Talk:Ra.One/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Ashliveslove (talk · contribs) 14:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is been reviewed by two or more reviewers. Any other reviewer who might want to help is welcomed.

Main Points to review about this article Check if this article is biased/look more like promotion/been positively written/need to be shortened.

Review

Links

- All links are working fine (no dead links).
  - What about ref. 136? It wasn't working for me. ~~Ebe123~~ → report ← Contribs 22:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks about that. I guess its been marked as dead link. Might have been dead after I made a check. ASHU^IND 05:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead-links are still present in the article. Either they should be replaced or completely removed from the references. ASHU^IND 09:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

– No more dead links. Also cleaned all references as per WP:REF. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 12:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Corrected the disambiguation links found.

Resolved

Image issues

Ashu asked me to look over this review and while I haven't had time yet to give it a good look I just want to point out that File:Ra-one villain.jpg needs to contain a valid fair use rational to be used in this article. I will comment more later. AIRcorn (talk) 02:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That image is a screenshot, and hence guess it licensed well. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 06:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is a non-free image so needs rational to be used in this article. This is one of the requirements for good status criteria 6a so is not negotiable. It has rational for Ra.One (character), however if it is to be used in this article it needs one specific to this article. AIRcorn (talk) 06:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

– Provided a valid fair use rational to be used in Ra.One article. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 06:36, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright issues

I am concerned that large portions of text, a lot of plot and lead seems to be very close to this source [1]. The duplication detector shows a high number of matches[2]. The information is copyrighted (All Rights Reserved) and it does not appear to be a mirror of Wikipedia. AIRcorn (talk) 11:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay I think they copied it from us. This edit introduced the content and it is slightly different from the version on Ente Cinema. AIRcorn (talk) 11:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Hello hello! Its the website which has copied from Wikipedia. Please don't misjudge our hard work. If to be copied, there are many better sites. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 12:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I believe you. See my above comment. Sorry for the implication. AIRcorn (talk) 00:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

– This problem was resolved. -- ASHU^IND 10:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

I see that there's about triple positive reviews than mixed reviews, and double for the negative reviews. I think you could prune the positive reviews. (comment by User:Ebe123)

I was wondering on the same. I too feel the reception section should and can be shortened. ASHU^IND 14:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can we considering creating a new article for the same? -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 14:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No need to do that else reader will have to jump back n forth to read complete article. I suggest removing reviews of lesser known newspapers. For example Gulf News, Divanee Magazine and Oneindia.in are minor sites and sources which are not that well known to Indian audience compared to TOI, Dainik bhaskar, Bollywoodhungama and other Major newspapers. ASHU^IND 14:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Avatar got same amount of reviews. What about that, which is also o GA.? -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 15:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree with the Divanee magazine bit, but Oneindia and Gulf are well-reported. Please note that Gulf was the first reviewer of the film, and it did so in the Dubai premiere. BTW, you have cited only the positive reviews. Surely you aren't saying that such unrelaible reviews exist in the mixed/negative reviews section? I don't think we should pare down reviews just so as to reduce the positive reviews. Come on, after the hell of vandalism regarding bad reviews and flop status around Ra.One, we'll only be feeding fire to the gloaters. Please, let's keep the reception section as it is. See Avatar. It has about the same amount of reviews as Ra.One and is a GA. Not all of them are as well-known as Roger Ebert or Rachel Saltz. That doesn't mean we don't consider them. AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 15:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't discuss about Avatar here, we are discussing about Ra.One. When your first line of reception says mixed reviews then make them mixed and not biased to positive reviews. And one more suggestion, if Gulf news states from Dubai then it should be in your Overseas section. ASHU^IND 16:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We must discuss Avatar because the pattern of this article is basically taken from that and Scream. Hence comparisons must be made to understand why the reception is so. And btw, we are not biased to give Ra.One a more positive outlook. The "mixed" tag has come because the negative reviews were extreme in nature, for eg. a reviewer gave Ra.One not even one star, while others have given 1.5, 2, etc. with several bad comments. The mixed tag is not due to the count of positive vs. negative reviews. And while Gulf News reported from Dubai, they are an Indian website. What I meant was that they were the first Indian reviewer to review the film, and they did so after attending the Ra.One premiere in Dubai. Hope this clears everything up. AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 17:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with Ankit. We must consider discussing Avatar article then. Strongly support Ankit. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 18:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all let me remind you that this is not the way a reviewer reviews a GAN i.e by comparing with article. You can't expect that if you copy everything from a GA article will make yours a GA too. Now in Avatar you can see that the first line says well received. Now see in your article and compare yourself if you are so eager about that. They have well balanced their article from global point of view i.e where ever the film had its inspiration. Now coming to your article, review is not a voting process where you show your support or condemnation. You can merge the mixed reviews and negative reviews for instance to balance the reception, else you'll have to say in the beginning only that Ra.One gathered mixed to positive reviews from critics community. ASHU^IND 09:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the first guideline editors are given before nominating an article for GAN is "See some other GA article and fairly review it - ask yourself whether it has the structure, prose, refs etc. that another GA article has. Regard a GA/FA article as something, but not exactly, a benchmark and work towards making your article just as good." That is exactly what I am doing. And the point about "Mixed to positive" reception literally created hell on Earth for us! It ended up being taken to the WP:ANI, and then Wikiquette, and was finally dropped in favor of mixed. I doubt anybody would want to go through that horrible process again. And btw, I am eager to get Ra.One to GA. I have worked hard on it, and hence I expect some result too. Please do not belittle my concern for this GA review. Ra.One does have a well-balanced point of view. You aren't reading the negative reviews at all, only then will you understand that we have not spared any negative comment for the film if it has been made. We are not biased, and I am not voting on any matter regarding the reception. And the splitting of the mixed and negative reviews was done to help ease the readability of the section. The only place where comparisons between Avatar and Ra.One stop is the verdict - the former received universal acclaim, while the latter received a mixed response. Hence the multiple paras. Thank you. AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 12:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with that. I saw your reviews at WP:ANI. Just chop off the lesser known reviews. Rest all is fine in your Reception section. ASHU^IND 14:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will do my best in this regard. Thanks. AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 15:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

ASHU^IND 18:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

In "Shahana Goswami, Dalip Tahil and Chinese-American actor Tom Wu appear in supporting roles, along with Rajinikanth, Sanjay Dutt and Priyanka Chopra making guest appearances.", since "in supporting roles" is plurial, "appear" must be too. (Sorry if error)
"Ra.One was jointly produced by Eros International and Khan's production company, Red Chillies Entertainment.[3] 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 due to extensive post-production work involving special effects and 3D conversion. The film faced uncertainty regarding the preparedness of the film for release, with several rumours and media stories that the film would not be completed on time.", So on the second sentence, it seems like a new paragrafe.

Sorry, didn't get you. AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 18:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So for the last sentence, could you like "blend it in" the rest? ~~Ebe123~~ → report ← Contribs 11:18, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

– This problem was resolved, after moving it into the last line of second para. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 12:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

"Akashi (Wu) provides the moves, Jenny the programming,"... There should be provides or does.

Resolved

Boxoffice

The starting line says As of November 4, 2011, Ra.One has grossed INR192 crore (US$38.94 million) worldwide. Refer to boxofficemojo and correct the fact. Use the conversion if necessary for currency and state the same reference in infobox. ASHU^IND 17:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's now 220 crore. AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 17:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

PLEASE SIGN YOUR COMMENTS, ELSE I'LL SIMPLY REMOVE THEM FROM GA REVIEW. ALREADY ARTICLE HAD BEEN SPAMMED AND I DONT WANT SPAMMERS SPOILING THE REVIEW

Final Analysis

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
yes. ASHU^IND 18:31, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
No such concerns here. Article has been searched thoroughly for such references. Whatever problems were found, were discussed and resolved. ASHU^IND 18:31, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
All such aspects have been covered. ASHU^IND 18:31, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Yes. Issues were there but were resolved. ASHU^IND 18:31, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
All images are proper till the review date and well captioned. ASHU^IND 18:31, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Keep up the good quality of Article. Don't let it delisted.
Regards.
ASHU^IND 18:31, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks alot for your kind review. Will won't let the quality fall down. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 18:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much Ashu. Assuredly we will not let the article fall in it's quality. I appreciate the time you took to participate in this rather lengthy GA review. AnkitBhatt^WDF 13:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]