Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ra.One/archive4

Ra.One

Ra.One (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Ra.One/archive1
• Featured article candidates/Ra.One/archive2
• Featured article candidates/Ra.One/archive3
• Featured article candidates/Ra.One/archive4

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.
• "After the release of My Name Is Khan (2010), the studio focused..." What is the relationship between the studio and My Name Is Khan?
• "... 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. {{reflist|group=e|30em}} rather than {{reflist|group=e|3}}, 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)