Wikipedia:Peer review/Ra.One/archive2

Ra.One edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Several editors have been working on this article for almost a year; in culmination of this, I would like to open a peer review to clean up any problems and issues this article faces before we go for a possible FAR. A few editors have noted that the article has a "way to go before being FA"; I would just like to finish up the loose ends as quickly as possible. Extensive copy-editing was performed by Baffle gab1978 while major contributors include myself, Meryam90, Karthik Nadar and X.One. The article has already undergone a review previously prior to its GAR but a much more detailed and fine-toothed analysis will be appreciated this time. Regards, ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 14:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Section by section organizing

This part deals with my organizing of each section of the article. I'm making all the sections chronologically ordered, and also related to each other as some sections seem to have wildly unrelated stuff all bunched up together (especially the Commercial analysis section, which looks messed up after the copy-edit drive). I'll mark Done for each section completed.

Lead - Done

Origins and Development - Done

Casting and filming - Done

Post-production - Done

Visual effects - Done

Promotions - Done

Video games - Done

Release - Done

Critical reception

Box Office - Done

Commercial analysis

Any section not mentioned means the section is too small and is properly done already. Note, any problems regarding the sections, comment underneath. I'm only adding this for organizing, not for full-check. ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 15:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

General Comments

Guys, wouldn't it be better if a completely uninvolved editor review this article? I am not saying that you guys stop giving inputs, but a fully thorough and absolutely unbiased review can be given only by an external editor. I will approach somebody to review this article; if you find any problems, continue to point them out please. Cheers. ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 08:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please find someone else; I think its fine to have several reviewers. BollyJeff || talk 18:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I asked Grapple X, hopefully he'll respond soon. ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 09:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Guys, sorry for late reply Ankit! You are doing a wonderful job dude. Just hoping Grapple X to respond soon. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 13:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doing next to nothing, as you can see its all the others who are taking the pains to comb through this article :P. Yes, I hope he responds though he is very busy sending the WP:FILM newsletters to the subscribers. ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 13:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The film's budget is a primary concern, given the fact that it was the most expensive Bollywood film till date. The given source for 125c is first party data, given by the producer. Independent sources, like this and this show contradicting figures of 150c and 160c respectively. I see a case of cherry picking here, and it needs to be sorted out. X.One ^SOS 10:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really unsure as to what to do here, and I think the best thing to do would be to keep the infobox blank regarding the budget. Instead, we can discuss about multiple sources quoting various budgets. ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 08:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS, Enthiran had this exact same problem. ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 08:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And, not only that, the same SRK, in a previous interview with the same paper, revealed that the budget was 150 crore. I suggest abandoning first party data. X.One ^SOS 10:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SRK has been flipping on the budget for long. In a post-release interview it was him who said the budget was 125 crore. I think leaving the infobox blank is the best thing to do. ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 18:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have come across a few Hollywood articles and I think this is perhaps the best solution: if you guys see several Disney productions do not have fixed budgets. Like Alice in Wonderland or Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time or even Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides. So its best to keep the budget as a range - ₹125 crores - ₹175 crores, with the US conversion in the next line. However, this way we won't be able to use the INRConvert template. We shall have to make some exception here. Can we agree on this? ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 08:49, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we are deviating to WP:OSE here. No, a range would not be nice and not following INRConvert just for this would be haphazard as much as possible. My suggestion is to blank the infobox, list out the budgets in the "production" section. Secret of success (talk) 11:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, again OSE. What is the problem with citing some examples? What I'm trying to say is that keeping ranges is allowed on Wikipedia infoboxes. No, just one deviation is not problematic. Do not nit-pick. I said that we will also add the US$ conversion but not using the INRConvert template. There is absolutely nothing wrong in this. ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 13:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, you didn't get my point. I meant to say that the layout of the article will get affected if you do that! Would it look nice? What's the use of having an FA if it looks bad to read? Secret of success (talk) 15:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Why will it become bad to read? Wait, I'll see it in my sandbox and see if its "bad to read". ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 17:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Too many quotes exist in the article. Other than in "Critical reception", they should be reduced, especially in "Commercial analysis". While some contain unnecessary info, some have been multiplied and written elsewhere or so, increasing the length of the article. Secret of success (talk) 09:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not really sure what "too many quotes" mean, but if any quotes are repeated then definitely we should remove them. But I didn't see repeated quotes as far as I;m concerned (though I may be wrong). The commercial analysis section needs the quotes, I really think we shouldn't remove them. The quotes contain a lot of info and without them the section would be half as useful. ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 09:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They might need to be converted to indirect speech. I'll try looking into it. Secret of success (talk) 09:37, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many of them are better off as quotes; after all, it will look a bit awkward if the entire paragraph seems to be in indirect speech. ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 09:51, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Section 1

Commercial analysis should perhaps not be under Box office section, but have its own section.
Too many reviews; probably the most of any film on WP. Isn't there a way to summarize the reception better without so many?
Too much detail in Box office - India section. Will we really care how much it made on its third day, fourth day, after nine days, etc. after a few years has passed?

BollyJeff || talk 16:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, good idea. We should make the commercial analysis a separate section, its huge enough.

Done. ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 07:11, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there are way too many reviews but all the reviews are notable and professional; I doubt we should remove any of them.

LOL, we may ideally mention its first few days and post 1 week, its better to keep second weekend, second week, third week and then total (as Ra.One didn't earn significantly post the third week). I'm not really sure of what the current format is, I'll check it.

Thanks for the pointers, X.One is also doing his bit so hopefully we'll have a great article on our hands soon. ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 16:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You guyz are joking right? Why on earth should the BO figures be removed? It fails FA criteria of "Comprehensiveness" that way! X.One ^SOS 05:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that "Comprehensiveness" means that every piece of data available must be there. Looking at the only Indian film FAs, Lage Raho Munna Bhai and Taare Zameen Par, comprehensiveness is achieved by covering every topic possible, without drowning the reader in detail on certain ones. BollyJeff || talk 06:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bollyjef, if the data is notable then ideally it should be there; since Ra.One had a second-best first week we should detail upon its first week. I did shorten a bit about the second weekend by removing the unnecessary second Monday figure, but beyond that there really isn't anything that should be shortened. ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 06:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the revenue section, there's more trimming that can be done. For example, the third day numbers are mentioned which honestly aren't important. The total for three days setting a record is important and should stay. Fourth day numbers add no value to the article. Same with 5th day, 9 days, etc. It's information overload - we should be summarizing, not putting every little detail in the article just because there's a source. Highlight the big stuff. Ravensfire (talk) 00:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, alright I'll start removing those stuff (provided somebody already hasn't). ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 09:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some trimming; can you guys take a look at it and see if its alright now? ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 14:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It could use some more external links like these Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines#External_links. BollyJeff || talk 06:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, thanks for pointing that out. ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 07:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Added links to Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic and AllRovi. ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 07:11, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If we're linking to the site as a reference, we shouldn't be also linking to it as an EL. That's for sites that aren't in the article but give some useful information or context to the subject. WP:FILMMOS suggests linking to the review aggregation sites to avoid linking to every single review. That may be something to consider here. Keep the EL's, but remove some of the reviews, especially if it's just saying the same thing in a slightly different way. Likewise, the link to BOI and BOM provide some summary of the revenue for the movie, allowing us to cut down on the details. Ravensfire (talk) 00:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not all the Rotten Tomatoes reviews are present in the article (not all RT reviews are reliable enough). So I think the RT EL is required. As far as I know, none of the reviews have RT as a reference. Indian reviews have no fixed database that keeps track of all the reviews, though undoubtedly the reviews section is quite long (But this is Ra.One, the way the film was promoted, having an overload of big reviews isn't unexpected). BOI doesn't summarize revenue, heck BOI hasn't updated their 2011 part at all. We have to depend solely on their news bulletins (and due references have been put). ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 09:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully none of the reviews use RT or Metacritic as a reference! I know the article uses the main RT and MC links as references for the overall % numbers, but from the film MOS and various other articles I looked at, makes sense to keep them as EL's. Ravensfire (talk) 16:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LOL yes, I can't imagine anybody wishing to go through over 180 references just to check if there are any reference pointing to RT :D. ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 17:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Has there been a final resolution to the controversy? It should be added or stated that it hasn't happened yet.
Hindi text not needed in plot section.
First paragraph of Box Office section. Why is it considered average by some?

BollyJeff || talk 18:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy? Pardon me, which controversy? The Hindi text should ideally be there as the viewers have to know the context in which that line is spoken and translation will not be the best option IMO. The average part - are you asking why, or are you asking for some reference? If why, well just see the film's budget and its India earnings, its not exactly earth-shattering. Hopefully there is a reference to that statement though. ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 09:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Section Ra.One#Controversy says there was a temporary settlement. Has there been a final?

Hindi text provides no context for English speakers. We removed title scripts but we are keeping whole sentences in the plot? Makes no sense.

It should be stated why it is considered average. If its because of the huge budget, then say that. BollyJeff || talk 13:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There has unfortunately been no news on that issue. Especially since the issue was about the script, and the script of Ra.One wasn't exactly one of its positive talking points :P. Regarding Hindi, I strongly believe the sentence should be there though maybe we can fit a translation somehow. I'm not sure, but I feel we should not remove that line as it is very important in the film's context. Nobody will give as to why the performance was average, its the trade analysts job to report figures and give verdicts. The real reason is, of course, because of its budget but there will be no RS on this as analysts don't give the why, they just give the math. I can add the budget reason, but that may fall into WP:OR. ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 13:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Section 2

I just caught sight of the critical reception section and I calculated the average rating from all the reviews; the average comes out as 2.95 (i.e almost 3). I doubt that can be called just mixed; it should ideally be mixed to positive. I know that a hell lot of problems appeared due to this issue, but we should tackle it. Thanks to the Don 2 ongoing review process, which reminded me of this. What should we do now? ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 08:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I trimmed the lead and removed the now-redundant Ra.One (character) link from the top. I request somebody to give it a final look and see if it is alright. ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 07:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brief comments by Baffle_gab1978

Hi all, I did some copy-editing on this article so I don't qualify as a neutral editor. Please note that these are just suggestions.

Disambig check: Hatnote and 'Plot' - 'Ra.One (character) and G.One (character) are redirect pages that link back to this article. 1.

Done. ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 04:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Check all references with checklinks

I suggest you point out whichever references have any problem; going to the Checklinks part is reporting Malware warnings on www.filmfare.com, so its not opening. ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 04:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt there are any dead links there, but it might be worthwhile visiting those that show as problematic; you can then use the open page to add author, date, acceassdate, work and publisher info to the citations. I'll get back to you later on the checklinks. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 16:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hope there is another way to ind dead references, because Checklinks is still not opening. ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 16:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Be consistent with citations; although FA doesn't require it, this article does use cite referencing - many lack source date, accessdate, author, publisher and works parameters.
Be consistent with date formatting - use either '1 December 2011', '2011-12-01', '01-12-2011' or the variant commonly used in India per WP:STRONGNAT.

I don't think the date part is a problem; some of the dates do have only month and yeear, but that's how it is reported. Can I call this as Done? ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 04:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's you're choice, I'm only suggesting these changes, but a proper FA reviewer will check for consistent referencing because that's part of the FA criteria. If the full date's missing on the source there's no problem, but date formatting will be commented on at FAR. Choose one format and stick with it - what format do you prefer to use? I may help you with this. I know it's a drag but it's worth doing now, IMO.Baffle gab1978 (talk) 16:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I always prefer MM-DD-YYYY. And at least I use that format consistently. ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 16:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, some of the inconsistency was my fault, I prefer to use '1 December 2012', so I used that when I expanded a couple of references. But no worries, I'll start tidying it up later. at least we'll be on the same page! Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 21:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let's roll up our sleeves :P. ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 04:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This can easily be done with scripts; how do you want it? I think dmy is somewhat standard for Indian type articles. BollyJeff || talk 04:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, mdy looks better. But I don't have any particular problem with dmy either. Whatever the majority asks, we can go by that. ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 04:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Me again. Most of the all-numeral dates, which seems to be more than half of those on the article, are in the YYYY-MM-DD format, so I think we should standardise on that as it's less work to convert. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 07:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? What? You mean "2012, December 1"? That looks absurd. ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 07:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I mean that most are formatted 2012-12-01. "2012, December 1" would look silly :-) Baffle gab1978 (talk) 08:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about the dates in the references, or in the article? ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 08:12, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well there was an editor going around putting yyy-mm-dd in the references, and either dmy or mdy in the article body. Its just not spelled out in the policies that it has to be a certain way, but he said you should not change it, if its already consistent per WP:DATERET. This one is not consistent at this point, so we can decide how it should be. I can easily change it to all dmy with one click per WP:STRONGNAT if you say so. BollyJeff || talk 13:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really feel mdy would be best. ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 18:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done BollyJeff || talk 18:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, the references section looks much better now. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 20:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Standardise (!) '...ize' or '...ise'; British Spelling is probably the most dominant form of English in India and allows both styles. US English allows only '..ize on most words. Check American and British English spelling differences.
Consider archiving referenced webpages using WebCite or The Internet Archive.

I started doing this using WebCite; 5 done, 175-ish to go! Hope it's ok, feel free to continue. :-) Baffle gab1978 (talk) 19:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mean we need to archive each and every reference? -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 16:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, I think the article is looking good and progressing well towards FA. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 23:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception section

I was going through this section and I found several serious errors in it. Advice is required.

The Gulf News review in the article shows a 4/5 rating; the original review has no rating.

The LA Times review in the article gives 4/5 rating; Rotten Tomatoes gives 4/5 but Metacritic is showing 100/100. The actual review is unrated.

What is to be done? ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 08:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Guess it has been sorted. Secret of success (talk) 10:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can remove Gulf News from the table, or leave it and say "favorable" instead of having stars. I have seen it before when not all ratings are in stars; they are in whatever 'units' the reviewer uses. For LA Times, its not in the table anyway, so what does it matter? The text makes no mention of stars, so it's okay. BollyJeff || talk 20:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The LA Times problem was corrected before you commented. The Gulf News part has also been corrected I believe. ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 05:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Gulf source still does not say 4 stars. BollyJeff || talk 12:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]