Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ra.One/archive1


 * 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 not promoted by Ian Rose 00:02, 11 April 2012.

Ra.One

 * Nominator(s): ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 13:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because the film Ra.One is considered important, especially from a technological point of view. Besides, the article is currently a good article, but it has a level of detailing and content that is fit for a featured article status. The article has undergone two quite successful peer reviews as well. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 13:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the article is written very well and satisfies most of the feathered article characteristics. JP MEE NA  (talk) 14:52, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you Jpmeena. However, as per rules, a completely uninvolved editor must review this article for the FAR. You have contributed to this article in a considerable way. Your opinion is appreciated, but please understand that due to your affinity to the article, your opinion may not be taken up as an official support. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 15:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Just for the record, all Done suggestions shall be boldened from henceforth, because we can't use Done templates here. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 14:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC) __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Comments by User:Dwaipayanc


 * Minor nitpicking In the references,  Hindustan Times has HT Media (as publisher) within parenthesis once, but not in other instances. The Hindu has "Chennai, India" as publication location once, but nothing in other instances. The Times of India has Bennett, Coleman & Co. Ltd as publisher only once among its multiple usages. These two sentences seem disjointed,


 * Please chose one style and stick to it. You can chose not to mention publisher and location in any citations, which is ok, but has to be followed for the sake of internal consistency of the article.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I read a few random paragraphs. Following are the observation. Prose is not up to the mark.

'1. and Chinese-American actor Tom Wu '' Why "Chinese-American" needs to be mentioned? Why not just the name? ANy significance of him being Chinese-American?'''
 * I'll remove it.
 * There is no significance of him being Chinese-American. But there is significance in him being a non-Indian in an Indian film with all other major cast being Indian. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 09:05, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Two reviewers differing over a change. Let the confusion begin :P ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 09:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There is certainly a significance of him being Chinese-American. One, as Animesh pointed out, he is a Non-Indian and second, his character in the film is also that of a non-Indian. There's no reason to remove it. Secret of success  10:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * But in the lead? That's too much emphasis on being non-Indian! It can be mentioned in the cast section. Even in cast (or some other section), it would be great to explain the significance of mentioning his nationality (which has been told above by Animesh and SoS). For an international reader, it might be difficult to understand why the nationality is being mentioned all of a sudden.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:05, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess we could accomodate it better in the Cast section.
 * Thats fine. Mentioning somewhere is good. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 13:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * All right, I am perfectly all right from removing it from the lead, and at the same time, retaining it elsewhere. Secret of success  13:50, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

'2. The villain escapes from the game and begins to track down Lucifer (Verma), the only player to have defeated him.'' Somehow does not read lucid. The villain escapes the game -- goes where? Who is this Lucifer suddenly? The name of the Khan's son in the film was Lucifer?'''
 * Lucifer was the gaming ID of SRK's son (i.e. Verma) in the film; the son's name is Prateek. Uh, the villain escapes into the real world. Should I elaborate?

'3. Upon release, the film broke several box-office records'' May merit a citation even if in the lead. I jumped to the box-office section of the article, and there also the sentence is un-cited. I went on reading a few more sentences, and could not figure out what records did the film break exactly. Can you please explain which records were broken?'''
 * Single-day gross, highest three-day weekend records are currently with Ra.One. I believe they are cited in the box office section; please check the table in that section. Records are highlighted in blue, and for each row there is a reference.
 * I believe this is done.

4.  Ra.One was the second highest-grossing Bollywood film worldwide at that time. At which time? During  first phase of release.? What was that period, how many weeks?

5.To make his character more believable, Khan decided that he would perform his own stunts in the film The cited source does not mention this.
 * There is a sentence at the last :- "The film requires the star to perform never-before heart-in-the-mouth stunts, which he's gearing up to do." I guess that means the same thing.
 * What about the "to make his character more believable"? That sounds like OR. Secret of success  10:47, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

'6. Khan faced considerable difficulty while filming. His character required him to apply prosthetic makeup for over eight hours a day, depriving him of food and water'' The cites source says it made it "difficult" for him to eat and drink. Does not say "deprive".'''
 * Alright, that shall be changed to "His character required him to apply prosthetic makeup for over eight hours a day, making consumption of food and water difficult."

7.  On a parallel basis, Shahrukh Khan decided to ... What do you mean by "On a parallel basis?"
 * When Sinha made the script, at the same time, but independently Khan also decided he wanted to make a film heavy on VFX. That's what I meant by "on a parallel basis".

8. After finalizing the story, Sinha approached Khan, who agreed to produce and star in it But within a few lines, Before starting the film, Khan approached several directors to lead the project, including Aditya Chopra and Karan Johar, but they all refused. Sinha was the director, so why was Khan looking for another director?
 * No, Sinha had just written the script. Sinha approached Khan with the script, and the latter agreed to produce and star in the film. Khan didn't say he allowed Sinha to direct (though he did, later, due to the backing out of the other directors).

'9. After finalizing the story, Sinha approached Khan, who agreed to produce and star in it. Red Chillies Entertainment continued working on other projects before finalizing Ra.One. No other films were accepted by the company after My Name Is Khan..'' How is Khan and Red Chillies related? These 3 sentences and the one following these seem very disjointed, lacking flow. Looks like three different sentences picked up from different sources forcefully put together. A reader without any prior knowledge would find id difficult to put together the pieces to make sense.'''
 * Red Chillies Entertainment is Khan's production house, and the producer of Ra.One. Guess I'll elaborate that part.

10. ''Pre-production work began in November 2007 after the release of Khan's Om Shanti Om. '' What do you mean by "Khan's". Was he the director of OSO?
 * He was the star of Om Shant Om. By "Khan's" I was referring to a film in which he had starred in.

11. ...process helped him to create a novel character'. What do you exactly mean by "novel" character? Superhero is nothing novel.
 * It was actually a quote, an interview Sinha gave to a newspaper. There had been a concern that the article had too many quotes, so some of the quotes had to be converted to normal sentences. If you wish, I can add the quote back.

'12. Dmitry Medvedev, the President of Russia, visited Yash Raj Studios in Mumbai to watch Khan at work'' Really? Sounds unreal. The president might have dropped by during his visit of India. But, the president flew from Russia just to watch Khan at work, sounds really exaggerated!!'''
 * No no no! He didn't come to India just to watch Khan work! LOL SRK isn't THAT important :P What is meant is that Medvedev dropped in and watched Khan at work. Does the sentence give that sort of impression? I'll change it.

'13. The schedule included the filming of the cameos of Chopra and Dutt, and was done at Film City'' Which Chopra and Dutt? Reader has forgot about them by this time, as they were mentioned fleetingly in the lead.'''
 * I'll add them.

'14. The indoor portions were filmed on two replicas of a train coach which were built in a record five days, a process Gill initially thought would take three weeks'' Why was this is a"record". Also, a citation would not be bad.'''
 * I'll remove the "record" part. The citation is given at the end of the paragraph. In some places, large blocks of text have been cited by a single source, so I found it best to keep the source at the end of the paragraph.

'15.The trains were electric instead of diesel, forcing an on-the-spot change of the action sequence.'' No context. Difficult to understand. What's the big deal if it was electric instead of diesel?'''
 * I shall elaborate. The train stunt was initially meant to be SRK running over the train; since the train was electric, that idea had to be dropped.

'16.In addition, the train and track length ended up being the same, making any movement impossible''. That's funny. How can track and train length be same? Where can one find such track? IMO, this whole paragraph needs to be re-written.'''
 * It was in a set. Remember that two replica coaches? They had to run on something :P

17. Pecorini reportedly faced considerable difficulty... Who reported?
 * Okay, reportedly shall go.

18. A music video for the song "Raftaarein", choreographed by Feroz Khan, was filmed one week before the release due to an excellent critical response Critical response to what?
 * To the song. Should I add that?

Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * More comments
 * Regarding referencing, you have not consistently used any particular style among either "sentence case" or "title case". Usually sentence case is encouraged.Please see Title_case. So, in stead of "^ "Movie Review: 'Ra.One' is a Complete Entertainer"" in the reference, it has to be "Movie review: 'Ra.One' is a complete entertainer". Please update when the whole reference section is updated and made consistent accordingly. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Multiple inconsistencies in referencing. Some newspaper names are italicized, some are not. SOme random sampling— one citation reads "Mid-Day (January 10, 2011). "Kareena's 3 diets for her look in Ra.One". NDTV". SO far as I know, mid-day is a newspaper itself, how can that be the author?


 * Some citations mentions the news agency in the author parameter, some does not mention the news agency at all. For example, unknown (October 11, 2011). "I approached Karan, Adi for Ra.One: Shah Rukh Khan". NDTV. NDTV Convergence Limited. p.u. Archived from the original on March 8, 2012. Retrieved October 11, 2011. This citation does not mention news agency, even though the information is available. What does p.u. mean in this citation?
 * This citation — Hanks, Douglas (January 2, 2010). "The Bollywood effect in South Florida: Lights, camera, ka-ching!". The Miami Herald (The McClatchy Company). Retrieved September 22, 2010 mentions "The McClatchy Company" as the publisher of Miami Herald. No other newspaper sources mentions publisher (in the ones that I went through).
 * The article seems not ready for FAC yet. Tending to oppose, --Dwaipayan (talk) 18:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The issues highlighted are pretty minor, and can be fixed quickly in a day. Give the article a little time. FAs do take time to get flagged off, I believe. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 05:45, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose and comments from SoS
 * Some of the issues raised in the peer review have not been fixed yet.
 * The film's budget of production has been cherry picked from first-party data.
 * References could be archived wherever possible.


 * The images in the cast section are not needed. A discussion is taking place about this in WT:INCINE. Note that the consensus will apply to all articles within its scope.
 * Poster requires an ALT text, if possible.
 * The images in the filming section, depicting locations are also unnecessary. They do not show the actual filming, or the appearance of the structures in the film (which may not necessarily be the same as they are in real life).
 * The image in the suit section is improperly licensed. And plus, it is supposed to be "costumes", not "suits".
 * There is no mention of Kareena's costume in Chammak Challo, which I believe, was an attraction to the media, in the same section.
 * Questionably reliable sources as of this version : 7, 9, 11, 17, 27, 29, 38, 49, 86, 108, 122, 204, 206

Secret of success 08:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments by User:Animeshkulkarni '''* Opening sentence has too many names. Readers new to Bollywood and unfamiliar with all actors might have to re-read. '''
 * Lead
 * What can be done in this case?
 * Umm... how about moving the supporting and cameo actors after the two lines of the story? That way while reading the two lines of plot you know who Khan, Kapoor, Verma are. Also "villian (Rampal)" should be added. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 09:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Consider it done :)

'* "...begins to track down Lucifer (Verma), the only player to have defeated him. Ra.One'' was co-produced by.... " Thats a sudden jump from plot to producers. Something sounds wrong here. Maybe something like "The fight between the villian and the hero results in the defeat of evil." can be added. The production sentence can join next para.'''
 * I have done a small re-arrangement and I think it looks better now.

'''* What is "viral marketing"? Is that a formal marketing term? Is there a wikilink available for it?'''
 * Yes, its a formal and actually very well-known form of marketing. There is a wikilink, but I though it had been wikilinked. Strange. I'll add it anyways.


 * Plot
 * Why use devnagri script for the dialogue?
 * The dialogue used is a recurrent part of the film. Its actually a very important part of the film, so I believed it was necessary to preserve it. The English translation had been added for non-Hindi users as well.
 * Will let other editors comment. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 09:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

'''* "....and sends the real Sonia in an uncontrollable Mumbai Suburban Railway train." Uncontrollable train means? Had Ra.One failed some breaks or somethng? Or is that just an adjective used in general. Because in real too there are few things one can control in those trains. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 11:45, 7 April 2012 (UTC)'''
 * What you pointed out above is something that is seen in the film very frequently. Its called a "plot hole" :P Do I even need to go into details? The flaws of Ra.One as a piece of story forms a list too big to fit into this page :P Even I wondered how the train was "uncontrollable", seeing as it is that Kareena broke the brakes after SRK came onto the train. Blame the script-writer for such a glaring contradiction :P.


 * Cast
 * Isnt one line about their roles sufficient there. Why do we have to write all their agonies there?
 * Cast section should elaborate on all aspects of the Cast (I think Comprehensiveness is a major part of an FA). So I added preparation bits as well.
 * Will think & let other editors comment till then. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 09:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

* "Khan was the first actor to be approached by Sinha, despite the fact''' that Sinha had never worked with him." Why "despite the fact"? '''
 * Well, Sinha didn't know Khan. Its weird that Sinha approached an actor whom he had never met, and never knew personally. That's why I had added the "despite" term.
 * Okay! But "had never worked with him" gives the impression that he hasnt professionally worked with him. It does not say they had never met. You should then edit that part. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 09:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Will do.


 * "Wu was contracted to the film in July 2010." Are readers supposed to be surprised here? Yes! Why? Because the filming started in March 2009 itself. The surprise isnt surprise here. It just feels like an odd sentence.
 * Even Kareena was contracted in 2010. I don't see what's surprising. Unlike Hollywood, in Bollywood a cast need not be pre-determined and set permanently.
 * Then why is only Wu's signing date mentioned? It feels odd to read that when none of the other actor's dates are mentioned. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 09:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There had been a sentence with a ref talking about Kareena's official signing-on date. Argghhhh! Somebody must have removed it. For Tom Wu, I added the signing-on date because the rest of the point is about Jackie Chan, not about him. Besides, Wu had a important part in the film (even if not very substantial in screen time).

Will reply on other sections soon. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 22:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Please do. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 05:41, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

* In case the year of release of other films is not mentioned in the sentence it should be suffixed in brackets like Main Hoon Na (2004), Toonpur Ka Super Hero (2010).
 * Production
 * Will do.


 * Nicola Pecorini and V. Manikandan should be introduced by saying something about their work, as Andy Gill's experience with Toonpur is mentioned. Similar with Nino Pansini, Terry Bamber, Martin Walsh, Resul Pookutty, Edwark Quirk, Hingorani, Keitan Yadav.
 * I guess that rather than do all that stuff, we can better remove the Toonpur part for Gill :P. I'll see if I can dig up info, but if I can't I think we'll have to get rid of the Toonpur bit.
 * If its not available for all, then dont bother. But dont remove Toonpur. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 13:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

* Techinical terms like VFX, story-boarding, prop masters, call sheets, digital inter-mediation (DI), Maya, Houdini, Macs, Nuke, Shake etc. should have wikilinks if available.
 * Somebody had commented that wikilinks inside quotes are not allowed. The wikilinks had been present initially but were later removed. I would like a bit more consensus on this bit.
 * I guess that by WP:JARGON it would be in the best interests to add the wikilinks.

'''* "Filming for Ra.One was due to begin in Miami but this was scrapped because of budget concerns." What was scrapped? The beginning of filming at Miami or the filming at Miami itself? '''
 * Clarified.


 * "Rajnikanth, accompanied by daughter Soundarya..." But she is not seen on-screen, right? Was she there because his health problems?
 * Yes, Rajnikant was ill and so Soundarya accompanied him. Should I write that again? Because its given at the end of the sentence - "Rajnikanth, accompanied by daughter Soundarya, filmed his scene with Khan and Kapoor on October 2, 2011 at Subhash Ghai's Whistling Woods Studios in Mumbai despite health problems."

'''* "A music video for the song "Raftaarein", choreographed by Feroz Khan,...." This Feroz Khan died in April 2009!'''
 * Uh oh! Guess the wikilink must be removed :P.

'''* "The addition of sound effects was done in Los Angeles." Where in LA? Do we have the name of the studio? Also for other Indian studio's mentioned i am assuming names are not known.'''
 * The studios are, unfortunately, unknown. Which Indian studios are you referring to?
 * Thats fine. I was refering to all the studios where sound mixing and other such work happened. But i can imagine that this info would not be available. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 13:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

'''* "The film was monitored in Croma by the team during that period." Monitored in this computer language? Or monitored by? And how does one monitor using a computer language? Is this wrong wikilink?'''


 * Oops, wrong wikilink.


 * Post-production section says "The film was pieced together by more than 1,000 people, working in shifts, in around 15 studios across the world." And Visual Effects section says "1,200 artists from 16 studios, working in three shifts, incorporated the film's visual effects." Are they all different or is something wrong?
 * The film was pieced together by 1,000 artists. But the visual effects were done by 1,200 artists. So yes, they are different.

'''* Again "A team of 750 technicians working at ten facilities around the world carried out the addition of special effects into the film." Are they part of those 1200?'''
 * I should mention that those technicians were solely of Kleiser.


 * If Chammak Challo's file is being added here, something more of the song should be written here also. Atleast the singer.
 * As per previous discussions, it was decided to keep the Soundtrack section brief. Adding information about any one particular song, no matter how famous, makes the section imbalanced IMO. The ogg file is given only as a sample.
 * Yeah! I get that when a separate article is dedicated for it, there is no need to repeat stuff. But with sample audio file just next to it its better to mention that Akon sung this. We are anyways mentioning he sang something. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 13:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Fine, I'll add it.


 * Not applicable for just this film. But i have noticed this at many places. "The post-production of Ra.One involved over 5,000 personnel from India, Italy, UK and the US." Why the US? Is it because its some group of states? Then why not "the UK"? Note: This point should not stop FA.
 * Its actually "The United States of America". Technically yes it should be "the United Kingdom". IMO, i prefer adding "the". I'll wait for more consensus on this.


 * In my opinion nationality of all these non-Indian people involved should be mentioned. Probably User:Dwaipayanc has to say something here.
 * Nationality for all the people may be a little hard to find. I'll try, and yes, i shall wait for more consensus.
 * Not necessarily of all. But try to get as many as possible. We also dont want their official nationality as such. But something more about the person who is doing cinematography is good to read. Not much. Single sentence. Like "Italian designer XYZ who is known for designing sets of Blah Blah....". §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 13:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Will do my best.


 * Images: The conclusion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force will be applicable for this article also. But talking specifically about this article, why is Battersea Power Station's image required when it can be seen in background in the images used in Visual effects section?
 * I can change it. I think the bridge of the car chase scene will do just fine.
 * Umm... No! Same reasons that we are discussing at WT:INCINE goes for this bridge image too. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 13:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we'll have to wait for the consensus to finish then.

'''* "The television broadcasting rights for Ra.One were bought..." By whom?'''
 * Marketing
 * STAR (India).

'''* "The distribution rights for the Tamil Nadu and Kerala versions..." What is that? Does it mean Tamil and Malayalam version?'''
 * Weird, I don't know who wrote "version" there. I'll change it.

'''* "...on a tour of five cities, which included Delhi, Chandigarh, Indore and Ahmedabad." Which was 5th? Mumbai?'''
 * No idea. Frankly, the entire marketing section was handled by other editors (I added some statistics only later). Logically yes, it should be Mumbai. Besides, I just said "including" so we needn't actually write all five :P.

'''* "During this event, a 3600 ft long fan mail collecting audience wishes and messages for the film was also launched." WHAT? Which event? Touring in 5 cities? Launched in all 5 cities? Launch will happen only once, right? How is fan mail's length measured? Like spread on ground and then measure it? Fan-mail is letters written by fan, right? Why was fan mail launched? '''
 * A fan mail, in this case, is a single piece of paper/cloth or whatever which is used as a place where fans write their wishes and love for a star/film. Meaning that as the promotions went along in different cities, SRK would give the paper to the fans and they would add stuff to it. That paper was 3,600 feet long. Yes, the fan mail was launched only once (launched in the sense started). That same paper was used in all other cities as well. Fan mail was launched for promotions, duh! Such a long fan mail means some new record, meaning lots of headlines and lots of publicity :P
 * Okay! Got it! §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 13:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

'''* "The comics were written by Khan and featured weekly episodes.... " Featured where? Some website? Print? '''
 * Huh? Of course in the comics. The comics featured weekly episodes; the Khan part is added in-between.
 * No! My question is whether this comic was printed and published weekly like some Chacha Chowdhary comics or in some newspaper or magazine or just online on some website. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 13:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * They were published separately as books. Like Tinkle. I'll add that.

More to come.... §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 11:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Release


 * "A reported partnership deal is being finalised by the distributors, which will allow the film to be released in China with 1,000 prints." Odd to read a future tense sentence after so many days of release.
 * China comes under the second phase of release, and as of now the second phase is a future tense. There won't be much money coming from it, so only minimal updates will be required.

* "REVEALED: THE MAKING OF RA.ONE" Is this required in capitals?
 * De-capitalized.

'''* "Days before its release, scriptwriter Yash Patnaik claimed that...." should be replaced with "Days before its release, a scriptwriter, Yash Patnaik claimed that...." Current gives impression he is scriptwriter for Ra.One itself. Doesnt it?'''
 * Done.

'''* "Sinha claimed that he had developed the film's story." He means Sinha, right?'''
 * Added the word "himself".


 * Critical reception
 * None


 * Box office
 * None


 * Commercial analysis
 * "Image guru Dilip Cherian said..." Whats image guru? Photographer?
 * "Image" here refers to the image of a person, i.e. his reputation among people.


 * Accolades
 * None


 * Sequel
 * None


 * See Also
 * Manual_of_Style/Layout. This section is not required.

I guess i am done. But might return with something more. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 20:56, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Comments:

I was invited here. I don't want to Support/Oppose, but few observations


 * Consistency: Why is note1 necessary? US$ is used in most of the article.

'''* "Tom Wu as Akashi and Ra.One" then why not "Kareena Kapoor as Sonia Subramaniam and Ra.One"? Ra.One assumes the forms of both?'''
 * Added, and re-arranged slightly.


 * Most entries in "Cast" talk about casting/the actor, not the character and then Shahana Goswami, where actor as well as character is discussed.
 * I have started talking a bit about the characters for the Cast. Just one line. I'll bolden when I'm done.

-- Redtigerxyz Talk 14:10, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

There are multiple issues with citations. From the perspective of reference style, this article does not live up to FA standard. Major and tedious work is needed to bring consistency in the citations.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Some citations use the news agency (such as Indo-Asian News Service) as the author. Although I am not totally sure, this seems wrong. There is a separate |agency parameter in cite news template.
 * 2) Incosistencies are there. Both Box office India and BoxOfficeIndia.com have been used as publisher.
 * 3) News paper names (Mid-Day, Economic Times) have not been italicised.
 * 4) The titles (of references) inconsistently use case. Preferably sentence case should be used consistently.
 * 5) TV channel (NDTV) has been italicised. This should not be, as far as I know. Can check with WP:MoS to be sure.
 * 6) Some dates have been italicised!! ( "Bollywood star Shah Rukh Khan brings 'Ra.One' to Toronto". October 27, 2011. Yahoo!. Retrieved October 27, 2011.)

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I have no problem even if Ra.One fails a first FAC. The problem, as far as I can see, is that many problems in the article were not properly taken up in the prior peer reviews. This FAC has, as a result, turned into a very extensive peer review. Only now do I realize that there are still many problems with the article, so I would like to thank the reviewers who have pointed out flaws. I would like for the reviewers to continue pointing out any, I repeat any more flaws they find in the article, and place them here. In case I can't get the article to FA by the first FAC, I shall subsequently place the entire FAC discussion into the article's talk page and continue working from there.

A small query: Nearly-Headless Nick (not the ghost, the editor :P) gave a really useful way of reference archiving. I would like to know whether I should archive all references. if not, can someone enlighten me as to which ones require archiving? I do know that certain sources, such as Box Office India, require archiving as their web pages ten to disappear after a while.

Any further inputs for the article are most welcome in my/the article's talk page. Wish me luck :) ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 14:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Delegate notes -- Hi Ankitbhatt, while I haven't seen an explicit request by a reviewer to withdraw this nom, the number of opposes and lack of supports after just a week indicate reasonable consensus that the article needs further work for FAC; you've identified for yourself that it's looking like a Peer Review, which FAC is not designed to be. I think the best thing therefore is to archive the nom and let you deal with the issues identified, then renominate after a minimum of two weeks per the FAC guidelines. To address your three points immediately above:
 * When a FAC is archived, a link to the review is automatically included by a bot (which can take a day or two to run) under Article History in the talk page, so you'll always have access to this info there.
 * The citation guidelines don't suggest all online links need pre-emptive archiving, but volatile ones like news reports and (as you've noted) box office info are good candidates.
 * It looks like you need no encouragement to have another go at FAC once you've addressed the above issues, so good luck! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much :) ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 05:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.