Wikipedia talk:Peer review/Ra.One/archive3


 * Resolved comments


 * "On October 20, 2011, Sinha tweeted that the post-production of the film had been completed." The completion of the post-production is certainly notable enough to be mentioned, but tweets are not. Surely there was a more substantial medium through which this was announced, yes?
 * If you are referring to the source, then I think I can replace it with a more reliable source. The post-production end had been announced by Twitter alone, so if you are referring to a press conference or such, you may be disappointed. If you read the section, you may have come across some examples showing severe delays and quite a bit of tension. I doubt that under such conditions, the director would have time to hold an official meeting.
 * Yes, please do find a more reliable source. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Fine.
 * As of now, I am unable to find a specific source to back this (all of the articles I found seem to have been "eaten by Pacman" in their own words) so I have removed the detail entirely.


 * "a full-cycle game for PlayStations which was released on October 5, 2011" What is a "full-cycle game"?
 * Removed "full-cycle". I sometimes wonder which IP editor adds what stuff.


 * Why do all of the online sources link to archived copies? This seems completely unnecessary, and it makes the references section harder to navigate. Archived copies should only be linked to when the originals are no longer accessible.
 * The problem being, the article is dependent on a number of sources which can easily disappear (namely Mid-Day, Mumbai Mirror etc.) I had lost a big chunk of information when a particular reference had been lost due to link rot (though thankfully an old cached version was available) but I would not like to risk another loss. Its a unfortunate thing, but this article suffers from the problem of depending on a significant amount of information on only one reference, and hence information loss is much more possible. I hope you understand, its not convenient for me either since it makes it difficult to find repeated references, but its a precautionary measure that I would not like to lose. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 12:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The reviews in the Review Score box don't seem to be listed in any order. They should either be alphabetical or in descending order of score.
 * You must have seen the score table after some vandal IP wrecked it completely. Its been restored to its original form.