Talk:Star Wars/to do

Compilation of FA, Peer Review, and comments on Talk Page: Add and subtract as things are fixed
 * The lead could be expanded
 * There are many subsections under a few generic terms.
 * Make more readable to laymen, eliminate fan perspective which is present in parts.
 * Too much weasel wording throughout such as "It is also often argued" and "It is also thought" by whom?
 * Need fair-use rationales on all images especilly since the John Williams/young George Lucas are dubious.
 * This entire section on influences is innocent of source citations and rife with weasel wording and unattributed opinions.
 * "Other sources, including publicly available draft scripts of Star Wars, show that Lucas had an incomplete and quickly-changing conception of the Star Wars story up until the release of the first film in 1977." Great! But, uh, where are those "publicly available" (i.e. "published") draft scripts? Why aren't they cited? Do they meet the standard of "published" in the sense of WP:V? If not, are there good published sources that can be cited in support of this statement?
 * The only real contribution I can make is about the link with Asimov's Foundation series. See here for speculation that lightsabers derive from the force-field penknives of Foundation; here and the references therein for Lucas's lifting the "Galactic Empire" from Asimov; and I. Asimov and Yours, Isaac Asimov for the writer's own thoughts on the matter. Lots of people say that Coruscant was originally named Jhantor, which would make perfectly clear the fact that it is a rip-off of Asimov's Trantor.
 * Changes should be made in light of information revealed at Celebration IV, such as two hour-long made-for-TV movies, and the fact that they WILL be releasing all six films in 3-D Imax format.
 * Format references.
 * Add an infobox (not the film infobox - a custom one, somehow representing the entire franchise).