Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ra.One/archive4


 * 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 10:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC).

Ra.One

 * Nominator(s): ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 16:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

This is the article's fourth Featured Article nomination. I've done my very best to trim this article down, improve its prose and rectify the previously mentioned problems. The word count is around 5,800, which is roughly half to one-third of what it was in prior nominations; I believe that this size is acceptable (I do realize that 10,000+ words were excessive, and I've accordingly made cuts). I hope that the article now meets the criteria, since its tiring to repeatedly get rejected. In case work is left, please do not hesitate to point out the problems to me. Hope you enjoy! ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 16:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment
 * It can be shortened further. For example, the whole possible sequel section can be summarized into two or three sentences and added at the end of reception.
 * The reference 6 of costumes, soundtrack, 7 of statistics, screening, 7 and 9 of controversies, televion and home media, 5 of box office: all have technical errors in the title of reference; they have woe wikilinks embedded within title which are appearing weird.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * One thing for sure, the article does not look intimidating anymore!--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:58, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * As a note, each instance of linking in a reference is to include the symbol for the Indian rupee, which only recently became a unicode character and so an image was provided in the mean time. I'm guessing that the change to Lua from the previous templating system for the refs do not take well to including an image. Chris857 (talk) 02:22, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm working on the Sequel section; I've moved it out of the main article, and will summarize it soon.
 * I was hoping that somebody could help me with the ₹ problem. I don't want to revert back to the old Rs. format since its officially discontinued, and the symbol is used throughout the article. If anybody can tell me what to do, I'd be much obliged. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 06:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I hope that's a good thing :). ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 08:12, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comments from Dwaipayan
 * Starting with Production: "Sinha was apprehensive of retaining Khan's support after his previous film Cash (2007) became a commercial failure..." Whose previous film? Sinha or Khan?
 * Clarified.


 * "Sinha subsequently declared that he would not have approached anybody other than Khan with the film's script" Why do we need this information? This sounds unnecessary to me, unless any more significance is added.
 * Removed.


 * "Sinha described Ra.One as less of a film and more of an "audacious dream."". again, it can be removed. Or else, explain why was it audacious?
 * Removed, though I guess it was audacious due to the scale of the film.


 * "He stated that he wanted to "make a film that gives me the right to deserve the iconic status that I’ve got for 20 years" Somewhat promotional! Can be considered to be paraphrased or removed; but can be kept also for now.
 * Can you suggest a suitable alternative?


 * "He declined to make the film in English, feeling that "cracking Hollywood on their terms" was unnecessary" This seems somewhat enforced. Why would they even think of making a commercial Bollywood movie in English? Context missing.
 * Added some context, but you should check this. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 06:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "After the release of My Name Is Khan (2010), the studio focused..." What is the relationship between the studio and My Name Is Khan?
 * Added. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 06:42, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "... who was contracted after he met Khan at Yash Raj Studios. While the latter began work on the storyboards..." Here, the latter becomes Khan, instead of Chouthmal.--Dwaipayan (talk) 08:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Rectified.


 * Ok, this is probably a personal preference issue. This whole detail about exact dates in the second paragraph of Principal photography in this version is not only boring, but confusing. Do we really need such amount of details for photography dates?--Dwaipayan (talk) 08:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe its necessary. However, if you feel, I can remove it or wait for another opinion. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 16:18, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * We can wait for now.


 * "the Kareena wala red": this needs an English meaning, non-Hindi reader won't understand wala.
 * Removed since its difficult to literally translate a colloquial word like wala.


 * "In early October 2011, a partnership deal was being finalized by the distributors to allow the film to be released in China across 1,000 prints.": any update on this? Was the deal done?
 * There has been no update on this so far.


 * "UFO digital theaters": what are UFO digital theaters? any wikilink or explanation?
 * I have added a web link to the website; is that alright? There is no Wikipedia article on this, but it is notable since articles frequently mention these theaters for big releases.


 * "The film was screened for test audiences to study and gauge the film's appeal across different age groups". You mean the the screening for the cast of Alwaya Kabhi Kabhi? Or, were there other test screenings as well?--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:05, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Clarified. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 09:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Referencing looks a little strange and I spot a lot of broken references. I'd rather see all of the references under one section without the broken links. See Mother India. Please don't sub head references, I think it would look a lot better if you used Col 2 rather than 3 and list all references in one section. Production, Development - the first box actually sticks out of the left side of my screen into the margin, why is this? ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  10:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * By broken references, do you mean dead links or references where the CS1 errors are present? The total number of references numbers over 200, so I categorized them for convenience; however, I could revert it to an ordinary format (but it can take time). Are you sure I should go ahead with that? As for the boxes, I don't know; there seems to be no problem with my computer, and no other editor has mentioned this. Perhaps there's a screen ratio problem in your browser? Thanks. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 10:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Certain you should overhaul the references, yes. But ask Dwai or others see what they think and agree. Check refs Costumes :6 Statistics :7 Controversies :7 and 9, Economics:5 ♦  Dr. ☠ Blofeld  11:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I think he means the ones where the formatting is broken and are marked "Wikilink embedded in URL title" (e.g. Costumes ref 6); there are several of them throughout the reference section. Also, the official site external link isn't working for me. I also suggest setting column widths for the reference section i.e.  rather than , and then that will let the reader's browser set the number of columns dependent on the size of their viewing screen. Betty Logan (talk) 11:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes I do mean that. I must say that there is something rather unsettling reading this and seeing how many sub articles you've broadened out into during the cutting process. For me this is a little overwhelming and I kinda feel like I've eaten a horse after viewing the staggering amount of bulk you've put into this one film.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  14:17, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have overhauled the references, so that its now back in the traditional format. I've also replaced the problematic errors with Rs. for the time being, even though I still want a solution regarding the symbol. If anybody can help me in this regard, then please do so. Dr. Blofeld, are you referring to the main article alone or to the entire Ra.One topic (which is admittedly very large and in-depth)? Betty, since I can't find any properly working website regarding the specific digital theater chain, I've simply wikilinked it to digital cinema for now; is that alright? ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 17:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The link I was referring to was this one (the first one in the external links section). It doesn't work for me. It may be a regional thing, but it needs to be checked. Betty Logan (talk) 06:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It isn't working for me either, so I've removed it. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 06:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I get the impression looking at the article that you might have rushed the cutting a little and get a strong feeling of bloat, yes, but so many sub headers I think in part might create the illusion of this. You can tell it was a gigantic article and was quickly split off to cut it down quickly which I think has affected it a bit. The article is already looking better with the reference sorting. I'll give this a thorough read later on in the week, my initial thoughts might be too harsh.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  17:58, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I may have rushed it under pressure the last time, but I can assure you that post the third FAC, I've ensured that there are proper summaries for each sub-article which are placed in the main article. Please take your time; your input is always appreciated. Cheers, ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 06:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I was asked to look in on this article on my talk. The major problems I see are prose-related (oh, there are other issues, such as overlinking, most notably of crore: I think it's a judgment call whether crore should be linked once, or once per section, but it doesn't need to be linked every time.  That's a minor issue though).  I will note that in dealing with other articles, I have had to read books from India, and the written form of English, even in scholarly books, can seem slightly informal to an American or Briton.  That's not quite what I'm talking about here.  Some of it is phrasings (at least from my point of view, and I like to consider myself well-read), which often make the article seem vague. I think a lot of it is what in the film world is called continuity.

The article is quite good. But all these glitches detract from a fine effort. My suggestion is that you find someone who is not familiar with the movie and a good writer to ask all these inconvenient and niggling questions which you will see below (and these are examples, I did not try to find them all) to alert you to these things and help you correct them. Let me give some examples:
 * " Khan faced difficulties with his superhero suit and prosthetic makeup,[14][15] and injured his left knee." (it's unclear if the two are related, though we are told, in another section, that the suits were extremely hot to wear. We are told that he postponed knee surgery to complete the film.  With all that, and I'm mindful of the fact that you're trying to save space, it probably should be stated how he hurt his knee.
 * We are not told until the "Reception" section that the film is marketed for children. That surely explains the final sentence of the article, but it's the sort of thing that should probably be in the lede.
 * "essayed", used twice in rapid succession and then never again, is an unusual term. To give the first use in full-sentence form, "The major characters of Ra.One were essayed by protagonists Shahrukh Khan and Kareena Kapoor, and primary antagonist Arjun Rampal."  The actors are not protagonists or antagonists, their characters are.
 * The phrase "faced … " (most often difficulties or a variant, but also a number of other issues) is used no fewer than 11 times in this article. That's way too many.
 * "Three actors had initially been considered for the lead female role; Kapoor was ultimately chosen because she insisted on playing the part." That seems an odd qualification (the other two were not insistent?)
 * "and Verma learnt capoeira." The relevance of this is unexplained.
 * "He also said that he wanted to make a film dedicated to father-son relationships" At least judging by the plot description, the only father I'm aware of is killed off quite early. I'm guessing that G.One becomes a father-like figure, based on his appearance and close association with Prateek and Sonia, but if so, you might want to include some hints to that effect in the plot description.  Speaking of which ...

The plot description left me scratching my head a bit, but not having seen the film, I must rely on what's given:
 * You say that Ra.One is upset because Prateek (as Lucifer) has reached the second level. Given that it is impossible for either character to die until the third level, this seems odd. Wouldn't the game player have reached at least the second level during testing?
 * "In order to impress his skeptical son Prateek (Verma), and upon the request of his wife Sonia (Kapoor), Shekhar uses his son's idea that the antagonist should be more powerful than the protagonist." Isn't his overarching motivation to save his job?
 * "He uses a wireless technology (which Jenny had introduced in a conference)" "in a conference" means what?
 * How is it that Shekhar's lie that he is Lucifer exposed by scanning his identity card?
 * "He convinces Jenny of the same when they see the destroyed game laboratory," Presumably this is what was meant by the mainframe malfunctioning! The two do not follow. I made mainframes malfunction many times in my student days, not one destroyed the laboratory (of course, technology was primitive then).
 * " the latter creates ten copies of himself. ... The pair realize that only one of the ten Ra.Ones has a shadow" I count eleven, given the inclusion of the original Ra.One.
 * You get the idea. Phrasings, plot points which you know perfectly well, but because you do know it so well, you don't quite see how it comes at someone who is reading the article cold.  As someone might do, who is planning to see the film or has heard something about it.  Find someone who can point out all these things to you and help you correct them.  That's my advice.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I've read this gradually over last night and today and I agree with Wehwalt. It is a comprehensive decent article and a commendable effort, but it really does lack the polish needed for FA. The prose in parts is a little clumsy and has some poorly constructed phrases which are not even close to FA quality prose. It doesn't, in my opinion, display the highest level of quality of prose I'd expect for an FA and the article really feels heavy and convoluted at certain parts which is off-putting. I get the impression you've rushed the cutting of this to try to get it to an acceptable length which has affected the quality. For instance in the lead "The script, written by Sinha and Kanika Dhillon, originated as an idea that Sinha got when he saw a television commercial, and which he subsequently expanded." That's acceptable but I'd write it as something like "Sinha and Kanika Dillion's inspiration for the screenplay derived from the concept of a television commercial."

I suggest you withdraw this as I can't see how it would pass right now, get a few able copyeditors on board and above all to involve some of the cinema writers at the Indian project to give it a going over and try to help prepare it with you for FA. Then nominate it once they're convinced it is ready. I think it needs a thorough copyedit, but I do see potential for this in becoming an FA and I think with some work and some fresh pairs of eyes looking at it it is achievable but honestly I don't think it's ready right now.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  14:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. I did not mean to be unduly discouraging by the way, and would be glad to help out with the prose.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Delegate comment -- After remaining open more than a month without any support for promotion, I can't see this gaining consensus in the near future. If Dr Blofeld and Wehwalt are prepared to work with you off-FAC, I think it would stand a good chance at a new nom after the mandatory two-week break following archiving has passed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 00:59, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.