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 07:35, 13 May 2012 [1].

Ra.One[edit]

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

Toolbox
Nominator(s): ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 17:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second FAC for the article. The first one went off rather unexpectedly, and a lot of problems were pointed out with specific mention of the references. I have subsequently undertaken a significant overhaul of the entire article (including creating a new article and hence reducing a significant amount of content from Ra.One). I believe that now it is much closer to FA standards, though I won't say with certainty as there may be things I have not done properly. i hope this one goes off better. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 17:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For a film article, this is extraordinarily long. When it was archived last month from its previous FAC it had 10540 words of text; since then it has swollen to 15300, plus another 1000 or so in the bullet-pointed Cast section (the full Wiki text is 214 kB). If it were to be promoted it would be just about the longest featured article in the entire project; can you explain why you think the subject-matter justifies this extent of treatment? Most film articles seem to me to thoroughly cover their subject in half as many words, frequently less. Brianboulton (talk) 14:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess its because Ra.One has a number of firsts to it. Its the first Indian film to have a nine-month promotional campaign, for starters. Its the first Indian film to, very extensively, utilize the concept of merchandising. Its one of India's most expensive films to date. Its the first film to actually exceed Avatar in the quantity of VFX used. Its the first India film to have utilized around 15 studios all across the world, for a number of aspects be it VFX, costumes, sound design etc. It has a soundtrack that received much popularity around the world. It has firsts even in Wikipedia: Ra.One is the first film which has an entire article devoted solely to its VFX. You should have seen the article when the VFX section had been full; reducing that took off around 8,000 bytes from the article. I am aware of its length, but I don't see that as a hindrance. In fact, I see it as comprehensiveness; there are separate articles dealing with specific film aspects, such as its accolades and VFX. I would really encourage you to give the article a full look. Thanks. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 15:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can accept that the film is important, but not so important as to require this length of treatment. We are compiling a general encyclopedia, not a film buff's handbook. The article is 50 percent longer than that for the Second World War, 50 percent longer than that for Mohandas Gandhi, twice as long as that for Barak Obama. The film articles that have reached featured status vary in length; some (Jurassic Park, E.T.) are around 4500 words, while Casablanca, an iconic film, gets 6200 words. I would not wish to see a precedent for such extraordinary length in featured articles, and I suggest that you study WP:LENGTH for general policy guidance on what is generally deemed acceptable within the project. Brianboulton (talk) 23:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I agree with Brianboulton about the length. There are many opportunities where details/promotion/quotes can be removed or summarized to reduce length.

Removed.
I have removed the first sentence of the quote (unnecessary, agreed). The rest of the quote is necessary; more so because a lot of debate on Sinha's capability as a director had surrounded the film pre-release.
Is the quote necessary? paraphrase will work. --Redtigerxyz Talk 13:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Modified.
Shortened a bit.
I don't see what's wrong with this at all. The sentence may sound like the statement was not very big, but the rumor created a lot of flurry and huffing-and-puffing among the Indian media. Certainly notable.
Moved out.
What shall I replace it with?
Sentence changed.
Could you explain why you find it unreliable? It seems to be quite reliable to me, well-organized, its a finance portal. Financial aspects of the film were a major talking-point.
It is not used for financial aspects. --Redtigerxyz Talk 13:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Could you point out where the source has been used? I seem to have got lost in the labyrinth of references in the article :P.
Oops, corrected. No longer present in the article.
Removed. No longer present in the article
No longer present in the article.
Comprehensiveness issue: It should be mentioned that Chawla initially produced.--Redtigerxyz Talk 13:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Both producers (Chawla, Gauri) added. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 10:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Little more specificity regarding the death added.

--Redtigerxyz Talk 18:45, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments The splitting has shortened the length, but Wikipedia:Summary style is not properly followed OR is the article still under construction (use ((underconstruction)) if so). When you are done, leave a note here so reviewers can complete their assessment. --Redtigerxyz Talk 13:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to inform everybody that since the length of the article is becoming a sticking point, I am currently in the process of breaking away significant portions of the article into separate articles. By doing so, I may reduce the Ra.One size by as much as 35,000 - 40,000 bytes. At that stage, will the article length become acceptable? The break-off articles are currently in my userspace.
Regarding Redtiger's quotes, parts of the problem shall anyway shift into the separate articles. But I don't agree with a number of them. Just give me a day or so, after splitting, and I'll get down to a discussion.
Mark, could you specifically point out which instances of overlinking/dabs are there? Thanks. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 07:02, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Ankit has worked very hard on the article and the article still needs work/consensus following the split. The article is looking much better following the split.

Oppose for excessive length and unnecessary detail. For an example of the former, see Critical reception, where thirty reviewers are quoted, in the domestic section alone. I reckon four paragraphs for Indian+foreign reviews should suffice, since they all mostly talk about similar stuff. Also comb the text for unnecessary tidbits like "Actor Amitabh Bachchan supposedly remarked negatively about the film on Twitter as well, though it later turned out that the Twitter ID used was fake". Even apart from this, a lot needs to go for a clear, concise and FA-worthy article.—indopug (talk) 10:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would be far more useful for the article if you clearly list out what all the problems are, rather than go for a rapid opposition spree and vaguely say "a lot needs to be done". ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 11:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would add that, in response to my comments earlier in this review, the length issue is being tackled vigorously by the nominator. Credit where credit is due. Brianboulton (talk) 21:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The prose is not sufficiently well-written. Here is a small sample of prose problems that I gather while reading through random paragraphs of the article. There are also a number of sourcing issues.

Highly relevant to the plot. Its this basic fact that actually allows the film's climax to happen.
If it is highly relevant to the plot, then why is it not mentioned again in the plot summary? I don't see anything else about a special gun or a single bullet. I think this whole sentence could be scrapped without any risk of the reader missing something important. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Applying is the correct word, Click on the wikilink; the article states "To apply facial prosthetics..."
You misunderstand my point. The current phrasing suggests that it took over eight hours to apply to the makeup. This cannot be correct. What you must surely mean is that after the makeup was applied, he had to wear it for eight hours. The correct phrasing for that is "His character's appearance required him to wear prosthetic makeup for over eight hours a day". --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are not familiar at all about what prosthetic makeup is. Let's just say it isn't your ordinary face powder-lipstick-mascara make-up. Prosthetics are complicated. It takes hours just to apply them. The phrase is perfectly correct. I can understand your trouble believing this, but I can assure you, the phrase is "applied", not "wore".
Does it take eight hours to apply them? Does the actor sit down on a chair, wait for eight hours as the makeup artist works, and then start filming? That is what the phrasing suggests, and it cannot be correct. I will readily concede that the source uses "don", which has essentially the same meaning as "apply" in this context, but the source was very clearly not written by someone with a native command of the English language. It does not, and cannot, take eight hours to apply prosthetic makeup for a single day of filming. Perhaps it took two hours to apply, and the actor would wear it for six. Perhaps the ratio was more extreme than that. In any case, it did not take eight hours to apply the makeup. The correct verb is "wear". --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have not read the full sentence. They weren't wearing suits, they were wearing superhero suits. Yes, those do lead to loss of weight, and that's even more applicable for a mid-forties person :P.
Your explanation makes even less sense than the original issue. How on earth does the costume cause the wearer to lose weight? Whether or not it is a superhero suit is irrelevant. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See the Costumes section. The suits were heavy, not made of heat-conducting material, hot weather. In short, lots of perspiration plus lower food consumption. Hence loss in weight.
The current phrasing does not suggest that perspiration or food consumption caused the weight loss. It suggests that "discomfort" caused the weight loss. ("Revolutionary weight-loss breakthrough: sleep on bricks!" Hee.) --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The statement is written from the source itself. That's how the director said it in the source, so I guess it will have to be that.
Where in the source? The next citation is to this article, in which the phrase "remote" is never mentioned. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The second time somebody asked me the same thing. Please read the statement carefully; Sinha approached Khan with the film's script. He may be a director, but that does not guarantee him being the director all the time. I had placed the bit about his previous film's box office failure to highlight this point as well.
When multiple editors point out the same issue, that's usually a pretty good indicator that the problem is not on the reader's end. The issue may be stemming from the phrasing at the very beginning of the section: "According to director Anubhav Sinha". The use of "director" here not only implies that Sinha is a director, but also the director. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, removed.
Okay, so here's what I understand (based almost entirely on what I've learned from this discussion, not from the article itself): Sinha came up with the idea and the script. Sinha shows the script to Khan, who decides to produce the film. Khan tries to find a director for the film, but they all turn him down. Khan eventually decides to have Sinha direct it. Is this correct? If so, the current problem lies in the fact that the italicized part of the chronology is never mentioned in the article. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, a schedule - as in any other aspect of work - is a set period of time where particular work is done. In case of filming, a schedule is a set period of time where filming is done. I don't understand how that is unclear or unnecessary.
Unnecessary detail. It should be removed. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? Unnecessary detail? Far from it. Splitting the production phase was one of the main reasons why there was quite a bit of controversy regarding the presence of multiple directors for the film.
See my response to the suit mold issue below. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have made significant cuts throughout the article, including the Critical Reception section. The post-production section has been phased out to the daughter article. Currently, I estimate the word count to be in the ballpark of 8000 (little less, hopefully) though more cuts are on the way. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 12:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Present in the main article. I had kept the reason out since I figured somebody would come and declare it "unnecessary detail".
Don't cut out details if doing so results in sentences whose meanings are unclear. Similarly, the summary of a daughter article should make sense on its own without the reader having to navigate to the daughter article. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, I'll add it.
The added detail about first- and third-person perspectives doesn't clarify what "basic outline" refers to. Does "basic outline" mean a set of fixed visual details which lie along the edges of the screen, as one would expect in a video game HUD? Or does "basic outline" mean the same thing as "general idea"? I suspect it's the latter, in which case I would suggest rephrasing as such: "The film's cinematography borrowed ideas from video gaming, such as rapid transitions between first-person and third-person perspectives." or something similar.
Alright, shall do so.
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)[reply]
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.
This is not a "special effects technique" at all. In fact, till date, I have not heard of any superhero suit being made in this way. Hence the detail.
What you have or have not heard of before is not relevant, and neither is this detail. Passages like these are among the reasons why the article is so much larger than it should be. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very sorry to say but this "unnecessary detail" is most necessary for the article. Superhero suits, being one of the most talked-about aspects of the film, need to be covered well. And I don't know what you expect from the article's size, but in case you haven't noticed yet, I have cut down the article size significantly. If your aim is to cut it to some 1000 words, I doubt that will be possible.
I appreciate your efforts to trim down the article, and they have definitely helped, but the article is still far too long at ~10,000 words. The FAC will fail if we cannot find some way to cut it down further. It is obvious that you care deeply about this film and the article you've worked to build, and while it is heartwarming to see, what you must realize is that your own feelings will make it very difficult for you to accurately judge what material is superfluous. This is exactly why I'm trying to point out passages that don't seem necessary to an uninformed reader (myself). If you don't want to take my advice, fine, but you've got to find some material to cut out. The Critical reception section would be a good place to start, as would the Post-production section. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 14:16, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Removed "full-cycle". I sometimes wonder which IP editor adds what stuff.
Added.
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)[reply]
You must have seen the score table after some vandal IP wrecked it completely. Its been restored to its original form.

I would like to re-emphasize that this is not a comprehensive list, but merely a sprinkling; I haven't even looked at the Critical reception section. As other reviewers have pointed out, the article desparately needs to be cut down in size. Once that's done, the prose should be given a thorough review by an uninvolved editor. Or perhaps the prose should be touched up first and then cut down. Either way, it will be a lengthy two-step process. I suggest that the author withdraw the nomination. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:41, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most problems rectified. Have a look. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 11:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is considered a wee bit improper for a nominator to strike the comments of a reviewer; doing so makes it more difficult for the reviewer to keep track of which corrections have been checked. It is much more helpful for the nominator to leave a brief description of what change has been made, so the reviewer doesn't have to crawl through the article again to find the relevant material. Would you be so kind as to employ this convention? Even something as simple as "Done" would be sufficient for the really easy comments. Thanks! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:34, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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