View text source at Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kalki Koechlin/archive3

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23:38, 18 June 2016 [1].

Kalki Koechlin

[edit]
Nominator(s): NumerounovedantTalk 17:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notifying (at the first user contribution)

This article is about Indian actress Kalki Koechlin. It has been improved further after another WP:PR and a WP:GOCE ce. I believe that all the issues have been addressed and the article now meets the criteria. Share you thoughts, Thank you! NumerounovedantTalk 17:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Yashthepunisher
  • Koechlin is best known for her character roles that defy the stereotypical portrayal of women in Indian cinema, and has been credited in the media for publicly expressing her opinions. Similar things are written in Rani Mukerji, Preity Zinta, Priyanka Chopra, Kangana Ranaut and Sonam Kapoor's article. I'm wondering how so many actresses has broken the stereotype of female roles in bollywood and everyone is known for there outspoken personality. None of them is Arnab Goswami or Arundhati Roy. A dubious statement IMO.
I think its slightly unfair to compare Zinta, Chopra and Mukherji to Koechlin because they are not contemporaries, the conditions were wildly different in Bollywood back then. As far as Ranaut and Kapoor go I believe if you have followed these actresses you would be inclined to side with Koechlin's work (both on & off screen) to be more empowering. I really insist on keeping the statement.
How can you say Chopra and Mukherji are not contemporaries, when they are still acting? Anyway the fact that her roles defy the stereotype of women in Indian cinema is not mentioned or sourced in the article.
It sure is See - refs 134, 135, 136.
Following her portrayal of such characters as those in Dev.D, Zindagi Na Milegi Dobara, Shaitan, and Margarita With a Straw, Koechlin gained wider recognition and earned the tag of a "nonconformist". Where is the claim that I have pointed out? It only gives an Idea that she has done some off-beat roles, not that she brought a change or something. I'd suggest you to trim that bit from the lead.
"has established herself as somewhat of a Bollywood pioneer taking on unconventional cinematic roles" from ref 135 & "managed to subvert stereotypes by playing characters who are nothing like each other, [ranging from a prostitute to a sensual, unmarried writer, a disabled woman and a club DJ]" from ref 136 clearly point at "the breaking stereotypes" claim.
  • She expanded her career to include screenwriting scripting They both mean the same.
Fixed
Oh that has been archived, it's functional.
Not in my server.
I'll look into what I can do about it
I removed the repeat reference, try ref 58 from the article now.
  • No source for the claim that Dev.D met with generally positive reviews.
I believe you mean the overall reception as in the case of Shanghai?
Yes.
Added
  • Her portrayal of Sophie, a manipulative woman who is abducted by two corrupt policemen garnered mixed reviews by the critics. Again, you can't say "portrayed/portrayal" unless she plays a real-life character. Also, ref 7 says that the film "received good ratings from most critics."
Fixed
Partially fixed. Ref 7 claims otherwise to what's written. Also I'd suggest you to remove the DNA review, since 1 or 2 reviews doesn't gives a full Idea of the overall reception.
Ref 20 is for her role in the film, Ref 7 doesn't contain that information. Also, I think you have misread the article here - the "received good ratings from most critics." bit is for Shaitan and here we are talking about The Film Emotional Atyachar. The most I can do is removed ref 7 to help with the clarity.
Then remove ref 20 which is near 7, for obvious reasons.
I really don't think that you are getting what I am trying to say here. Ref 7 is less important here, Ref 20 has all the information, both about the role & her performance. I removed Ref 7
  • Ref 23 is the RT link of ZNMD, while the prose talks about Shaitan.
My bad, fixed.
  • Rediff --> Rediff.com
Fixed
  • Remove either ref 38 or 39, we don't need to overcrowd the article with redundant sources.
Removed
  • The Shanghai issue is still unresolved.
I am not sure what you mean here, there are no claims of critical acclaim there anymore
Then what's The film received positive reviews from critics,
Doesn't positive response and acclaim mean differently. I think it isn't that controversial to say the film received positive reviews. I did however added the reference that states that the film was well received.
Then you need to provide a source for that claim, not 2-3 positive reviews. Saying this the nth time.
I did Yash, I did. The ref 7, (HT) does support the claim. I am sorry that you have to repeat your points again and again, but I did sort this one just fine. (Looking for the same for —Dev. D and YJHD) NumerounovedantTalk 14:46, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologise. To sort these issues, remove those unnecessary sources from the article that doesn't support the 'received positive reviews' claim.
Fixed
  • The film opened to a positive response from the audience, and emerged as one of the highest-grossing Bollywood films with earnings of ₹3.02 billion (US$45 million).[56] The film received mixed reviews,.. One claim is contrary to the other.
It's a different case in both the sentences, first it's the audience, then the critics.
What's "positive response from the audience"? Clearly box-office success. So remove that bit, it creates confusion among the reader.
Fixed
  • Do we need to provide a review for every other film of her's ? Even the one like The film Emotion Attyachar?
I was asked to elaborate on the entry The Film Emotion Attyachar in the FAC, and then in the PR it was suggested that it should be further expanded by giving details of the role. Also its her only film role in between Dev. D and Shaitan.
  • After the separation Koechlin said in an interview with Daily News and Analysis: "[But] everyone has doubts, we're all human. Even as an actor, you have days when you haven't slept enough, you don't feel like you're good enough or pretty enough... But ultimately, it's all about attitude. You must live with a little abandon and not be self-conscious. You ought to stop staring at yourself in the mirror, and just smile a little!" Sounds like a personal-diary stuff. This is why I was refering to quotefarm.
The article has had trouble because of this quote at numerous occasions but I believe it to be vital as its her perspective on life and womanhood. Do you think it would work if in a quote-box?
Quotes in the quote-box should be of some kind of Importance, not there feelings, IMO.
  • Reviewing her work in Printing Machine, the journalist Subhash K. Jha Remove 'the', also he is more known as a film critic.
Done
  • Place an mdash for the role coloumn of Love Affair in the table.
Done
  • Either remove or shift ref 156 from the table.
I am not sure what you mean here
Never mind. Yashthepunisher (talk) 04:53, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same issue with YJHD. Only one review for the claim.
Done

I hope this is going to be its breakthrough attempt. Good luck. Yashthepunisher (talk) 14:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Left Comments. Thank you for the work put into this article. Really appreciated! NumerounovedantTalk 16:43, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments. Thank you! NumerounovedantTalk 08:15, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I beleive all comments have been addressed. NumerounovedantTalk 06:59, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Yashthepunisher: Do you have any further comments? NumerounovedantTalk 06:28, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yashthepunisher Where did you see "the pioneering a change in Indian cinema" in Chopra article? It's not in the lead or even something like that at all.Krish | Talk 07:40, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Dr. Blofeld

"The family later settled in Kallatty, a village near Ooty in Tamil Nadu, where Koechlin's father established a business designing hang-gliders and ultralight aircraft" -do we know when?♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:39, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, I could not find any information on that. NumerounovedantTalk 18:05, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Taran Adarsh called her "truly awe-inspiring"," - you can't have the mush of a joke critic in this article. It's about time he was blacklisted, obviously paid for his gushing comments about everybody.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look for another positive review then! NumerounovedantTalk 18:26, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Her characteristic bee stung lips have been cited by Rediff.com as her trademark, contributing to her "raw sex appeal"." -reads like a Daily Mail article. Deary me, I'd have thought "bee stung lips" would wreak of cosmetic over indulgence, not raw sexuality..♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:34, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Koechlin is particularly known in the Indian media and film industry for her dedication to her work and her professional behaviour.[" -professional behaviour?? I'm sure a lot of actresses are professional..
  • " She was also the brand ambassador of the "Cinema For Care" section, aimed at creating awareness about disability issues at the All Lights India International Film Festival (ALIIFF) held in Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala in November 2015.[153]" -was or is?
"was" - It was a one time event.


It's nearing FA quality I think, but in places needs a copyedit. I had to reword quite a bit as I went through to improve the flow. There's also some questionable claims like the bee lips and professional behaviour. Could still use a few people to give the prose a grilling and ensure it's definitely FA standard. Overall it definitely covers what needs to be covered and is a decent article, but I'm going to wait until Krimuk90 has looked at it again before making a decision.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:43, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, I'll look into the issues, the professional bit has been mentioned in previous FAs like that of Priyanka Chopra, and I agree the bee lips might not be the most important parts of the article. However, Krimuk won't be a part of the FAC as he has decided to distance himself from the current nomination. NumerounovedantTalk 20:01, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'd prefer not to mention things like that, Chopra included.♦ Dr. Blofeld 05:57, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll rework the fourth paragraph, removed bee lips. Thank you! NumerounovedantTalk 08:15, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Dr. Blofeld: Done NumerounovedantTalk 07:56, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards Weak support, as it's nearing FA quality I think. Could still use a few people giving it a read and copyedit though to ensure it's really there.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:08, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright thanks! NumerounovedantTalk 09:35, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—After going through the article thoroughly for the last two days, i find it well written and reliably sourced, with a liberal usage of free images. The article's tone is neutral and is very focused. Good job! Pavanjandhyala (talk) 06:27, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Pavan! NumerounovedantTalk 11:04, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from TonyTheTiger
  • "Unable to find work there, she moved to Mumbai, where she worked with theatre directors and the founders of a Mumbai-based theatre company called "The Company Theatre" Atul Kumar and Ajay Krishnan who were looking for actors for a theatrical festival, Contacting the World, to be held in Liverpool." seems to be ungrammatical or a run-on sentence as currently punctuated. There may be some missing commas.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:24, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed NumerounovedantTalk 17:11, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what you are trying to do. Is that a comma before "They were looking for actors"?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:00, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The film is yet to be released theatrically, so I believe we will have a better account for it then? NumerounovedantTalk 17:11, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Updated released date NumerounovedantTalk 17:22, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is an interesting observation, do you have something in mind? NumerounovedantTalk 17:00, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to expand "Koechlin is also an activist and a celebrity endorser." However, I imagine a person who has done YouTube videos has also used social media such as Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, Facebook, etc. Before I make a suggestion, do we have sources regarding any advocacy and/or activism in other social realms?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I think it's better to leave it the way it is. There can be a lot of conflicting claims here NumerounovedantTalk 12:47, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you could just say she has used YouTube as a platform or forum for issues that she advocates for.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect it reading awkwardly in the lead, I have added it in her off-screen work. NumerounovedantTalk 06:10, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Removed NumerounovedantTalk 17:31, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure there would be at least a couple of reviews NumerounovedantTalk 17:31, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well. You know what to do.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:15, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done, fixed both. NumerounovedantTalk 11:49, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am quite satisfied with this article. It is very thorough. I can now support.
Thank you TonyTheTiger! NumerounovedantTalk 05:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Now that you bring this to my attention, I should point out that the article incorrectly uses tense per WP:MOSTENSE. Commentary by critics when summarized or quoted should generally use the present tense.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder how that is so, considering all the FAs that I have come across using the past tense. (See;Deepika Padukone, Priyanka Chopra, Brad Pitt among many others) I am sure there is more to it than the obvious. NumerounovedantTalk 12:31, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please ignore that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS that is inconsistent with this advice. It is confusing to me. Here is my interpretation. Write in past tense about things from to past. E.g., she made a movie, filmed a pilot. Write in present tense about things that are not in the past. A movie, although made in the past, lives for a long time if not forever (like a building). The movie is in the present like a building is. Thus, an opinion about a thing that is present is written about in the present. A critical commentary about a building or a movie would say. Critic X says the building is tall or the movie is good. We do not say critic X said the building was tall or the movie was good. Hope that helps.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is a really interesting observation, however it is at the end unlike anything that I have seen before. So, I would like other editors to comment here and reach a consensus before I make such a significant change. Thank you TonyTheTiger! NumerounovedantTalk 05:07, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am not even an expert on MOSTENSE. I was just interpreting it based upon the WP:GOCE copyedit that I received after it was mentioned in a prior FAC. I was going to ignore the tense issues in this article until people dinged EmRata as having tense problems. The changes came mostly from Twofingered Typist and were ratified by a review of his work by Baffle gab1978. I doubt anyone already involved in this review is an expert on WP:MOSTENSE. So I am pinging those guys who know it and can explain it better than me since you have doubts.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Twofingered Typist did provide the article with ce. J would love to hear his comments here. NumerounovedantTalk 06:11, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MOSTENSE suggests using past tense for past events. It seems to me that a three year old review should be in the past tense. If you want to change it to the present tense, feel free. Twofingered Typist (talk) 10:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Twofingered Typist: Thank you so much for you help! I believe that the issue is sorted then TonyTheTiger? NumerounovedantTalk 12:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Twofingered Typist, of course I am at a loss as to why 3-year-old reviews are past events and 2-year-old reviews are present tense.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:08, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I believe reviews do get dated after a period of time, which is hard to define, it might as well be a year old or 3 years old. NumerounovedantTalk 05:26, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Numerounovedant, Twofingered Typist, Please reconsider WP:FICTENSE, when combined with MOS:TENSE, I believe it means commentary by critics is written about in the present tense until they are deceased or the film is considered lost.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:01, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I understand you concerns (which is the lack of clarity here), however, what I can't seem to get my head around is the fact that why would so many (practically all) the previous FA articles use the past tense approach if this was such a significant issue. I came across 300 (film) where both past and present tense has been used in the reception section. I think it works either way. Still is's just an observation, I could be wrong. NumerounovedantTalk 17:14, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What we are dealing with is colloquialism. Ask any common person what they thought about a film that they saw and the will say. It was good/bad. Even though it is as ongoing as an building. Ask them about a building and they will say it is tall/beautiful/etc. We have a lot of common folk writing and reviewing our articles here. Did you even consider WP:FICTENSE when writing your article? It clearly exists although it is not a policy. MOS:TENSE is clearly a guideline. The fact that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS inconsistent with the current argument never is a Kosher consideration. We are suppose to look at MOS:TENSE and consider WP:FICTENSE. I don't think we can look at those and then invoke a 3-year rule. I think it is clear a film exists. In fact any building constructed today is more likely to be demolished 100 years from now than a major film is likely to be considered lost in 100 years. Films are more permanent than buildings now and we should consider them ongoing present things rather than past events. Unless a critical commentary is made at a past event (like a film festival panel discussion), it is written about in the present until the critic dies or the film is lost in my opinion. A 3-year rule is poppycock.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:25, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

  • that "and has been credited in the media for publicly expressing her opinions." - This seems to be a habitual claim with almost all Indian actresses. Not sure it belongs in the lead. —Vensatry (talk) 12:00, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please refer to the conversation above (with Yash), and can you suggest something that fits better? NumerounovedantTalk 16:58, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't watched any of her films, so can't really comment on the 'stereotype' thing. My concern is the 'outspoken' thing; that's quite a claim. —Vensatry (talk) 17:19, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if the claim sounds boastful but if anyone who has followed her career closely would know that she has been more outspoken on such issues. Do you think Tony's comment of mentioning her work in Youtube videos would fit better as it is more factual? NumerounovedantTalk 17:31, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It borders WP:PUFF (not just with her case, but with other articles too). She is not even a known entity outside Bombay. More to the point, the claim is hardly encyclopaedic. I'd call only Arundhati Roy, Kamala Das and the likes as 'outspoken'. If the YT claim is an established fact, it may very well go into the lead. —Vensatry (talk) 17:50, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Ssven2 fixed it NumerounovedantTalk 12:47, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. You've already got 4 supports, so I just did a little copyediting, down to Critical acclaim (2013–present). Hope that helps. - Dank (push to talk) 21:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All your help is greatly appreciated Dank! Thank you. NumerounovedantTalk 03:46, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Krish!
  • Well the article is pretty good in shape. However I came across some mistakes which are:
    • "Koechlin is best known for her character roles that defy the stereotypical portrayal of women in Indian cinema" — Someone please tell why this is necessary? I know she is a great actress, much better than those who call themselves no. 1 and get media attention for ex-boyfriends and fashion sense but she has a long way to go. Also it is used in nearly all "fancruft" Indian articles on wikipedia. Please remove it.
    • "One of the most popular Indian celebrities". Is she? NO.
    • She won Jury Award at 63rd National Film Awards but her filmography says Special Mention, both are different — she actually won an award unlike people who win Special Mention are only given certificates. Correct that.

That's it from me.Krish | Talk 07:24, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the lead, the jury/mention article is the same. In the table it does say award, Thanks for taking out your time for the review Krish. NumerounovedantTalk 11:19, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: After fixing small things, I fully support the article. It is a well-written, unbiased and detailed description of a great talent. I would like to thank Vedant for working on articles like this. It's refreshing to see people like him picking such artists, who need more appreciation than those PR-led, attention seeking actresses who can't act. I hope you will continue to work on some other under-rated artists like her. Congratualiton. Krish | Talk 12:55, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot Krish! I try doing my best XD NumerounovedantTalk 05:46, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SlimVirgin

[edit]

Just a couple of points:

  • She calls herself an actor, but we call her an actress. I was just wondering why.
There should be gender neutrality in the article. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:06, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • She calls herself a feminist, but the article says otherwise: "Despite being part of a number of feminism campaigns, Koechlin identifies herself as a humanist over a feminist." That relies on this 2014 source, which attributes that view to her. But in other sources, including more recent ones, [2][3][4] she makes clear that she's a feminist, so that should be fixed.

SarahSV (talk) 15:37, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SlimVirgin: Thanks for taking out the time for the review Does the sentence read better now? NumerounovedantTalk 13:15, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's better, but it's odd to hang it on the end like that. Feminism seems to be an important part of her life. Perhaps you could say at the start of that paragraph something like "Koechlin is a feminist and is involved with several humanitarian causes." SarahSV (talk) 17:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed (hopefully) NumerounovedantTalk 11:25, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

According to the file pages, all the images in the article have been released by Bollywood Hungama, an entertainment website:

Did Bollywood Hungama take or commission all these photographs? SarahSV (talk) 17:04, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They were taken by them. NumerounovedantTalk 13:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can you expand on how you know this? The file pages say only that the website releases the images if they're in a position to do so, but they don't say whether they are, in fact, in such a position. SarahSV (talk) 17:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just to follow up, the template for these images, Commons: Cc-by-3.0-BollywoodHungama, says that (of course) it doesn't apply to images on their website where the copyright is owned by others, which means that these images have not necessarily been released. The template page says: "Don't just upload any images from there and put this license on it — please check if the said rules apply before you upload." So it seems that, for each image you've used, you're going to have to determine that Bollywood Hungama does own the copyright. SarahSV (talk) 02:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SlimVirgin, the license holds good for only images listed under: sets, parties, and press meetings. You may crosscheck with the OTRS ticket if you want. —Vensatry (talk) 08:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SlimVirgin: All the photos are from parties and events, the Shanghai one is a press meet. So, it satisfies the criteria Vensatry specifies.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 10:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The template says:

Bollywood Hungama grants everyone permission to use some of their images under a CC-BY-3.0 license. However, this applies only to images at sets, parties, and press meetings, and not screen-caps or photos copyrighted by other sites. Don't just upload any images from there and put this license on it — please check if the said rules apply before you upload (bold added).

It adds that it must be (inter alia) a photograph of a Bollywood party or event, taken by a Bollywoood Hungama photographer, and provided with a direct link to the source on the Bollywood Hungama website.

For example, File:Kalki Koechlin at the Lakme Fashion Week (2).jpg (here on the website) was taken at Lakme Fashion Week, which is not a Bollywood Hungama event, and there's no sign that it was taken by a Bollywood Hungama photographer. SarahSV (talk) 20:58, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced the photograph from LFW to one from a screening event. NumerounovedantTalk 06:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. You're referring to File:Kalki Koechlin at special screening of 'Margarita With A Straw'.jpg, which you added here. So now you have to do two things: (1) on the file page, you need to supply a link to that image; and (2) you need to email Bollywood Hungama, ask whether they own the copyright to that image, and if they do, ask them to release it. And you will have to do that for each image you want to use, either in separate emails or jointly in one email.
As things stand, there is no indication that these images have been released by the copyright holder. The group release to OTRS is from 2008 and is apparently worded in a very unclear way. So, as the template says, editors must make checks for each image, rather than relying on the group release. I'm sorry to raise this. I know it's a nuisance. SarahSV (talk) 18:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alright Thanks! NumerounovedantTalk 16:38, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed all the images from BH, till I get any help on the issue because neither do I have the time or the motivation to go through the entire process. All Bollywood article use the images of BH use the images and I hope the editors associated with the articles of Bollywood understand and help resolve the issue. Thanks SlimVirgin for taking out your time. NumerounovedantTalk 16:44, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One last thing, do photographs like the one here fall under the same questionable circumstance? If yes, I would like to know so I can contact the other editors with a more detailed description of the issue. NumerounovedantTalk 17:15, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.