Talk:Ra.One/Archive 3

LongPages
Today, Ra.One officially entered the list of longest Wikipedia pages, and is currently residing at Rank 963. Note that this may go up further. Good news or bad news, that's up to others to decide. Cheers. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 17:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * A bad news IMO. We need to reduce the size to help the page load faster in a low bandwidth connection. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 09:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, not a good news at all. Would you guys like summarizing of some parts? --Dwaipayan (talk) 13:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * There's not much we can summarize; as much summarizing as possible was done. The only thing possible now is to cut out information, which is totally unacceptable. The problem here is that certain sections of the article are pretty big, not are not big enough/notable enough to warrant a separate article. Something of a paradox. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 14:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Btw, right now any increase in the number of bytes will be because of the archiving of the references, so don't think I am still adding information :P. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 14:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The last time I looked, readers see the article's content and choice of info, and do not bother about bandwidth. For me, its a good news. Secret of success (talk)  14:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

But there are repetition of information. For example, under cast section, '' Khan was the first actor to be approached by Sinha, despite the fact that Sinha had never met Khan before. Khan performed the stunts in the film on his own Khan faced considerable difficulty while filming. His character required him to apply prosthetic makeup for over eight hours a day, making consumption of food and water difficult. Besides this, he also suffered severe discomfort with his superhero suit. Subsequently, he lost ten kilos of weight at the end of filming...'' parts of this information has been repeated under post-production and "costume". This is absolutely unnecessary, and leads me to doubt what Ankit says above (that summarizing would delete information).

Besides, many parts read choppy, and like mere accumulation of trivia. Some parts lack transition. Let's consider this, again from the same "cast" section. ''The protagonist of the game Ra.One, a deadpan character named G.One, is modeled on Shekhar. Khan was the first actor to be approached by Sinha, despite the fact that Sinha had never met Khan before. Khan performed the stunts in the film on his own''. Three consecutive sentences in the same paragraph, without any link, any transition!!! The article needs summarizing and copyedit. But the prospect of copyediting itself is quite frightening due to the size :) --Dwaipayan (talk) 15:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * And I do not know whether this has been discussed in the past. The information on preparation by individual actors which is under "cast" section, can be brought under "Production", either under a new subsection "characters" or under some appropriate alread-existing subsection. In that case, cast would only have the intro of the character of the film.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:28, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

A comment
''According to the producers, the time was chosen to show the symbolism between Ra.One and the mythological villain Ravana (of the Ramayana), both of whom were "equally bad". Due to technical problems, the character's appearance was revealed in the film's final theatrical trailer and received a positive reception.''

Did not get it. What was the effect of the technical problem? They could not release it during Dussera? Or, the look got leaked by chance in a trailer or something?--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:28, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Martin Walsh - correct credit?
Martin Walsh is listed in the "Editorial Department" at IMDb, although his role is as an "editor". This is unusual, and is different than having a listing as a co-editor. In the present article he is listed along with Sharma as one of two editors. Can someone clarify whether IMDb is in error, or whether a small correction is needed here? Cheers, Easchiff (talk) 18:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * In case of future interest: IMDb has now changed these credits following my inquiry there. The crew listing for the film on its official website lists Walsh as a full editor. So it seems likely that Walsh's listing in this article is correct. However, a conclusive answer requires that someone examine the credits on a copy of the film, which I haven't done. Easchiff (talk) 18:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll do that. Thanks for pointing it out :). ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 18:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

More comments
Clarified comments will be struck out.

Read the "Filming" subsection of "Production". Following are the comments.


 * In "Filming", Principal photography for the film began in March 2009, one-and-a-half years after the beginning of pre-production. Soon, (second paragraph) Principal photography officially began in Mumbai in March 2010. What is correct? Also, besides the correction of date, it is repetition of information, that too in the same section. Unacceptable.
 * This is not addressed yet. It still says Principal photography for the film began in March 2009 and then The film's production officially began in Mumbai in March 2010. The first extended filming schedule began in Goa on March 21, 2010... in the next paragraph. Which date is correct? 2009 or 2010? Please do not strike out before completely resolving the issue.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Let me explain. As per the article principal photography, it states that "Principal photography is the phase of film production in which the movie is filmed, with actors on set and cameras rolling." However, especially today, this definition is not really held in its strictest sense. Generally, principal photography is described as the point of time at which anything regarding the film is actually done on the ground level. Now, this does not only involve filming; especially for large-scale VFX-driven/make-up driven films, principal photography refers to the time starting from the very beginning. This can include multiple technical tests (for visual effects, make-up, sets and lighting etc.) or photography for promotional purposes (such as taking photos for early posters, individual photo releases etc.) Good examples would be Dasavathaaram for the former and Rana for the latter. I'm not sure what exactly was held in the March 2009 to March 2010, but it most probably would be visual effects tests or lighting tests. I could change "The film's production" to "Filming" to make matters clearer. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 16:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok. But still you have to explain this in the article (See, you needed to explain teh current significance of principal photography here to make me understand. Any average reader may have the same confusion). So, you need to make necessary change in wordings.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oops! Mistake: the second part was wrong. Removed. Clarified. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 18:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 *  Filming of the first schedule commenced at Filmistan Studios in the first week of September 2010, and involved a lavish round-table conference. What does "lavish round table conference" mean? Sounds weasel word.
 * This is also not completely resolved. Now it reads, Filming of the first schedule commenced at Filmistan Studios in the first week of September 2010, and involved a round-table conference. The word lavish is gone. But what is a round table conference? Who attended teh conference? Why is it important to mention this? --Dwaipayan (talk) 15:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I shall add a wikilink. A round-table conference was filmed. If you have seen the film, you may remember a scene near the beginning where Khan, Goswami and Wu are getting blasted by the owner of Barron Industries for failing to launch successful games. That is the round-table conference being referred to (of course there is no source to back this, and its not there in the article, but its the only round-table conference scene in the whole film). Its important to mention because its a bit of information; as per FA standards we have to be comprehensive. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 16:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ha ha, ok. Now I get it. You meant a scene of the film involving a round table conference was shoot. Then say like that. I thought a round table conference was held between the key personalities, and something was decided regarding the filming!!
 * You can explicitly say that, Filming of the first schedule commenced at Filmistan Studios in the first week of September 2010, and involved shooting of a a round-table conference.
 * I have not seen the film. I wish to see it soon. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * To avoid any further delays, filming was carried out at two separate locations Which locations? 2 locations in Filmistan? or different studios? If not known, is it needed to include?


 * The film's final production phase was split into two schedules... It seems one schedule began in September, the other in December 2010. Why are they calling "final phase" together? The schedules are separated in time. The December one seems like the final phase/schedule. Any reason of grouping together of these two schedules?
 * That's how it is stated in the reference, so I guess we can't change that. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 13:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Production of the second schedule began in Filmistan Studios in December 2010 and took place over a seven-day period in Filmistan Studios. During a visit to India, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev visited Yash Raj Studios in Mumbai and watched Khan at work. If filming was going on in Filmistan, how Come Medvedev met Khan at Yash Raj Studio?
 * Filming goes on in a number of studios. References can't track each and every studio where the film is being shot. The train sequence was done in film City, while other portions were done in Filmistan, all at the same time. It happens. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 18:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Again, The remaining portions were filmed in Mumbai and completed in July 2011. If the final phase was in December 2010, how come another filming till JUly 2011? Or, was the December 2010 schedule not really final?


 * The indoor portions were filmed on two replicas of a train coach which were built in five days, a process Gill initially thought would take three weeks. Who is Gill? Needs a descriptor. Readers have forgotten who Gill is by this time.


 *  A glitch occurred during indoor filming, as the train and track length ended up being the same, making any movement impossible. A six-car train had to be arranged and the sequence was filmed outdoors despite other trains running nearby. Why a "six car" train needed to be arranged? It was shot at real location, and the problem with length was indoor.
 * As of now, information removed due to loss of reference. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 18:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The entire scene was filmed using a record 23 cameras What kind of record? Is it the highest number of cameras ever used in shooting a sequence? In India, world?


 * A few pictures of the station and trains were taken, and the remaining was added using visual effects; Khan was not present at the station. But the image shows Khan running in a station. So, you mean Khan was later super-imposed on the station? In that case, image caption needs to be changed.


 * The outdoor portion of filming cost 1.25 lakh (US$2,500). ONLY? Such an elaborate train fighting sequence cost only 1.25 lakh rupees? Please re-check.
 * Clarified. Yes, only. A whole new quote from Keitan Yadav backs it up perfectly. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 13:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Pecorini called the experience "like nothing he had ever imagined before", and described Ra.One as a "soup with too many ingredients" Needs citation.
 * Dead link citation; removed. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 18:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It's about creating something entirely new, anticipating 50-100 years into the future. endash needed. Also, a citation won't be bad.
 * Citation available at the end of the paragraph. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 18:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The absence of Chawla caused stress among all the crew members, and it was reported that Khan and Sinha had a number of arguments since the beginning of filming; consequently, Sinha was forbidden the use of his phone until the shots were approved. Thematically separate information. Better separate the sentences by full stop, not semicolon.
 * ✅ ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 18:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Sinha filmed the video with Khan over four hours despite on-going film promotions. Why "despite"? Do film-promotion hamper filming usually?
 * For any ordinarily-promoted film, no, there is no problem. But Ra.One was not an ordinarily-promoted film. It would be very difficult to squeeze out any time when one is going to 3 international premieres, appearing on three reality shows on the same day, going to countless interviews, product placements, brands and merchandise... you get the picture. Hence the "despite". ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 18:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Loss of information
There had been an important reference in The Week, which was originally available here. Right now the entire article has vanished, much to my dismay since a wealth of information had been in it. The loss of this reference spurred me to archive references, and as of now all references (barring a few such as IMDb references) have been archived. But I'm thinking about the lost info: I am hoping to replace it with other sources which contain the info, even if in piecemeal format.

Here's the info lost :-

"The visual effects also involved location replication, as several environments had to be recreated in studio. The team spent several hours taking photographs of locations which would be used later; for the action scene at Battersea Power Station, the crew took 3,000 photographs so as to recreate it using CGI. To recreate a 150-foot tall building which Khan climbs during the scene, a digital pre-visualization was created for each frame; based on the requirement, 3D models were created which served as a key for the design of indoor sets. Khan and Rampal filmed the scene in Croma, which was then superimposed on the power station's CGI replica and subsequently matched with the pre-visualization."

"Pecorini faced considerable difficulty on the film sets, which was further aggravated by his lack of experience on Bollywood films. He said that he had been "cheated" into working on the film when he was told that it was in English. Pecorini called the experience "like nothing he had ever imagined before", and described Ra.One as a "soup with too many ingredients". A lack of storyboarding, property masters and call sheets proved to be problematic; additionally, he was surprised at the low proportion of sequences with respect to the film's running time. Nine cameras were handled by 79 crew members, many of whom were unaware of the working of the other cameras. This resulted in communication with multiple crew members, making the cinematography take six times the usual time of filming. "

"Martin Walsh was assigned as the film's editor. Walsh was present with the crew for over four weeks, responsible for editing all the chase and action sequences. He initially faced an "incredulous response" when he suggested that musical numbers be integrated into the story flow, but later expressed great satisfaction with his experience on the film."

" Pre-production work began in November 2007 after the release of Om Shanti Om (2007). Kanika Dhillon began the script-writing process by taking notes and having discussions at Mannat (Khan's residence), over a year prior to the start of principal photography. Dhillon noted the descriptive and visual nature of the script, commenting, "With each scene, we were discovering the beauty and horror of the superpowers they were equipped with. In a way, the script defined the characters and the extent of their larger-than-life appeal." Khan, not wishing to alienate audiences, wanted a superhero that people would identify with."

"The action scene involving the Mumbai local train was filmed partially indoors; other portions had to be filmed on real running trains. The indoor portions were filmed on two replicas of a train coach which were built in five days, a process stunt co-ordinator Andy Gill initially thought would take three weeks. A glitch occurred during indoor filming, as the train and track length ended up being the same, making any movement impossible. A six-car train had to be arranged and the sequence was filmed outdoors despite other trains running nearby. Initially, the scene was supposed to show Khan running on top of the train. However, the trains were electric instead of diesel, forcing an on-the-spot change of the sequence."

"In addition, a malfunction occurred in Khan's suit which required three months to fix."

I endear other editors to help me in salvage this lost information from other reliable sources. I don't say we can salvage all of it, but we can try. Some parts of the lost info is already available in certain places, so the replacement can happen soon. I hope other editors can take up some time to do this. Thanks, and cheers. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 15:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a hell lot of info, oh my! The article does not seem to have reduced, though. Secret of success (talk)  14:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Ouch. Archive.org didn't have anything for that link, unfortunately.  Is that something that's web only, or it is published as well?  If it's published (ie, not just on-line), it's okay to keep the information in as it can be verified.  If it's on-line one, then yeah, kinda need to pull it.  See WP:DEADLINK. Ravensfire ( talk ) 14:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, The Week is a print magazine so they may have published it. But seeing the sort of info, I'm not sure. I'll see if I can find that. Thanks for the clarification :D. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 14:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, I guess fortune favors us, at least partially. My help desk request has succeeded; a cache of the original article is available! You can see it here. But there's an unfortunate catch: the said cache may also disappear at any time. Can anybody help me overcome this problem? ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 13:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Image review
I checking the images on Secret of Success' request
 * File:Ra.One audio launch.jpg shows red sari, why is File:Kareena Costume CC.jpg?
 * ChammakSample.ogg is also invalid fair use. This is not the song article
 * Removing Ra-one villain.jpg and Ra.One Cubical Formations.jpg: 1 image of visual effects is enough. Each visual effect does not an image. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 16:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry? As is clearly stated in the rationale, the file was used as a sample for the soundtrack, adn was used for the "Soundtrack" section. It can surely be used in the article. There is no restriction to use a song sample solely in the song's article. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 17:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * As per Non-free content criteria, Contextual significance criterion, "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding", not the case.
 * Under the same criterion, removing "Revealed: The Making of Ra.One" poster. The article not about the TV program.
 * More fair use images may fall under this criterion, but not reducing these, as not thoroughly read the relevant sections. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 17:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, according to the criteria, "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." I would say that this calls for a replacement of the poster, to depict the suits, VFX and the character. This poster would do. Secret of success (talk)  05:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support change of poster suggestion. I remember seeing the linked poster more. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 05:11, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well then, I guess only Kareena's costume and the poster should stay. Let me wait for a couple of days just to make sure that I do not get opposition. But I'm not sure about this one and this one. Secret of success (talk)  05:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Post-production summary comments

 * [See main] doesn't work. SUMMARYSTYLE
 * The post-production of Ra.One received significant media attention. Reference?
 * Sentence modified.


 * "Academy Award-winning" Is this needed? SRK is not described as "Filmfare-winning".
 * Removed.


 * "carried out" repetition in two successive sentences
 * Modified.


 * Establish clearly that 2D -> 3D was an afterthought and the film was not shot for 3D in reality.
 * Done.


 * "However, the conversion received a generally negative reception after the film's release". Which reference in main supports this? Bhatt does not criticize Ra.One particularly but the general 2D->3D process
 * Bhatt criticized all films featuring conversion. Ra.One is one of them.
 * So, it is a general criticism of the process, not of the film in particular. Also, no proof of a generally negative reception.-- Redtigerxyz  Talk 11:01, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Removed.


 * "Khan subsequently kept strict tabs on the progress of work near the time of release" reference?
 * Added.

Overall summary is good. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 10:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "The conversion required 2,600 artists to convert 4,400 shots of the film to 3D" Redundancy: stereoscopic conversion implies 3D. Also conversion required to convert???? -- Redtigerxyz Talk 11:06, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Changed "conversion" to "process". ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 11:20, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Ra.One's BO and budget conflicts
Is and  sources are reliable?--Plea$ant 1623 14:40, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course they are. Secret of success <font color="#29AB87">(talk)  07:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * They are reliable, but the information contradicts with many other reliable sources. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 10:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * They are not exactly "contradicting". In essence, all the sources are just predicting the budget. Its very difficult to obtain an exact figure for the budget mainly because the producers of Bollywood don't announce the budgets officially (and additionally encourage speculations over the budget in an effort to leverage publicity for the film). ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 13:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't want to predict the budget, but the worldwide nett/gross.--Plea$ant 1623 13:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I didn't get you. We have not predicted the BO figures at all. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 04:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Then that means I can give the worldwide gross/nett?--Plea$ant 1623 13:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

In the best interests of the article (and to protect it from rabid vandals of both kinds) it would be best to leave out the budget and gross figures from the infobox. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 14:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Wrong information regarding the State names in the release area
The map highlighted Andhra Pradesh for Telugu release and Tamil Nadu for Tamil release. But the text says it shows Tamil Nadu and Kerala. Someone with poor Indian geography knowledge must have updated this. Please change the state name from Kerala to Andhra Pradesh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thefixer8 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * A big Thank You for pointing out this terrible silly mistake :D. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 17:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Brianboulton
Following the closure without comment of the formal peer review, I was asked by the principal editor if I could provide some comments on the text before the article's submission to FAC. Well, here goes:-
 * "a comical game designer" - do you mean a designer of comical games, or a comical designer of games"?
 * ✅ Removed "comical" completely from lead, and re-worded to "bumbling" in Cast section.


 * "and begins to track down Lucifer, the only player to have defeated him." Explain briefly who "Lucifer" is.


 * In British English, "tout" as a verb has a rather derogatory meaning, reminiscent of selling through sharp practice, or at any rate overdoing the hype. So "touted as a breakthrough" sounds strange to English ears. Consider rewording.
 * ✅ Re-worded to "recognized".


 * "Critical reactions to the film were lukewarm in India and generally positive overseas, with unanimous acclaim for technical aspects but considerable criticism against the script and direction." Needs rewording, with a clearer separation between Indian and overseas reaction, thus: "In India, critical reactions to the film were lukewarm. Overseas, while there was broad acclaim for the film's technical aspects, there was  considerable criticism of the script and direction."
 * Umm, that's not the meaning actually. What the sentence implies is that: Indian reception was mixed, overseas positive, overall praise for technical but criticism regarding script/direction. How should I word this?
 * ✅ Small re-arrangement which has done the trick.


 * You say the film "broke a number of box office records", but this seems contradicted later in the paragraph: "...several trade analysts deemed the box office performance as 'average'..." So what were these records that were broken?
 * It broke opening records, but its overall performance was average since it couldn't sustain its momentum and failed to meet expectations.
 * ✅ Added small details.


 * Terms such as "motion capture–based movements" mean nothing to me, and may be not to other readers
 * ✅ Removed motion sensor.


 * Pipelink mainframe


 * Ra.One can hardly be said to have been "destroyed" when he returns to life a couple of sentences later.
 * ✅ Added "temporarily".


 * General: I found most of the plot section impossible to follow. That may be because I am not particularly familiar with computer game formats, but other readers may have the same difficulty.
 * ✅ I have re-written it. Hope its clearer now.


 * Casting section includes: "Kareena Kapoor as Sonia Subramaniam and Ra.One" and "Arjun Rampal as Ra.One", which is going to cause confusion
 * I'll see what I can do.
 * ✅ Changed a number of aspects of the Cast section.


 * As a general rule you should identify people on first mention, rather than merely providing a link, as in "According to Anubhav Sinha..."
 * ✅ Added "director".


 * Colloquialisms and informal language, e.g. "an advertisement on television showing kids..." should be avoided
 * Changed kids to children. Is there anything else to change?


 * In that same phrase, linking "advertisement" is unnecessary. Watch out generally for overlinking.
 * ✅ away with.


 * Try as I may, I can't think offhand of a Hitchcock film named after the villain of the piece, so the reasoning: "He found Alfred Hitchcock as his primary inspiration for naming the film after the villain" seems a litle tenuous.
 * He found Hitchcock as an inspiration for the power of the villain, which influenced the naming of Ra.One.


 * "...certain controversies regarding tensions on the sets..." As far as I can see, you don't expand on these "controversies" or tensions, so there seems little point in mentioning them.
 * Should I expand a bit or remove the sentence? The situations were note-worthy.
 * ✅ Slight re-wording.


 * "Only two days were available to finish the film and send it for printing, generating significant anxiety regarding the film's ability to release at the set date." Two points: first, rather two much "...ing" (printing...generating...regarding). Secondly, films are released, they do not release themselves.
 * ✅ Rectified.


 * I have not previously encountered links such as [click here for more] and [see main]. How do these formats reflect MOS guidelines?
 * Well I don't think the MOS has anything against it, or for it. The [see main] tags are added so as to avoid adding references for certain sentences, since it will mean adding 5 to 6 references for one statement and therefore forming a WP:QUOTEFARM.
 * Anyways, in the process of removing these.


 * Release statistics map: You need to clarify within the chart heading that the figures are screenings (if that is indeed the case.


 * Strange colour-coding, with no obvious geographical or cultural links between countries, e.g. yellow = China, Germany, South Korea, UK and USA.

That, I'm afraid, is all I have time for. As I said, not a complete review, but hopefully some helpful comments. Brianboulton (talk) 15:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Nikkimaria
More:
 * "The premiere was the first Indian film to sell tickets for its shows and to have three simultaneous screenings for the event." - source?
 * ✅ Re-worded and moved the necessary source.


 * Like Brian, I'm also not sure about the "click here for more" and "see main" links, particularly for material without a source in this article. I'm also not keen on the referencing style used in the Critical reception-India section. I think those might affect the FAC process, depending on what reviewers you get and what their opinions are.
 * I shall start removing those links and instead adding some references. The Critical Reception section was re-done so as to rectify a WP:QUOTEFARM problem pointed out in the second FAC. I could only come up with this form. If you can suggest any alternative, please do so.
 * I have ✅ the [click here for more]. The [see main]s will also go soon.


 * Alfred Hitchcock caption should end in period
 * I'm sorry? I didn't understand.
 * "Alfred Hitchcock inspired the film's title" is a complete sentence, and so should end in a period
 * ✅ You could have simply said "full stop" :P.


 * File:G.One_Original_Suit.jpg: fair-use rationale could use some expansion
 * ✅ Expanded.


 * First source link for File:India-locator-map-blank.svg (one of the source images for File:Ra_One_film_print_distribution_map.svg) is dead
 * I didn't understand. Are you referring to the sources (s1, s2 etc.) or to the map itself?
 * The sources listed on the image description page


 * File:Premeire_of_'Ra.One'_in_London.jpg: source link appears to be broken
 * I shall remove the image as of now. I am in the process of contacting NDTV for the copyright of certain images of the premiere. Once that is done, I shall replace the image.
 * Actually, no need. I have found the source of the image in Bollywood Hungama, and uploaded the full-size image. Its alright now. ✅ ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 06:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * C4: source includes author, why don't you?


 * C3: archivelink appears to go to wrong place
 * ✅ Replaced.


 * Compare formatting on C5 and C10 and C18
 * Is there a problem in the formatting? I don't see any.
 * Oops, never mind, I see what you're doing now.


 * C11: link provided leads to an article with a different title - which is correct?
 * ✅ Rectified.


 * Use consistent wikilinking - for example, why is Hungama wikilinked in D10 but not D2?
 * ✅ Removed the wikilink.


 * What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This? [www.magnamags.com This]? This? This? This?
 * Magnamags is reliable since its the host for the Stardust magazine. I don't know much about the Mumbai Boss reliability, but the news is sourced from The First Post, so its definitely reliable. The reliability of Pandolin had been discussed in WP:RSN and later on WT:INCINE; it was agreed that the website is reliable for non-BLP articles. Could you point out where Indicine has been used? I'll check up on ReviewGang, though if needed I shall remove it.
 * Could you provide a link to those discussions of Pandolin? Indicine is RI18. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The RSN discussion took place here. The INCINE discussion after the RSN discussion is visible here. The Indicine review has been removed, as has been the ReviewGang part. ✅
 * Okay. Given what's said about Pandolin in that discussion, I would suggest in-line attribution for things that are clearly opinion, like "witnessed an overuse of CGI". Also, looking again at Magnamags, it identifies Stardust as a "gossip magazine", which might be problematic. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Stardust is very similar to Filmfare actually (and I have read both). Gossip is a perennial part of entertainment magazines, so that stuff should be taken with some salt. If you ever see sentences like "All the latest gossip and juicy tidbits about silver screen stars in our magazine" ... well, I hope you get the picture :D. I have added that the overuse bit was according to the film's cinematographer. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 17:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Don't repeat cited sources in external links section
 * ✅ Removed Box Office Mojo, Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic links.


 * T7: link provided doesn't match title given. Check other refs for similar problems
 * T7 seems to be just fine. I'm not sure what the problem is.
 * Hm. Can't find it now myself, so never mind. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Article hatnote needs editing for grammar


 * "Development of Ra.One commenced in 2004 when Sinha was struck with the idea of the film while watching a television commercial, and was followed by the pre-production work which began in 2007" - can this sentence be reworked?
 * ✅ Re-worked.


 * "delays regarding the post-production were encountered" - awkward phrasing
 * ✅ Re-worded.


 * "initially introduced technology" -> "new technology" or similar?
 * The phrase refers to the technology introduced at the beginning of the Plot.
 * Yes, but this phrasing is a bit awkward. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Re-worded.


 * "transports himself back into the game's world" - where was he before? It sounded like they resumed the game
 * ✅ Clarified.


 * Be consistent in whether you're using US or UK spellings - for example, you have both "realise" and "realize"
 * The peer reviewer will give you some of these; I believe there's also a user-run script available. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have run the article through the given script, so I believe that this id ✅.


 * Should disambiguate link to clone


 * Dead links
 * The first dead link has been the source of constant trouble for a couple of months. I had originally used the Week article, but one fine day it disappeared. Since a lot of information hinged on that ref, I went to the Help Desk and requested assistance. An editor found a Google cache of the article and gave it to me, and I used it. The discussion is available in the Help Desk archives, and even in the archive of my talk page. Please advise me as to what to do.
 * Not much else you can do about that, unfortunately. Link to the Google cache if you can; otherwise, per WP:LINKROT. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "kilos" should be spelled out as "kilograms", and conversions to pounds should be provided


 * "causing considerable pain to him" -> "causing him considerable pain". Some general copyediting is needed throughout
 * Specific instance ✅. I shall partner with the Guild of Copyeditors to conduct the full-article copy-edit.


 * About how old is Prateek?
 * Not sure. Is his age necessary?
 * Not exact age, but is he a young child? A teenager? A young adult? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Little less than teenager, but not very young either. I'd say ten to twelve years old. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 15:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Avoid cliches like "roped in"
 * Where exactly does this phrase appear?
 * "a storyboard artist from Hollywood was roped in for the film", in "Development". Nikkimaria (talk) 14:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Changed.


 * What is a "tie-up"?
 * ✅ Changed to "partnered".


 * "they unveiled a 3,600-feet fan mail to collect audience messages" - not sure what this means


 * Spell out "%" in article text


 * Filmistan and Film City are both linked twice in as many paragraphs; sound design and visual effects are linked twice in a single paragraph. Avoid repeated links, particularly close together


 * What is KWD30,000 in US$?
 * . -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 05:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It appears that the critical reception quotes are currently organized in the order they appear on the table - it might be helpful to work on making them flow together more smoothly
 * I'll work on it. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 09:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe I have ✅ this, but I'd like you to review the section once.
 * Better. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Ranges should use endashes. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:00, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * . -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 05:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Hatnote needed?
I'm starting to think that the hatnote isn't really needed. After all, I don't think anyone would type "Ra.One", expecting to land up in "Raavan". Thoughts?  Lynch 7  17:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, there's five references that have red errors on them. Something about inline link.  BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  16:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I noticed that too. I asked another editor, and she didn't know how to rectify it; I'm hoping somebody at the FAC will guide me through it. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 16:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You could just replace the ₹ with Rs. Its only a citation after all. BollyJeff  &#124;  talk  17:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I did think of that, but Rs. is officially discontinued, so i'm hesitating from taking that step. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 17:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments.
I was asked to look at this for the FAC, which I see has been closed - sorry for the delay. Here are a few comments for improvement from my initial look at the article. Hope this help, Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Lead - I would identify Ra.one as the antagonist in the lead
 * This might just be American English vs Indian English, but no "the" is needed in AmEng in ''He began the film's development in 2004; the pre-production started in 2007.
 * Miami is mentioned only once in the article after the lead, does it need to be in the lead? Similarly the Ghanta Award does not have an article on WP, and is mentioned only once in this article - does it need to be in the lead?
 * There is a section on the possible sequel, but nothing on it in the lead (my rule of thumb is to include all headers in the lead in some way)
 * FA criterion 1a, a professional level of ENglish, is the most difficult criterion for most articles to meet at FAC. This is a bit clunky still - look at the number of times the phrase "the film" is used in the lead, and how many sentences start with it.
 * Another example of a problem sentence The film's post-production involved stereoscopic conversion and visual effects, the latter of which was recognised as a technological breakthrough among Indian films. I would make it clearer that conversion is for 3D, and the whole thing could be tightened a lot - perhaops something like ''Post-production included stereoscopic conversion for 3D; Ra.One's visual effects were recognised as a technological breakthrough among Indian films.
 * In American English, a screening refers to one showing of the film, so a film may have 4 or 5 screenings a day in a theater (cinema) showing it. I think what the article really means is screens, i.e. the number of screens on which the movie was shown. So a cinema showing the film on two screens, each 4 times a day, would be two screens, not "8 screenings"

Comments by User:Betty Logan
Try to avoid labels such as antagonist/protagonist as per WP:FILMCAST Try to avoid indexical terminology such as “domestic” and “international as MOS:FILM. This is relative to where the reader is located Try to avoid words such as “notably” and other puffery as per WP:PEACOCK. Very few things are “universal”. Try alternative phrasing such as “widely regarded” or something on those lines
 * Terminology
 * Antagonist/protagonist
 * “Box office website Box Office India deemed Ra.One a domestic "hit" and overseas "super hit".”
 * “The film notably won the National Film Award and the Filmfare Award”
 * The visual effects received near-universal praise, though dissenting opinions stated that they were "all over the place"
 * “It was universally accepted that the film was the most expensive Bollywood film of all time”

Some of the language is stilted or grammatically incorrect. I have listed the worst offenders below, but ideally the article needs a good copy edit. You can file a request at WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests, but make sure you make it clear your intention is to eventually submit it for a FA assessment.
 * Copy-editing


 * “brand tie-ups”
 * “Ra.One was initially scheduled to release on June 3, 2011”
 * “Upon release, critics endorsed mixed opinions of the film”
 * “The major characters of Ra.One were essayed by protagonists Shahrukh Khan and Kareena Kapoor, and primary antagonist Arjun Rampal.”
 * “Additional minor roles were essayed by Dalip Tahil and Satish Shah”
 * “The titular character Ra.One”
 * “I am essaying the role of G.One or better say "Jeevan," a superhero who saves the mankind from Ra.One's torment.”
 * “Sinha was apprehensive of retaining Khan's support”
 * “To prepare the film's premises and characterization, Sinha spent several months viewing video clips, digital art portals and comic books.”
 * “He also called Alfred Hitchcock as his inspiration”
 * “In addition, differences between Khan and Sinha caused tensions on the sets.”
 * “The film's marketing utilized merchandise and games to facilitate the creation of a franchise”
 * “garnering a 28% market sharefor the channel”
 * “Mixed views were opined regarding the plot's gaming concept”
 * “lacking in connect with the audience”
 * “Khan stated that he had "worked very hard" to finance the film without borrowing money,[153] and reportedly hosted a television show just to finance the film.”
 * “though there had been doubt regarding the timely release of the 3D version.”

Not a requirement, but here a couple of non-regular phrases that would be served well by a wikilink:
 * Wikilink
 * cubical transformations
 * non-porous

This is the weakest section for me and could do with a bit of further work. The problem is that it just repeats what critics are saying rather than providing insight into their comments. One example: “The visual effects received near-universal praise, though dissenting opinions stated that they were "all over the place"”. What did they praise about the effects, and why did some think they were “all over place”? This section tells us what critics said, but there is no context for this statement. I get no sense of what was right or wrong with the film here, and I would expect the critical reception to be more comprehensive in a featured article: not more quotes, but more exposition.
 * Reception

A couple of other points: WP:UNDUE; the purpose of the section is to review the film, not review the reviews. You touch on overseas reception, but don't really tell us how the foreign reception differed from the Indian reception, and on the surface it seems to have reviewed much more favorably with foreign critics.
 * “Other aspects of the film received more polarizing opinions, and one very positive review was criticized for "over-rating" the film.”
 * Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic ratings and “generally positive reviews overseas”

The lead should match up to sourced claims in the body of the article, but these details are missing from the box office section.
 * Lead
 * “Commercially, the film became the third highest-grossing Bollywood film of 2011 and broke a number of opening box office records, though it failed to sustain at the box office after its extended opening weekend. Box office website Box Office India deemed Ra.One a domestic "hit" and overseas "super hit".”

Betty Logan (talk) 21:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Language dispute of Ra.One
Good evening this is Jin. Respected sir, i want to make a small change in Ra.One's page. Sir, from past few days i want to make an edit for language. The film's secondary language is English. Because the film is filmed in London and Khan and Tom Wu conversate much in English. And mostly in conversation has English lines. But sir my edits get revert each time. I just want to add the Language out there. Hope you understand. Thanks TekkenJinKazama (talk) 14:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Opposed to this edit. The language parameter in the Infobox film template documentation says it is the "language primary used in the film" and the template doc suggests BBFC as a good source. The listing there says the main language is Hindi. The Bollywood Hungama page also says the language is Hindi. We go with the sources on Wikipedia, not personal views. NOTE - although TekkenJinKazama's comment here says "want to make", they have repeated edit-warred against multiple editors to add English.  They have been blocked once already and could have been blocked today for 4 reverts in 24 hours.  <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 00:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose: I agree with Ravensfire. Having seen RA.One, I can conclude that English is seldom used in the film, that too only in the first half which is set in London. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:10, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * To forestall an arguement I see coming, I would like TekkenJinKazama to note that the Language parameter is not a list of languages to which the film has been translated. <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 15:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * And we're back to TJK making changes that are not supported by the source provided and not discussing them. TJK also mentioned IMDB and there's a few problems with that.  One, IMDB is not considered a WP:RS as it's editable by anyone.  Two, IMDB lists English as the #5 language with the description "a few lines".  TJK is not discussing this here and ignoring the issues raised.  That's not going to cut it and the next revert will end up WP:EWN as an edit-war. <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 20:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Dear Ravensfire and Kailash29792 i do not want to indulge in edit war. Just a little request. Sir its just a request neither in my Wikipedia's history i had didn't this type of Edit War for just a secondary language. And to be very honest i am not misguiding through my edit. I do not understand why my edits are so wrong for you? TekkenJinKazama (talk) 04:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

As per i saw the article, the main issue was the film's language. User:Kailash29792 stated that film has only Hindi language. But finally i examined the history i came to this point that language English be added. To this point, the edit must not be reverted. mall (talk) 12:01, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I've reverted the unilateral declaration of consensus by Malgrrishh. <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 17:49, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

As this seems to be consistently missed, please read how the Infobox film documentation says to use the language parameter. Insert the language primarily used in the film. Databases often give every language spoken within the film, even if they only reflect a few lines in the overall script. The BBFC website is a good resource for the main language used in the film. And since it's been mentioned, here the Ra.One entry on BBFC. I will be adding this as a source for the primary language Hindi only. If you wish to add another language, please make sure the source specifically notes that other language as a PRIMARY language of the film. Anything else is a mis-use of the parameter or a mis-use of the source. <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 17:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)