Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ra.One/archive3


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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 18:45, 14 July 2012.

Ra.One

 * Nominator(s): ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 12:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

This article has undergone two (very) unsuccessful featured article candidate reviews before, with a number of issues regarding length, prose, detailing and layout being pointed out which continuously forced the promotions to a halt. In lieu of this, I opened up another peer review but it got closed with little difference. I then took the step of personally contacting two regular featured article reviewers to give their own informal reviews of the article. As per these, a number of other issues have been rectified. With this, I hope that the third FAC goes well.

I am open to all suggestions and questions, but please be specific. If you find a problem, please list it out (maybe in a collapsible format) so that I can go directly to the problem and fix it. Comments such as "This article needs a copy-edit" are unhelpful since I don't know where the copy-editing is needed exactly. I hope you understand, since prior reviews have had this problem and slowed down the improvement process. Thank you. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 12:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comments: The article seems to have improved since I last looked at it, I can tell you've put a lot of work into this. A couple suggestions after a quick look:
 * I think you want to have a comma after the year when writing "January 1, 2011, ..."
 * Umm, are you giving January 1, 2011 as an example? because I searched the article (using Ctrl+F) and found no instance where January 1, 2011 appears in the article. Thanks for your comments, and looking forward to a more detailed review :). ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 06:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * lol, yes, that was just a random example :) Mark Arsten (talk) 16:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, you might want to rephrase some of the WP:PLUSING constructions. They're not a big deal, but you don't want to go overboard on them. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've done some re-phrasing. Could you check them and give your thoughts? Thanks. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 08:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Images were checked pre-FAC and are mostly fine - only remaining issue is that the first source link on File:India-locator-map-blank.svg still returns a 404 error. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

 Oppose Comments Version. This is NOT a comprehensive list. Only some violations of policies. Ankit, please go through the whole article again, instead of just fixing the instances listed here. Issues pending from last FAC:
 * WP:QUOTEFARM
 * Critical reception
 * Production: Development/Title
 * Possible sequel
 * WP:UNDUE
 * is gossip needed?
 * Possible sequel: no concrete evidence that there will be a sequel
 * Chopra had been rumoured to play the role of a transvestite; however, the producers refuted the rumours.
 * Removed
 * Initial speculation of Hans Zimmer composing the film's score
 * Removed
 * Lady Gaga had been rumoured to attend the film's London premiere, but the idea failed to materialise due to a lack of time.
 * This was more than just gossip; she had been contacted for the premiere, but couldn't come due to insufficient time. I've re-phrased the bit. Its much the same as Jackie Chan having been sent the script, and later declining. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 16:22, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Is the title section needed to be so long?
 * Shortened into one paragraph and merged with Development. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 07:15, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:NPOV/WP:PEACOCK "promotional in nature"
 * On October 14, 2011, a gaming tournament featuring high-profile games like Call of Duty
 * "Upon release, the soundtrack met with an overwhelmingly positive critical reception and subsequently gained widespread international popularity" The ref does not anything "critical reception". The ref talks only about 1 country Germany, not "widespread international popularity"
 * Done both. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 12:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Others:

I am busy in real life. It will take me to time to respond here. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 09:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Spot checks of references failed
 * "The look of the film's titular antagonist, which had been kept under strict secrecy, was revealed in the final theatrical trailer" supports no part of this sentence. The look of Rampal as Ra.One is discussed, NOT of "the film's titular antagonist"  Ra.One, which are many looks.
 * Done adding references and slight re-wording. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 07:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * does not support "Prominent multiplexes in Mumbai reported organised attempts at spreading negative publicity and causing dissent among movie-goers"
 * Whoops, it was the next reference. Removed that erroneous bit. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 16:22, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "Children unanimously accepted the film, but adults severely criticised it, feeling that the film was an "amalgamation of several foreign films." " does not talk about children. "the traditional movie goers have felt the need of an original script which appears to be the amalgamation of several foreign films." the traditional movie goers need not be interpreted as all adults.
 * Re-worded.
 * Organization: why is sub-section "Post-release" in "Economics"?
 * Made it separate. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 12:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Comments. Having a look at this now. GRAPPLE   X  19:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Initially I'm a bit put off by the referencing style but I'll admit this is mostly unfamiliarity. How common is this formatting in other articles?
 * To be frank, I have never seen this formatting style before. I used it only so as to make the process of checking for repeated references easier, and to also make the readability of the references section better. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 09:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think we need US$ to link to United States dollar on every instance, just the first; I'd also consider adding a link to Indian rupee if possible on the first instance of the currency symbol.
 * In Indian cinema articles, we use the INRConvert template, which has the wikilink embedded in it. Hence, at every time it is used, the link appears. I don't know if I can do anything about this, so I hope you can help me out here. The same applies for the Indian rupee linking. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 09:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * "Critical reactions to the film were lukewarm in India, with unanimous acclaim for technical aspects but criticism against the script and direction". -> I'd condense "technical aspects" down to "production" or possibly "production values"; also I believe criticism is directed towards rather than against.
 * Done


 * "The release in China is unconfirmed as of 2011" -> Is it still unconfirmed? Needs updating, even just to state that it's still unknown now rather than as of last year.
 * Done ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 11:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * "Khan, Kapoor and Rampal (l-r) at Ra.One's premiere in London" -> the "(l-r)" note should use an en-dash (–) as it's a range, and should be italicised.
 * Done


 * "Kapoor could not attend the film's Toronto premiere due to a conflict with her scheduled appearance at Madame Tussauds" -> Which one? There's a fair few Madame Tussauds locations; the assumption is that London is the one meant but since you're talking about Canada here it would be better to specify.
 * Done


 * "Censor ratings" -> Probably better to just title this "Classification" or "Classifications"
 * Done


 * "The computers which did have the facility were closely monitored for the content that passed through them, with a separate log being maintained." -> separate from what? One log for each internet-enabled computer, or a log of all actions on the internet computers and another for the non-internet ones?
 * Removed "separate", since the source doesn't really elaborate. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 09:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * "A few days before release, a scriptwriter Yash Patnaik" -> drop the "a" here. Also I believe screenwriter would be the better term to use.
 * Done


 * I'm seeing quite a few actionable concerns here. I'll give this another look through if these are addressed, as the scope and depth here are impressive and it's really just the fiddly things that seem to be weighing it down. GRAPPLE   X  19:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Leaning oppose A lot of work has clearly gone into this article, and it's in good shape. However, I think that it may be too exhaustive and the prose needs a bit more polishing. My comments are:
 * Given that this was such an expensive film, did the producers of the film have any trouble getting the money together to make it?
 * Added to pre-release section. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 10:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * "Sinha was struck with the idea of the film when he saw a television commercial. " - a little bit more information is needed
 * Added ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 11:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * "He began the film's development in 2004; the pre-production began in 2007." - 'began' twice in one sentence is excessive and can easily be avoided
 * Re-worded. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 10:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Was there really "universal optimism regarding its commercial success"? (which implies that no-one at all in the world expected that the film wouldn't perform well)
 * Re-worded to "significant". ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 10:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * "criticism against the script and direction" - 'criticism against' is awkward; try 'criticism of' or equivalent
 * Changed to "towards" as per Grapple X. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 10:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * "When the game is finally launched, it receives a standing ovation " - this is unclear
 * I've done something, but you should check it out. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 11:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The plot section provides few details on where the film is set
 * I didn't understand. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 11:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You've addressed this. Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * "Kapoor being chosen due to her insistence for the part" - this wording is a bit awkward and unclear
 * Re-worded ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 11:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * "Rampal accepted the primary negative role" - why not just "Rampal accepted the role of Ra.One"?
 * The character of Ra.One was portrayed by three actors (as stated in the Cast section) so saying that he alone played Ra.One would be incorrect. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 10:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * My concern is the confusing 'the primary negative role' construction. Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * "Bachchan agreed to be a part of the film after being requested by a reportedly keen Khan and Sinha" - this is unclear - did he agree to the role on Khan and Sinha's request, or did he do so after hearing a "report" of this?
 * Removed "a reportedly keen".


 * "However, the cast and casting process did face difficulties during production. Khan faced difficulties" - no need to repeated 'faced difficulties' like this
 * Re-worded


 * "Rampal's casting choice was met with skepticism due to reportedly "questionable acting abilities," a statement Sinha refuted" - who made the statement?
 * In the source interview, the question was simply "The abilities have been questioned". ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 10:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * So, it's not a quote then? Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * "and Goswami faced difficulty with her dress for a song sequence" - is this significant enough to mention? I presume that fixing the dress was a trivial task
 * Added bit about difficulty with the dance as well. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 10:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The source (an interview with the actress) says that she learned the dance in 15 minutes and the repairs to her dress were minor. Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * "He was attracted to the concept and immediately wrote a script based on it." - this suggests that he dropped everything and devoted all his time to writing the script, which seems unlikely given the amount of work involved
 * Re-worded. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 10:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * "make a film that gives me the right to deserve the iconic status that I’ve got for 20 years." - is this his actual quote? It doesn't read well.
 * Yes, its the actual quote. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 10:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * "Khan revealed" - the use of 'revealed' makes it sound like he was hiding this.
 * Re-worded ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 11:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * "The title of the film was debated upon" - 'debated upon' is awkward, and the material which follows doesn't indicate that there was any 'debate'
 * Re-worded.


 * "post-production faced significant delays owing to the digital inter-mediation" - needs to be translated out of film-speak!
 * In a technical section like post-production, making stuff plain is rather difficult. Hence I added the wikilink for readers to check up on. Should I do something more? ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 10:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes please; translate it into something people can understand. Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * "The composers complied with international copyright laws" - is this really worth noting?
 * Removed ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 10:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * "The music of the film was dedicated to Yash Johar and Bobby Chawla" - what's the relevance of this?
 * Moved to daughter article. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 10:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why different countries have been colour-coded in different colours; this seems unnecessary given that the numbers of screenings are also prominently displayed
 * Its just to make the map appealing in its look. A reader will be much more interested in a colorful map than in a bland grey map. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 10:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's confusing and unnecessary, especially as it then requires a bulky table below the map. Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I would also prefer if the map used increasing gradations of only one colour. That way you know which is greater. Here we have to read index to know yellow is greater than green. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 12:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * "Ra.One surpassed several records among Indian films for the volume of theatrical release." - this is a bit awkward
 * Re-worded ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 11:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * "was released in 550 selected screens" - why 'selected'? This seems a pretty big number
 * "Selected" is in reference to the total number of prints (which was 5,000). ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 10:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 'Selected' implies that this was some kind of hand-picked arrangement, which doesn't appear to have been the case. Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * "Kapoor could not attend the film's Toronto premiere due to a conflict with her scheduled appearance at Madame Tussauds London" - relevance?
 * It received a lot of attention because a prominent cast member was not attending an important premiere. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 10:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The reference, which is a very lightweight gossip article, devotes little more than a paragraph to this. I doubt many of the article's readers will be at all interested. Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * "In March 2012, Ra.One faced allegations of receiving a favoured censor rating from the Board" - did anything come of these allegations?
 * Nothing has been reported as of now. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 10:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * "the producers were also charged with violating the rule of producers not meeting the Board officials during the censor screening" - this wording is awkward, and was this 'charge' a criminal proceeding?
 * Re-worded to "accused of". Its not a criminal proceeding as far as I know, but its a Board rule. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 10:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * What was the end result of the proceedings launched by Yash Patnaik?
 * The entire matter seems to have gone off in hibernation. I believe that the deposit in the court was the final bit. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 10:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Most of the material in the 'India' sub-section of the 'Critical reception' section lacks specific citations. This sub-section is much too long, and could be reduced by at least a paragraph.
 * The citations had been moved to the table to get rid of a QUOTEFARM problem that repeatedly gets pointed out. I'll see if I can shorten further, though I had shortened this by one paragraph earlier as well. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 10:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * "the film began to show a lack of sustenance" - this is a bit awkward
 * Re-worded ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 11:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * "In overseas markets, the film debuted to the highest three-day and five-day opening weekends of 2011" - this seems an overstatement
 * Overstatement? Its cited. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 10:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No it isn't; that reference clearly refers to the overseas openings of Hindi films. Those figures are a tiny fraction of the actual highest figures (our List of highest-grossing openings for films article says that Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2 was the highest-grossing opening for the year, and earned $483 million; this film made about $6 million) Nick-D (talk) 11:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Re-worded. Btw, its around $26 million worldwide, not &6 million ;) ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 05:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * "Despite a universally mixed reception" - things can't be 'universally mixed'
 * Re-worded. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 10:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The article is LONG. I'm not sure what the norms are for FAs on films, but I found this to be heavy going. For instance, the number of people and companies who were involved in the production of this film who are name-checked feels excessive, and nothing about its production seems to have been left out.
 * You should have seen the version put up in the second FAC if you find this one long. I've done my best to summarize the article without losing comprehensiveness; its now at a balance where a deletion may result in loss of comprehensiveness. Is the length still so problematic? ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 10:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes; the article is still very 'flabby' and could be stripped back quite considerably. Many of the quotes could be removed, for instance, as they typically add little of value - many are obviously taken from interviews where the people involved in producing the film were promoting it (for instance, "With each scene, we were discovering the beauty and horror of the superpowers they [G.One and Ra.One] were equipped with. In a way, the script defined the characters and the extent of their larger-than-life appeal." is basically meaningless public relations speak). The names of the various individuals and firms involved in obscure tasks related to the film could also be stripped out; if people want to know who did this kind of thing they'll consult IMDB. Various bits of trivia could also be removed (Lady Gaga not attending the premiere as an obvious example). Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Doing this now ... ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 09:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * A lot of the article's prose is written as if this was a news story or magazine article - for instance, there's lots of material on people 'announcing' aspects of the film; you can just say that this is what occurred. Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll see through it once. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 10:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * As a further question, have the sources for this article been spot-checked as part of the reviews? Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Drive by comment Ref 34 is a deadlink. Lemonade51 (talk) 13:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments
 * Don't bracket ellipses unless there is an ellipsis in the source
 * "The major characters of Ra.One were essayed by" - clearer phrasing?
 * WP:LQ - check punctuation of quotations
 * Per WP:ACCESSIBILITY, colour shouldn't be the only means of conveying info - any way to address this on your map?
 * Don't need to link common terms like average. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


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