This review is transcluded from Talk:Ayesha Takia/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: 25 Cents FC (talk · contribs) 12:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: LEvalyn (talk · contribs) 19:41, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will take on this review! I typically prefer to make copyedits myself and only place comments here when I have questions, though of course as always you should feel free to change or discuss any edits you happen to disagree with. In this instance, I'll start with the source check, since sourcing appears to have been the primary concern with previous nominations. Since it's been a while since this was nominated, I'd appreciate a confirmation that you'll still have time available in the next week or so to address any feedback. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 19:41, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @LEvalyn Thank you for taking up the review. I confirm my availability and look forward to it. -25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 12:47, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 25 Cents FC just pinging because I'd like to hear your response to the first part of my source review before I proceed with other parts of the review. It looks like the article is citing a number of non-RS which should be removed. Once you've had a chance to take a look I'll continue with checking for source-text integrity (and then the rest of the criteria). ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:51, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @LEvalyn Sure. I will work on refs and add new one.-25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 13:25, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 25 Cents FC, the article has been improving a great deal with your work on it, but it really worries me that I am still happening to find things that fail verification. It's the nominator's responsibility to check these things first. I'd like you to go over the whole article carefully, and make sure you're confident that the sources really do say exactly what they're cited for. If I find more failed verifications, I think it will be time to fail this nomination. Take your time making the improvements and just let me know when you think it's ready for me to proceed with the rest of the review. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:48, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

• To start with the source check, I'm going through the whole list to check that they are RS (but not checking source-text integrity at this stage). I'm relying a lot on Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force. A lot of the cites are to sources get a thumbs-up there, such as Bollywood Hungama and Rediff. Below are the sources that raise concerns for me. When I mention being uncertain about a source, I'd appreciate your comments as to how/whether it meets our criteria for WP:RS. The numbers are all based off this diff.
  • 1: "The Company Check" doesn't look reliable to me (the website literally says it doesn't guarantee accuracy). It looks like it's just supporting her married name in the infobox. As long as the married name is cited properly in the article I believe there's no need for a cite in the infobox, so this can just be removed.
    • Fixed
  • 2 and 8: I am not sure about "Business of Cinema", but I could maybe be convinced. It's powered by Wordpress and doesn't list any information about editorial processes, which seems questionable. Is it high enough quality as a source to be used for a BLP birth date? (Regardless, cites 2 and 8 should be merged bc they are the same source)
    • Fixed
  • 7: Inshorts is definitely no good, this is just a laundered YouTube video. But it looks like there's another source for the same info, so maybe this can be removed as redundant.
    • Fixed
  • 29: Indiaglitz is not reliable, should be removed.
    • Fixed
  • 30: This is just a youtube video with the full movie Super-- definitely needs to be replaced with an actual news source
    • Fixed
  • 31: Rajeev Masand appears to be a film critic but the source looks like it's just his personal blog? The sidebar literally has a "blogroll". I'm inclined to say this should be removed, but can you make a case for it?
    • Fixed
      • So glad you found where this review was published in News18 so it can be kept! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 21:39, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 38: I can't find any prior guidance about about Idiva but I can be convinced to keep it; it does appear to have editors.
    • Sure
  • 47: this "Film Companion" article is from their "Readers Write" section, and should be removed as WP:UGC
    • Fixed
  • 49: I also can't find prior guidance about The Hans India. It does appear to have staff journalists so I can be talked into keeping.
    • Sure
  • 55 and 61: looks like India.com is considered generally unreliable. Can this info be sourced to something else?
    • Fixed
  • 59: Caravan Alive looks like a blog..? The "About" page is just a biography of one person.
    • Fixed
  • 64: Woman's Era doesn't look reliable to me, their "contact us" page is all about advertising and how to publish with them
    • Cannot find this reference. Could you please help.
      • Fixed
  • 90, 92, 93: I'm not sure about Bollywood Product. But surely these awards publish the winners directly?
    • Fixed
  • 94: it seems weird to cite a non-independent Apple TV page for these awards, aren't there real newspapers that covered them?
    • Fixed
  • All the Times of India cites need to be closely checked; film reviews are fine, but bio details and box office figures may be unreliable. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:30, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Box Office India is generally regarded as a reliable source for box office figures. I believe we can move forward with this. Let me know what you think.-25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 14:19, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, Box Office Cinema is fine for box office figures. This was a more general note that I hadn't checked any of the Times of India citations, but WP:TIMESOFINDIA says it should be used with caution and the Indian Cinema task force suggests avoiding it for biographical information. When I do my spot check I'll evaluate whether any of the citations to TOI need replacing. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 21:39, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, that's a long to-do list but perhaps not impossible. I'll do the deeper check for source-text integrity after you've had a chance to respond o the notes above. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:30, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for going through those sources! I have some follow-up comments:
  • Thanks for subbing in Indian Express as the source for her birth date, that's much better. But it looks like Business of Cinema is still being cited for the claim that She started her career as a model when she was thirteen, appearing in the I am a Complan Boy! I'm a Complan Girl! campaign along with Shahid Kapoor. -- and BOC actually says she was fifteen in that ad. The Times of India source that is also cited on that sentence doesn't mention her age at all, it just verifies that she and Kapoor were in the Complan ad some time in the 90s. More broadly, our article seems inconsistent with itself about which was her first appearance, the Complan ad or the music video -- and wouldn't her fist appearance actually be whatever obscure ad she did first as a kid? Please revisit the first paragraph of "Modelling career and debut (2000–2005)" to make sure it's accurate. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 21:39, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Fixed

  • I'm not sure about Shemaroo as a source but it's definitely better than the youtube video of Super. However, it only verifies The film was also later dubbed and released in Hindi as Robbery, not Her performance as a doctor named Siri Valli earned her first Filmfare Award for Best Actress – Telugu nomination at 53rd Filmfare Awards South. so that latter sentence needs a citation. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 21:39, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Fixed

  • Only one of the two India.com citations was removed; it's still used in the source "Ayesha Takia is the Queen of Snapchat filters! Hot Actress’ pictures will make you forget about redundant lip & breast surgery talks!" ~ L 🌸 (talk) 21:39, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Fixed

  • Bollywood Product is still cited for the Zee Cine Award for Best Female Debut, and Apple TV is still cited for the Stardust Best Supporting Actress Award. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 21:39, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Takia first appeared in several commercials, then in a Falguni Pathak music video, and later in Hindi movies. I have listed them in chronological order and replaced references that mention Takia's age. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 10:53, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I have added a reference from OneIndia for her Filmfare nomination. Although the reference doesn’t explicitly mention her role in the film, it does confirm the nomination. I included a brief mention of her performance to highlight her role in the film. Please let me know if it's appropriate to include this. India.com, Bollywood Product removed. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 11:05, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Since we're getting close to having all citations be RS, I did a check for source-text integrity. I looked at citations 13, 18, 19, 43, 47, 70, 71, 77, 83, and 88 as numbered in this diff.
  • 13 is a Times of India cite, but I think it's OK for the relatively uncontroversial info that she won these two awards.
  • 18 is fine.
  • For 19, the source is fine, but I see two issues. First, it's marked as a "flop" -- should we really call it an "average grosser"? I'd probably advise attributing that assessment, writing out "Box Office India labeled it a 'flop'". Second, the article says it earned ₹3.43 crore worldwide, but BOI says it earned ₹3.43 crore across India and then a negligible £16,250 in the UK. Per WP:CALC I think you could either at the UK number to the India number to give a worldwide number, or the article can just report the India number. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 21:39, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I have rephrased the statement regarding the film being a flop versus an average grosser. Also, for the box office collection, we can use the Indian figure with the US equivalent in brackets for example ₹3.43 crore (US$410,000). 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 11:13, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This one looks good to me. No problem with including the US equivalent; just wanted to be accurate about which box offices the number related to, which looks fixed now. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 18:54, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • 43 is another Times of India cite; it's an interview with a filmmaker, which I think would be OK in principle when attributed to the filmmaker. However, it doesn't verify any of the information it's cited for. Please find another source to verify the plot summary. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 21:39, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Would you be able to provide the most recent reference number for this? -25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 12:28, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • At the start I linked to the diff I was consulting, where the number will be consistent. Comparing that to the present article, it looks like you did find it & replace the source.~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:29, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • 47 is another Times of India cite that doesn't verify the information in question. It says the film "won a few awards for itself at the Indian Film Festival" but doesn't state which awards. Please find another source -- surely the film festival publishes its winners directly? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 21:39, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   Done

  • Relatedly, the preceding sentence stays The film failed to perform well at the box office and eventually becoming one of the major disasters of the year. But the cited source just quotes the director saying He said, ‘Your No Smoking (2007) flopped so I thought you won’t make another film now.'; I think that can support the idea that it flopped but not that it was "one of the major disasters of the year" (lots of movies flop!); I tagged this as "better source needed" ~ L 🌸 (talk) 21:39, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Fixed

    25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 12:25, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • 70, 71, 77, 83, and 88 are all fine. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 21:39, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• As I was looking through the article, I saw a lot of statements that didn't have any citations, mostly to do with the commercial success of individual films. I'm not confident that I caught every case where more citation is needed-- I wasn't fully systematic-- but all of the tags I added definitely need to be addressed. This is the kind of sourcing problem which meets our criteria for a GA "quickfail". Since you specifically asked for a reviewer who would allow time for problems to be corrected, I will instead place this review "on hold" and allow you to address the sourcing, but in future you should not nominate articles unless you have personally double-checked that all of the information is appropriately cited. Please ping me when you've finished your revisions and I will do another source spot check. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 21:39, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for your patience. I've made the required changes to the references. Please let me know if anything is still missing.-25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 12:27, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Hm, and as an additional concern, there are a lot of places where the article makes a claim like "it received positive reviews from critics", but only one review is cited. To verify that kind of summative claim, I think it's necessary to find a retrospective source or an aggregator like Rotten Tomatoes. It might be justifiable to cite a group of positive reviews from major/representive venues. But I don't think a single review can, in principle, verify this kind of claim. Please look through the article with this concern in mind and either source or modify these claims. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 21:54, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Working on it! I’ll add at least two reviews to back up the positive side.-25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 12:34, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hello @LEvalyn I've added two sources for the positive reviews part. Also, since the Times of India reference raised a couple of questions, let me know if I should remove it and replace it with another source.-25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 14:47, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for digging in on these, but I wanted to clarify: just adding more positive reviews doesn't address this problem, because that becomes WP:SYNTH. In most cases we have to just not claim "the film got positive reviews", unless someone else has made that overall assessment. (Like a review aggregator, or someone writing after the fact -- the Rediff article of Shahid Kapoor's 10 BIGGEST Flops is a great retrospective source, actually!) Usually the best thing to do is just to mention/quote an individual review instead. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:29, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• You've done a lot of work on the citations -- it's great to see the improvements! I'll start by checking that my earlier concerns have been addressed.
  • Apple TV is still cited for the Stardust Best Supporting Actress Award. There really ought to be a newspaper article somewhere saying she won this. If there isn't then my conclusion is that it's not a notable award and should be removed. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:29, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Fixed

  • Actually this is a new concern, but The film became unsuccessful at the box office, however proving to be a breakthrough as it boosted the careers of Takia and Kapoor fails verification -- the cited source is from before the movie was even made! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:29, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Fixed

  • This failed verification tag is still present and must be addressed: No Smoking, however, received three nominations viz. Filmfare Award for Best Art Direction, Filmfare Award for Best Cinematographer, and Filmfare Award for Best Special Effects at the 53rd Filmfare Awards.~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:29, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Fixed

  • The new source is better for the claim The film failed to perform well at the box office and eventually becoming one of the major disasters of the year, but it doesn't actually make a comparison to the other disasters of the year so it's still not enough to verify such a strong claim. I have revised the article to say something the source can support, namely, The film did not perform well at the box office, with Box Office India dubbing it a "disaster". ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:29, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Fixed

  • Looking at the citations filling in the "citation needed" gaps, a lot of them look good -- very good to see. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:29, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • it opened to predominantly negative reviews is the kind of claim that can't be supported by a cite to a single negative review. It needs some kind of review aggregator or retrospective article. I have replaced this claim with one that the source can support, Rediff gave the film a negative review. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:29, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  In the context of a film receiving negative, positive, or mixed reviews, this sentence is intended solely to support the reviews provided next to it and should not be interpreted as an independent or standalone statement.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 13:04, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Similarly, the BBC review of Yun Hota Toh Kya Hota cannot verify this: It earned little at the box office and received mixed reviews ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:29, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Relevant references and box office figures have been included.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 13:04, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • The BBC review does not verify Takia garnered acclaim for her performance as a voiceover artist named Sehar. It says Sehar (Ayesha), is an absent minded dubbing animation artist. ... Ayesha Takia plays the cute innocent Sehar. But it is the Irffan/Arshad combo who are a real treat to watch. That's not really "acclaim".

  Fixed

  • One bad review can't verify The film did not perform well at the box office and earned poor critical reviews. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:29, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Fixed

  • For this one: became one of the highest-grossing films of the year, as well as Takia's biggest commercial success to date it does verify great! Unfortunately, it is also a copyvio, since they use the exact same wording. Can you tell if the DNA India article borrowed the phrasing from Wikipedia, or the other way around? If they wrote it first, we need to change our wording. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:29, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   Done I have rephrase the sentence. Please let me know if it's good.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 13:04, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Her performance as a nutritionist Anjali Mathur was praised by the critics. is not verified by a review that says Takia and almost all the other actors are competent. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:29, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   Done Removed.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 13:04, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• As I was going through, unfortunately, I spotted some more uncited statements that I didn't notice the first time. Several of these are claims like "the film recieved poor reviews" -- in most cases I'm guessing it will be best to instead say it performed poorly at the box office, since Box Office India will allow you to cite that. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:29, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I have removed the 'poor review' wordings and instead included whether the review is positive, negative, or mixed. A corresponding review and reference has been added for each case to ensure that this aspect is not overlooked.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 13:04, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• This paragraph is very confusing: Before starting her career as an actor, Takia appeared in several commercials. She started her career as a model when she was fifteen, appearing in the I am a Complan Boy! I'm a Complan Girl! campaign along with Shahid Kapoor. Her first public appearance was in the music video for Falguni Pathak's song "Meri Chunar Udd Udd Jaye". At least in my idiom of English, appearing in a commercial is acting, so you can't appear in a commercial before you start acting. Her appearance in that Complad ad also wasn't modeling. And all of those things are definitely "public appearances"! Here's what the Telegraph says: made her first appearance on screen when she was only four. The result was that she got an early start and as a child model, endorsed a range of brands like VIP suitcases, Cibaca toothpaste, Complan and Godrej refrigerators. When she was 15 she got her first break in Falguni Pathak’s music video Meri Chunar directed by Radhika Rao. Please revisit. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:29, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I apologies, Takia's initial appearances in TV ads or music videos cannot be considered as an acting. Actually, appearing in commercial does not constitute acting, it is rather a modelling/ performance assignment. Individuals who appear only in songs, especially in item numbers or promotional tracks; are typically referred to as models, dancers, or performers, rather than actresses, unless they have acted in other parts of the film.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 13:20, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I see, it looks like this is an WP:ENGVAR case I wasn’t aware of, how interesting! In this instance, though, the current version is almost incomprehensible in my Canadian EngVar, so I think it would be valuable to revise with MOS:COMMONALITY in mind. Perhaps if the verbs “act” and “model” were entirely avoided, and we talked about her appearing/performing in various things? I.e. Before beginning her career in film, Takia appeared in commercials. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:38, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure @LEvalyn The necessary changes have been made. Please take a look and let me know if anything else is missing. I hope the article meets the required standards this time. Feel free to point out any remaining issues.-25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 05:30, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The section headers for the "career" heading are also a bit confusing. I think there need to be more of them; "Breakthrough, setback and sabbatical" shouldn't all be one thing, since they are different phases of her career. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:29, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @LEvalyn I’ve included everything under the 'Career' section because it encompasses modeling, appearances in songs, and eventually acting in films. Moreover, it’s common practice to cover all such aspects under 'Career'. I referred to articles like those of Alia Bhatt and Sonam Kapoor as a reference. In the meantime, I’ve also rephrased the section titled 'Breakthrough, Setback, and Sabbatical.' Let me know your thoughts.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 13:20, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah, I think you might have misunderstood my comment— I do agree her whole career belongs under the main “Career” heading! It was the sub sections underneath “Career” where it felt like there needed to be three sections instead of two, something like early career, mid career, and downturn. But the new headings also work better for me, since they are more focused. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:43, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure. In the meantime, I’ll go through the entire article again to check for any issues related to writing style, grammar, or other aspects, and make the necessary changes.-25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 05:34, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It looks like this DNA article has some big-picture overview retrospective statements that would be useful for giving the article an overall "narrative": Ayesha Takia made her Bollywood debut with the film Taarzan: The Wonder Car, which failed to make a mark at the box office. Her next 15 films ... also failed at the box office. The only successful film that Ayesha starred in was Salman Khan's Wanted. and Soon after her marriage, the actress starred in other two films like Paathshaala and Mod, but both of them flopped at the box office and the actress quit Bollywood. This overview suggests a structure of headings to break down her career 'narratively': 1. "Modelling career and debut" (ending with Taarzan); 2. something more polite/encyclopedic that conveys "Prolific string of flops" (next 15 films); 3. "Wanted"; 4., "Final films and retirement".

@25 Cents FC and LEvalyn: What else needs doing here?--Launchballer 14:21, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was waiting on a ping from 25 Cents FC to let me know that the article was ready for me to look at it again. I've been waiting until a source spot check comes up "clean" (ie fully verified) before proceeding with the other criteria. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:00, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @LEvalyn I've made a couple of changes. Please have a look and let me know if I’m missing anything.-25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 10:01, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Whew! A lot of work has gone in on sourcing this article! As confirmation that it should now be fully verified by RS, I'll do another 10% random spot check, looking at cites 24, 28, 44, 60, 63, 70, 84, 85, 93, 99, 105, and 106 as numbered in this diff (you can click this link to see exactly which sources I am referring to).
  • The first cite to 24 checks out just fine, but in the table, 24 does not verify that her character's last name is Mittal.
  • 28 (which I added the archive link for) verifies that she was in Home Delivery but does not verify that it was a comedy-drama by Sujoy Ghosh or that it was her last film of 2004.
  • 44 did not verify the quote from Rediff. Quotation marks mean we are presenting the exact words of the source. However, what appeared in quotation marks in the article was a paraphrase of the Rediff review. (I fixed this.)
  • 60 almost verifies, but the source gives the box office as ₹4,04,00,000, which would be ₹4.04 crore, not the ₹4.4 crore in the wiki article. (I fixed this.)
  • 63 is a negative review, one of several attached to the claim "The film with an ensemble cast met with mixed critical reviews." I think this it's borderline WP:SYNTH to use a group of individual reviews to support a broader claim like that, but even though I don't do it I recognize that some do; I am willing to accept it in this case.
  • 70 checks out, no issues.
  • 84 does not verify the quote from Bollywood Hungama. This one is very bad: the wiki article quotes them as saying "Ayesha's role is natural and graceful". The article actually says "Ayesha is natural. Sharmila Tagore is graceful." So not only has the wording changed despite appearing in quote marks, the meaning has changed and Takia has been given a compliment which was actually meant for a different actress. (I fixed this.)
  • 85 also mis-quotes its source, by removing the adjective "chubby-cheeked" without marking that something has been removed with ellipses. (I fixed this.)
  • 93 verifies that Takia hosted the show but not that it was the only season of that show.
  • 99 actually says she converted to Islam before marriage, not after. The other source cited here is a little more ambiguous, the headline says it's a list of women who converted "before Marriage" but the entry on Takia says she "reportedly" converted "upon marrying" (which suggests after). Also, neither of the sources on this sentence verifies the name change on social media.
  • 105 doesn't verify that her character Jenny is also known as Nani.
  • 106 doesn't verify that her character's last name is Bhalla.

Oof. I know this will be a disappointment, but I will have to fail this review. Some of these are quite minor (the character names, the typo in the ₹4.04 box office) but the altered quotes are really, really problematic. I’m particularly worried because the quotes are material you added during this review, when you were explicitly trying to improve the verifiability of the article. In general, reviewing this article has made me worried about how you approach verifiability when editing. I encourage you to consider the workflow advice at WP:BACKWARD — you’re far from a newbie, but when you’re improving old articles like this one it’s easy to end up basically writing someone else’s article backwards (with all the attendant problems). You might also want to really spend some thing looking at WP:V, WP:SYNTH, and WP:OR to re-calibrate your writing process. I'm seeing a real pattern of content that is true (as far as I can tell) but not fully verified Thanks for your hard work here and best of luck with future articles. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:17, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]