Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Ra.One/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

Ra.One

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Article is sufficiently detailed; would like a formal review to happen to iron out any kinks before going for a GAN. Thanks, Lynch7 08:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Sorry it has taken me so long to review this - here is a start. Thanks for your work - sounds like an interesting movie, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  Resolved
 – -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 10:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure the article needs to be cut back a lot - using the prose size tool - Prose size (text only): 55 kB (9333 words) "readable prose size" this is in the "May need to be divided " range at WP:SIZERULE
  • It is also OK to have images alternate between right and left justification in an article.
  • WP:MOSIMAGE also says that images should draw the reader's eyes into the page and not look off the page - so File:Premeire of 'Ra.One' in London.jpg should be left justified
  • I am concerned that some of the images which are marked as free in fact contain copyrighted material - for example File:Khan promoting Ra.One film in association with MacDonalds.jpg and File:Shahrukh Khan launches 'Ra.One' - Nvidia GEFORCE GTX 560Ti graphic card.jpg both have promotional images in them and the promotional material is almost certainly copyrighted by the studio and/or the firm doing the promotion. As such they likely need to be fair use. There are 2 fair use images already, so 4 is a lot.
  • Looking at the lead now, the most difficult FA criterion for most articles to meet is 1a, a professional level of English. I think this needs some work before it would pass FAC. So The film features Shahrukh Khan in dual roles, and also stars Kareena Kapoor, Armaan Verma and Arjun Rampal in the lead. is problematic. First off, saying "also stars" should be sufficient (does not need to also say "in the lead"). If you would rather say "in the lead", it seems to me that lead is singular, but there are mutiple actors listed, so perhaps "in the lead roles"
  • I am not sure what "guest appearances" are in a movie - in America it sounds more like something from a television program. Is it what is sometimes called a Cameo appearance? In any case, are these really so important as to merit inclusion in the lead? They are not in the infobox...
  • The lead is supposed to be a summary of the article body, but Khan's role is not referred to in the body as goofy (game designer). Without a ref, seems POV too
  Resolved
 – Agree with you, hence removed the word "goofy". -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 10:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead says the film faced censorship prior to release, but the article does not say it was actually censored - just that it was rated by the film board (and got the everyone can attend rating). To be censored, a film has to be cut in some way.
  • Even if it is called the Censorship rating in India, most ENglish readers will not understand this. I think just calling the section "Ratings" would be better.
Would it be okay to be called as "Censor rating"?, because if we change it to "Ratings", then Indian people will find it confused. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 11:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First off the section is only one paragraph of three sentences - it might be better if it were just combined with the Release section. Second, if everyone in India calls them Censor ratings then I would use that here too. My point is that the over 900 copies of the film were shown "overseas" (outside of India) but there is no information on the ratings in any other country. Rotten Tomatoes.com lists it as unrated in the USA, which could be mentioned here. What rating did it get in the UK? Reviews (from other countries) may be a source of the rating in that country. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another FA criterion is comprehensiveness - what were the film's ratings in its markets outside India? Dubai? London? Toronto?
If you're saying about searching for international reviews, find it here. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 10:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not reviews, ratings - what was the British or Canadian or other countries' "censor rating" for the film? Please see above too. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More to come

Thanks a lot Ruhrfisch for taking the time to make a pre-FA peer review. Regarding the bit about overseas ratings, as far as I've seen, the MPAA has not rated the film, and neither has the UK. I'm not too sure about UAE, so I'll try to dig that up. I have consistently used Avatar as an article to compare with, though this hasn't gone down too well with some other contributors. While I know that Avatar is itself only a GA, I found it really impressive. I have also occasionally seen through Scream (for the lead section) and Lage Raho Munnabhai, the latter of which is an FA. While several editors have repeatedly asked for a cutback in article size, I strongly feel that a size cut will not do the article any good. I don't think it will be feasible to make separate articles for Marketing/Reviews/Production simply because there isn't enough content under these sections to warrant an entirely new article. Besides, a detailed article is one of the criteria for an FA. I support Karthik and wish the section to be called Censor ratings, as Indians are generally used to call the ratings colloquially as "Censors". I really can't help with images because myself and WP images are sworn enemies doomed to life-long problems with each other (please pardon the theatrics :D ). Yes, a guest appearance does mean a cameo appearance, and it shall/has been changed to that. Guess as of now, that's it. Thanks again! AnkitBhattWDF 13:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More from Ruhrfisch
  Resolved
 – -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 06:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you want to cut down on the size of the article, it does not have to be split. Just look for ways to make the prose more concise and focused - four examples follow:
    • In the lead is it necessary to mention the three cameo appearances? I assume these are well known Indian film stars, but I searched the article and Sanjay Dutt is only mentioned three times in the whole article (lead, cast, and that he was slated to appear - is this really important enough to keep in the lead)?
I suggest keeping the names of the cameo appearances. Please note that some highly well-known celebrities such as Rajnikanth have had a cameo appearance in this film. AnkitBhattWDF 15:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not saying to get rid of the mention of all cameos, just in the lead (if need be say in the lead the film featured cameos from many celebrities). By the way, Rajnikanth is mentioned only once in the article and is not listed as a cameo. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even fairly short sentences can be trimmed down in many cases - to pick one at random from the lead Prior to its worldwide release, Ra.One had multiple premieres in Dubai, London and Toronto during the period of October 24–26.[8] Aren't all premieres prior to wide release (so you could cut "Prior to its worldwide release"). Even the word multiple does not really add anything - listing the three cities implies three premieres. Also sometimes a simpler word or phrase will do, so "from" might be better than "during the period of" - end result Ra.One had premieres in Dubai, London and Toronto, from October 24 to 26.[8] saved 8 words - not every sentence can or should be trimmed as easily or effectively, but it would help many
  Resolved
 – -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 06:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep the focus on this film and only include the barest of tangential material - so in the bit about Enthiran and possible similarities between it and this film, why is this sentence needed? "I will not like to talk about anyone else's film but Rajni sir is respectable to all of us." How does this sentence increase the reader's understanding of Ra.One?
Before few month to release, the movie was very much compared to Enthiran (another sci-fic Indian film), by both media and common people. Hence i feel the sentence is very much necessary. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 06:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How does I will not like to talk about anyone else's film but Rajni sir is respectable to all of us. say anything about Ra.One? It might help to add a sentence on the plot of Enthiran so readers will see the similarities (scientist's creation turns on him), but a platitude that I am not going to say anything bad about someone else (who is not even clearly identified as the director of Enthiran) adds nothing to my understanding. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Avoid passive voice if at all possible - active voice is usually briefer too. So
In March 2011, it was announced that the television broadcasting rights for Ra.One had been sold to Star India for a then-record sum of 40 crore (US$8.11 million), surpassing the previous record set by 3 Idiots (2009) of 33 crore (US$6.69 million).[10] could be something like this
In March 2011, Star India bought the television broadcasting rights for Ra.One for a then-record sum of 40 crore (US$8.11 million), surpassing 3 Idiots (2009) previous 33 crore (US$6.69 million) record.[10]
  Resolved
 – -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 06:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a copyedit would be really useful - not only for conciseness, but also to make the tone more encyclopedic in places - so "hit" in Initially expected to hit theatres on June 3, 2011, the release of the film was pushed back to the Diwali weekend of October 26, 2011 ... seems very slangy
  • A few places need refs - for example On October 21, Sinha tweeted that the film had been completed. and I could swear there was one about the audience being mostly children that had no ref - wait Families and children comprised the major demographics of Ra.One's audience.
  Resolved
 – Added required sources. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 06:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Define abbreviations like SRK before they are used
  Resolved
 – -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 06:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Much of the commercial analysis section seems needlessly repetitive - the accusations of plagiarism have already been discussed earlier in the article, or the mixed ratings.
Perhaps there are a few repetitions that can be removed. I'l do my best in this regard. AnkitBhattWDF 15:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Ra.One/archive1&oldid=1078794362"