Wikipedia:Peer review/Ra.One/archive3
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am intending this article to be promoted to the featured article status. There have been two unsuccessful FACs where it has been identified that work is needed on this article before another FAC. I would request an extremely thorough, FAC-level peer review, and I would be much obliged if FAC reviewers themselves also take up their reviews here.
Thanks, ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 04:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
FAC comments
[edit]Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
"either of the players can only be killed in the third level using a special gun that holds a single bullet." Is this relevant to the rest of the plot? I don't see how it is. If it's not relevant, delete it.
- 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)
- I have expanded the plot slightly to show the real significance of the presence of only one bullet.
- 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)
- Highly relevant to the plot. Its this basic fact that actually allows the film's climax to happen.
- "His character's appearance required him to apply prosthetic makeup for over eight hours a day" Was he applying makeup for eight hours per day, or was he wearing makeup for eight hours per day?
- 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)
- 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)
- Your insistence on not accepting this is baffling. Tell me how you can be so assured that it did not take eight hours to apply them. Please remember that what you think or don't think, what you believe or don't believe, should have no bearing on your continuous refusal of this fact.
- 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)
- 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".
- 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)
- Applying is the correct word, Click on the wikilink; the article states "To apply facial prosthetics..."
"Besides this, he also suffered considerable discomfort with his superhero suit. Subsequently, he lost ten kilos of weight by the end of filming" So wearing an uncomfortable suit causes one to lose weight? I was unaware of this.
- 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)
- 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)
- I have changed the phrasing to "faced difficulties", and wikilinked it to the Costumes section so as to avoid repeating info.
- 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)
- 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.
- 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)
- 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.
"he was watching an advertisement on television dealing with kids controlling a human with a remote." This phrasing suggests that "kids controlling a human with a remote" is a real problem which the product being advertised can "deal with". Somehow I doubt that this was the case.
- 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)
- Proper reference added.
- 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)
- 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.
"Khan initially approached several directors to lead the project" This seems to contradict with the previously presented facts that Sinha was the director and that Sinha approached Khan. Why would Khan be looking for a director when he was already brought on board by the director?
- 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)
- 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)
Done
- 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)
- Fine, removed.
- 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)
- 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.
- "The film's next production phase was split into two schedules" Does "schedule" have some special meaning in the context of film production? Otherwise, it is not clear to me why anyone would ever want or need to know about these details.
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- See my response to the suit mold issue below. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- 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.
- Unnecessary detail. It should be removed. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- 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.
"The film's cinematography involved the basic outline of a video game's perspective of vision" Does this refer to the HUD? If not, I have no idea what this could possibly mean.
- 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)
- 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. - Done
- Alright, shall do so. -
- 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.
- Fine, I'll add it.
- 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)
- Present in the main article. I had kept the reason out since I figured somebody would come and declare it "unnecessary detail".
- "To create the mold of the suit, Khan was required to enter into a small chamber wearing minimal clothing. A warm latex-like liquid was subsequently released into the chamber, reaching until his neck. The liquid was allowed to solidify, forming the mold, and was then peeled off Khan's body. The suit was joined by a concealed zipper and modified." This level of detail is not necessary. This article is about is a film, not a special effects technique.
- 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)
- 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)
- 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.
- 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)
- 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.
"A reported partnership deal is being finalised by the distributors, which will allow the film to be released in China with 1,000 prints" As of when? See WP:ASOF.
- Added.
Note on striking. The talk page guidelines explicitly forbid striking other user's comments: "Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it or someone acting at their explicit request." This is the second time I've had to mention this. I'm not asking this time, I'm simply telling you: Stop striking my comments. If and when I have determined that a comment has been addressed, I will either strike it or archive it. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:40, 22 May 2012 (UTC)