Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Star Wars/archive3


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:51, 12 July 2008.

Star Wars
previous FAC

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has reached at least Good Article status, and I believe it meets the criteria for FA, including relevant images, and has a clear well-written layout, and reliable references. I belive it has broadly covered the aspects of the entire Star Wars franchise, explains the films in a fair and neutral way, and is a good candidate for FA-status. --EclipseSSD (talk) 19:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments
 * "Star Wars portal" goes in "See also" section
 * Broken refs: 62, 66
 * IMDB references are not reliable

Gary King ( talk ) 20:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - Not ready yet in my view. I hate to tell editors what to do with candidates, but I feel that this should be withdrawn. This should be taken to peer review to help sort out these and other issues. As a Star Wars fan I wish this article the best, but think it needs more time to develop. May the Force be with you in your efforts. :-) Giants2008 (talk) 21:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The lead is inadequate. According to WP:LEAD, an article of this size should have a three or four paragraph lead (probably four in this case). This has two paragraphs, and the second is quite small. Many sections aren't represented at all in the lead, and others are glossed over.
 * The Critical reception section is just a table, without any substantive commentary on the films. Opinions from movie critics are not a negative as long as they are attributed. For example, Roger Ebert has a website where I assume reviews for these films can be found. Also, many people such as myself feel that the prequels are inferior to the original films. Nothing about this. Any film FA should have a detailed section on critical reaction, and this falls well short.
 * In addition to the IMDB refs, numerous others are of questionable reliability. Ealdgyth will take an in-depth look at some point and should have plenty to say.
 * More could be added on the impact of the series. For example, the special effects in the films were groundbreaking at the time; I don't get that sense after reading this.
 * I may be missing it, but I don't see anything on the changes that George Lucas made to the original trilogy in video and DVD releases. These changes were controversial in some quarters (Han shot first), and if possible future changes are worthy of mention than so are these.

Comments
 * http://www.starwars.com/episode-iii/bts/production/news20040405.html dead links along with http://www.starwars.com/bio/lawrencekasdan.html and three others from this site.
 * What makes the following reliable sources?
 * http://www.ruinedendings.com/film1226plot
 * http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/anamorphic/aspectratios/widescreenorama.html
 * http://www.digihometheatre.com/surround-sound/thx.html
 * http://starwarz.com/starkiller/scripts.htm
 * http://www.hollywoodgothique.com/starwarstrilogy1997.html
 * http://www.movieweb.com/dvd/news/50/17650.php
 * http://www.filmbuffonline.com/Editorial/EditorialStarWars.htm
 * http://www.dvdactive.com/easter-eggs/dvd/star-wars-episode-iii-revenge-of-the-sith.html
 * http://theforce.net/timeline/film4.asp
 * http://theswca.com/textf/promo.html (and the yellow text on a white background is NOT easy to read...)
 * http://starwarscards.net/
 * http://frankwarner.typepad.com/free_frank_warner/2003/12/story_of_reagan.html
 * Current ref 24 is lacking publisher and page number.
 * Current refs 62 and 66 are borked in their formatting.
 * http://www.alandeanfoster.com/version2.0/frameset.htm this page (current ref 79) doesn't seem to appear to source the first paragraph of the LIterature subsection.
 * Likewise, http://www.darkhorse.com/Company/Timeline, doesn't totally source the majority of the third paragraph of Literature.
 * One more thing.. You've mixed using the Template:Citation with the templates that start with Cite such as Template:Cite journal or Template:Cite news. They shouldn't be mixed per WP:CITE.
 * Otherwise sources seem okay. Double check your links with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

comment - Great effort has been made to produce free content for a notoriously difficult genre, however there are some questions regarding the validity of these images at commons Commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/Star_Wars_images, I think these issues need to be cleared up Fasach Nua (talk) 08:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose
 * My first impression: brief. Particularly considering that many people interested in Star Wars are fanatics equipped with mountains of secondary sources and extensive knowledge.
 * "The six films feature the Jedi, who use the Force for good, and the Sith, who use the dark side for evil in an attempt to take over the galaxy."--why does this objective statement--which anyone who has watched more than two of the films would understand easily--have six sources? While other, more obscure statements have no citations?
 * Why is this article protected? Are there persistent vandalism issues?
 * The "setting" section is poorly written.
 * Why is there no mention of the effects of Star Wars on the film industry? My understanding is that it drastically changed the sci-fi genre, and heavily influenced the industry at-large in other areas.  I've heard it compared to Birth of a Nation and Citizen Kane with respect to its technical achievements.
 * The lead is to brief for the topic.
 * Overall, the article has an unsatisfying airless quality to it.

Unless there is rapid and major improvement in this article, I cannot support it. Lwnf360 (talk) 01:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose, 1b. The article requires substantial expansion using major books and peer-reviewed articles from MLA and other databases.  There are many good sources covering the entire series that have not been touched here. -- Laser brain   (talk)  07:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose per crit. 1: unreferenced statements with fact tags, poor lead. Much of the sections need expansion (for example, the critical reception), some sections have almost no references, proper formatting of references (why the italics), and generally more use of varied references from books, et al. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 14:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.