Talk:Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith/GA2

GA Reassessment
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.''

This article is woefully under sourced, and would likely be a quick fail if nominated for WP:GAN. Some of it is easily fixable because some references are just not being reused (see this edit). However, it needs a lot more work due to years of neglect. New information has come to light at the very least. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 19:24, 31 December 2019 (UTC) You're welcome to disagree with my interpretation of policy, but I am backed by policy nonetheless. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 17:49, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * For the avoidance of doubt, the only issue I see for this article in concerns with the good article criteria are points 2 and 3. Regards, &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 19:26, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's short in sourcing, not sure this assessment is needed. Govvy (talk) 20:10, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not short on sources, but it doesn't support all its facts with citations. I tried being conservative with my previous tagging, but to explain the scope of the problem, I added more tags. There are now 24 instances of citation needed tags, 3 better source needed tags, and one inline original research tag. This needs to be addressed if the article is to retain its good article status, please. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 21:46, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You asking for citations in a lot of places and really some of the spots you pointed out don't need a citation. You don't need a citation to point out where an obvious is, like where someone has their cameo in the film. This is over-analysation. Also for the sentence "This album was chosen as one of Amazon.com's Top 100 Editors' Picks of 2005 (#83)". (You added needs a better source!) It's a primary statement with a primary source, you can't get much better than that! I think you are showing stupidity there. I suggest you review what you have done, I feel as if you're going to waste a lot of peoples time here. Govvy (talk) 11:55, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Amazon.com is listed under WP:BADCHARTS. If it is not acceptable for albums, then it should not be acceptable for movies unless reported on by a reliable secondary source per WP:UNDUE. There is nothing stupid about that. To your first point, per our BLP policy, all potentially contentious information about living person's should be cited with a referenced footnote. The fact the article is claiming Lucas had his own family cameo in the movie is potentially contentious and should contain an inline citation.
 * I have removed the Amazon source. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 09:24, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * @: Awesome! If you or someone else correct the citation issues, then this would be all set. { &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 17:31, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, no one came to save this one after like a month and a half of waiting. Therefore, I felt obligated to delist it at this point. Hopefully, this can get fixed up and renominated though. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 01:52, 16 February 2020 (UTC)