840:
108:
78:
817:
781:
220:
The article seems to me suitable for FAC now. The prose is fine and the proportions of the article are clear and sensible.
460:
246:
344:
The "early life and background" section mentions a 2013 event as well. I suggest changing the name to something else.
71:
59:
193:
The caption for the image of Dmitry
Medvedev is wrong: in 2010 he was President, not Prime Minister, of Russia.
666:
207:
Captions: The anti-hero, "The romantic hero" – The MoS bids us avoid definite articles like these in headings.
823:
787:
691:
656:
631:
600:
558:
512:
483:
454:
423:
401:
309:
295:
266:
235:
179:
53:
640:
I don't have the book now, but I would have put some reviews if it did. The rest is done. Anything else?
17:
739:
When mentioning in prose nominations that Khan lost, include who won them. For example, see how the
649:
593:
476:
416:
324:
259:
228:
172:
124:
811:
775:
740:
736:
I understand what "negative roles" is trying to say, but I'm not sure if it's really encyclopedic
716:
Best to use Rupees rather than
American dollars when available as Khan is Indian and not American
684:
624:
551:
505:
447:
394:
288:
768:, and I commend your efforts for this article. I'll leave reference concerns to other users.
307:
533:
In the other works section, the sub-sections are quite short. I believe they can be merged.
407:
censored out before release? Can you provide me with the appropriate quote from the book?
200:
It does say that, but I fixed it in the sub-article. I have a question about that below.
765:
641:
585:
468:
408:
316:
251:
223:
164:
101:
834:
805:
794:
769:
670:
610:
537:
491:
433:
380:
274:
360:
565:
302:
748:
669:, that chronicles SRK's career to that point. You may want to use it. --
609:
Does Chopra's book have any critical reviews of his early film roles? --
702:
This article has improved over time. Here's a prose review.....
722:
Add a comma after "2010" in "As of 2010 Khan's paternal family"
743:
article mentions how he lost his
Academy Award nomination for
754:
I don't see the need for including books published about Khan
315:
the main in total under other works. See what you think now.
665:
I found a scan of an excellent
Filmfare mag article of 1997
760:
Is "risky" in "was considered risky" the best word choice?
371:
You got a source? I found one that says there have been
804:
Happy to help. Yes, those would be better word choices.
725:"However, production delays meant that his second film
150:
143:
112:
719:I'm not sure if "dark roles" is appropriate tone
580:Take a look at the last FA review. I removed a
375:, but it's still probably worth adding, thanks.
79:
8:
159:This peer review discussion has been closed.
86:
72:
41:
379:and the controversy that it generated. --
44:
7:
569:. It was his biggest success before
459:According to the above source, and
273:activities in the main article. --
24:
245:This article and the sub-article
1:
824:15:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
788:06:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
692:07:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
657:01:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
632:03:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
601:03:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
513:03:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
484:00:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
455:01:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
351:What? 'Early life and family'
310:04:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
296:01:56, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
559:03:20, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
424:13:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
402:10:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
267:00:48, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
236:18:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
180:13:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
247:Shah Rukh Khan in the media
857:
358:In 1993, Khan starred in
841:March 2015 peer reviews
563:There is no mention of
241:Question from Bollyjeff
185:Comments from Tim riley
698:Comments from SNUGGUMS
339:Comments from Krimuk90
18:Knowledge:Peer review
713:needed for the lead?
36:Previous peer review
764:You've done well,
741:Robert Downey, Jr.
733:delayed production
151:Watch peer review
96:
95:
848:
689:
681:
675:
654:
648:
644:
629:
621:
615:
598:
592:
588:
556:
548:
542:
510:
502:
496:
481:
475:
471:
452:
444:
438:
430:google books too
421:
415:
411:
399:
391:
385:
329:
323:
319:
305:
293:
285:
279:
264:
258:
254:
233:
231:
226:
177:
171:
167:
148:
139:
120:
88:
81:
74:
56:
42:
856:
855:
851:
850:
849:
847:
846:
845:
831:
830:
700:
685:
677:
671:
650:
646:
642:
625:
617:
611:
594:
590:
586:
552:
544:
538:
506:
498:
492:
477:
473:
469:
448:
440:
434:
417:
413:
409:
395:
387:
381:
341:
325:
321:
317:
303:
289:
281:
275:
260:
256:
252:
243:
229:
224:
222:
187:
173:
169:
165:
154:
129:
106:
100:
92:
60:Manual of Style
52:
31:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
854:
852:
844:
843:
833:
832:
829:
828:
827:
826:
799:
798:
762:
761:
758:
755:
752:
737:
734:
723:
720:
717:
714:
707:
699:
696:
695:
694:
662:
661:
660:
659:
635:
634:
606:
605:
604:
603:
575:
574:
561:
534:
530:
529:
528:
527:
526:
525:
524:
523:
522:
521:
520:
519:
518:
517:
516:
515:
366:
365:
355:
354:
353:
352:
346:
345:
340:
337:
336:
335:
334:
333:
332:
331:
242:
239:
218:
217:
216:
215:
214:Fixed, thanks.
209:
208:
204:
203:
202:
201:
195:
194:
186:
183:
161:
156:
155:
153:
99:
94:
93:
91:
90:
83:
76:
68:
65:
64:
63:
62:
57:
47:
46:
40:
39:
30:
28:Shah Rukh Khan
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
853:
842:
839:
838:
836:
825:
821:
820:
815:
814:
809:
808:
803:
802:
801:
800:
796:
792:
791:
790:
789:
785:
784:
779:
778:
773:
772:
767:
759:
756:
753:
750:
746:
742:
738:
735:
732:
728:
724:
721:
718:
715:
712:
708:
705:
704:
703:
697:
693:
690:
688:
683:
682:
680:
674:
668:
664:
663:
658:
655:
653:
645:
639:
638:
637:
636:
633:
630:
628:
623:
622:
620:
614:
608:
607:
602:
599:
597:
589:
583:
579:
578:
577:
576:
572:
568:
567:
562:
560:
557:
555:
550:
549:
547:
541:
535:
532:
531:
514:
511:
509:
504:
503:
501:
495:
489:
488:
487:
486:
485:
482:
480:
472:
466:
462:
458:
457:
456:
453:
451:
446:
445:
443:
437:
431:
427:
426:
425:
422:
420:
412:
405:
404:
403:
400:
398:
393:
392:
390:
384:
377:
376:
374:
370:
369:
368:
367:
363:
362:
357:
356:
350:
349:
348:
347:
343:
342:
338:
330:
328:
320:
313:
312:
311:
308:
306:
299:
298:
297:
294:
292:
287:
286:
284:
278:
271:
270:
269:
268:
265:
263:
255:
248:
240:
238:
237:
234:
232:
227:
213:
212:
211:
210:
206:
205:
199:
198:
197:
196:
192:
191:
190:
184:
182:
181:
178:
176:
168:
160:
152:
147:
146:
142:
137:
133:
128:
127:
123:
118:
114:
110:
105:
104:
98:
97:
89:
84:
82:
77:
75:
70:
69:
67:
66:
61:
58:
55:
54:Copying check
51:
50:
49:
48:
43:
38:
37:
33:
32:
29:
26:
19:
818:
812:
806:
782:
776:
770:
763:
744:
730:
726:
710:
701:
686:
678:
676:
672:
651:
626:
618:
616:
612:
595:
581:
570:
564:
553:
545:
543:
539:
507:
499:
497:
493:
478:
449:
441:
439:
435:
418:
396:
388:
386:
382:
361:Maya Memsaab
359:
326:
290:
282:
280:
276:
261:
244:
221:
219:
188:
174:
158:
157:
144:
140:
126:Article talk
125:
121:
102:
35:
27:
709:Are genres
566:Karan Arjun
373:five others
113:visual edit
766:Bollyjeff
749:Al Pacino
643:BollyJeff
587:BollyJeff
470:BollyJeff
410:BollyJeff
318:BollyJeff
253:BollyJeff
225:Tim riley
166:BollyJeff
835:Category
807:Snuggums
795:SNUGGUMS
793:Thanks,
771:Snuggums
745:Chaplin
727:Deewana
136:history
117:history
103:Article
45:Toolbox
711:really
673:KRIMUK
613:KRIMUK
540:KRIMUK
494:KRIMUK
436:KRIMUK
383:KRIMUK
304:Ssven2
277:KRIMUK
819:edits
783:edits
145:Watch
16:<
813:talk
777:talk
731:what
667:here
652:talk
596:talk
571:DDLJ
479:talk
465:here
463:and
461:here
432:. --
419:talk
327:talk
262:talk
230:talk
175:talk
132:edit
109:edit
822:)
786:)
747:to
582:lot
837::
816:/
780:/
679:90
619:90
546:90
500:90
442:90
389:90
283:90
149:•
134:|
115:|
111:|
810:(
774:(
751:.
687:✉
647:|
627:✉
591:|
573:.
554:✉
508:✉
474:|
450:✉
414:|
397:✉
322:|
291:✉
257:|
170:|
141:·
138:)
130:(
122:·
119:)
107:(
87:e
80:t
73:v
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.