Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace/archive1

Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace
This is a self-nomination. I've been working on this article to finish out the Star Wars prequel trilogy since I finished getting Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones and Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith article up to FA status. I've written this article to follow suit in the same style as the previous articles, it was recently named a good article and has received a peer review which unfortunately did not receive much notice. Instead I decided to simply put it up for FA. I believe that if Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith are worthy of FA, this article is as well. The Filmaker 00:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support per my own nomination. The Filmaker 01:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support This is a great article Soundoflolllermania 01:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support On par with the other two FA's, and a thorough copyedit before submission this time! I helped contribute to this article, just so that's clear :)Judgesurreal777 01:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Pedant 01:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. The Wookieepedian 01:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. per nom. Awful movie, excellent article. RyanG e rbil10 (The people rejoice!) 01:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 *  Object —I'm delighted that at least some FACs dealing with popular fiction are coming to us better written. This one is pretty good, but needs a final run-through by a copy-editor so that it really does represent WP's best work. I will support this after it has been cleansed of these micro-problems. Here are examples from the lead.
 * "in hopes of finding a peaceful end to the dispute"—No, singular "in the hope" is idiomatic. But why not "in the hope of bringing the dispute to a peaceful end"?
 * "It is there that the Jedi encounter a young slave boy unusually strong in the Force." Spelling out what is currently elided after "boy" ("who is") would make this sentence an easier read, wouldn't it?
 * "Its release on 19 May 1999 came almost 16 years after the previous film released in the series,..."—Starting a paragraph with a back-link such as "Its" is usually risky. Why not "The release of the film on 19 May 1999 came almost 16 years after the previous film in the series,...". Note how it's not necessary to repeat "release(d)". Then continue "The release ..." in the next sentence. But get rid of "after its release" in "The Phantom Menace was the highest grossing film of 1999, and the fourth highest grossing film of all-time after its release." How could it gross anything before its release?
 * "It is the highest grossing Star Wars film ever, without adjustment for inflation." Either "even without adjusting for inflation" or remove the clause altogether. See what I mean?

Looking further down, I see lots of little redundancies (e.g., "he had written"—reword this flabby sentence; "in order to" should be just "to") and other little faults (there's a semicolon that should be a colon; did the production plan to leave, or the producer?). So don't just fix these examples—network to find others who'll help out with fresh eyes. What about Deckiller? Tony 02:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC) PS Looking at the history page, I see that Judgesurreal and The Wookieepedian are prominent contributors in addition to the nominator. I always announce here when I've worked on an article and want to support its nomination; perhaps you should have too. Tony 02:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I've fixed all of your said concerns and I've fired off a message to Deckiller. I am however unsure of what you mean by "there's a semicolon that should be a colon; did the production plan to leave, or the producer?" Are these two seperate concerns? Or is the former causing the latter? The Filmaker 03:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I've started the copyediting process. There are some phrases that look awkward to me, but that's subjective. The major concerns are redundancies and passive writing. &mdash; Deckill e r 03:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think I'll stop for now. It looks pretty good overall, but I think someone else should do a runthrough to make sure. &mdash; Deckill e r 05:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Support: Quite well-written and informative. It also follows the format of the other two prequel trilogy articles, and is well-referenced. There's efficient use of images as well, though I think a shot of Jar-Jar could have been used in the Reaction section to give readers an idea of why some people have drawn the conclusions they did from his appearance. Overall, though, a great article. There's definitely been a lot of good work done here. Ryu Kaze 12:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Small note: some of the images could use a little more fair-use rationale. Ryu Kaze 12:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Rationales have been fixed. :) The Filmaker 19:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support I think the article is looking great now. &mdash; Deckill e r 13:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC) Neutral &mdash; I just noticed that I missed two sections of the article when copyediting. &mdash; Deckill e r 20:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Support. Yet another fantastic SW article. Kudos. Start part IV! ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 23:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Per nom. Hezzy 18:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Object -- prose still needs a little work . Please avoid "easter eggs" -- in the lead, "young slave boy" is a wikilink to Anakin Skywalker, and again in the DVD release section.  There is some low-value WP:NOR / WP:AWT stuff here -- "It is commonly suggested that the title refers to Darth Sidious or the Sith in general. The title could also refer to the origin of Darth Sidious' name, which is the adjective "insidious". The Oxford English Dictionary gives the following definition..." Who makes this suggestion, and who has suggested that the OED definition of insidious important to understand the film?  There's a lot of this in the "Cast" section, where we see awkward sentences like "An astonishingly smart astromech droid, he saves Queen Amidala's ship when all other droids fail." Whose judgement is this description of the character relying upon?  Ours?  Why do we think that is the best way to describe that character?  There are at least four items referenced to the "Star Wars Message Boards" forum, and one to "Star Trek Episode 80: The Forum".  Neither are reliable sources.  I suspect that very little of the WP:NOR and non-WP:RS material could not be sourced properly with some effort, and anything that can't should be cut from the article.  Jkelly 19:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Your concerns have been addressed. The Filmaker 01:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support-- Another excellent Star Wars movie article. Teh tennisman 23:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Prose still needs work in the cast section &mdash; after that, I think it's up to decent standards. I still suggest that someone go through the article and see what I missed. &mdash; Deckill e r 23:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and removed the OR/RS issues. The section can be made MUCH tighter if we just say "the title was not explained by Lucas", or "Lucas states that the title means...". &mdash; Deckill e r 23:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I've copy-edited it; I don't want to do any more of this type of article, so I'm counting on the prospect that the main contributors are going to collaborate to ensure that they enter this process in better shape. Even though, by this stage, this one wasn't in too bad a shape, numerous changes were necessary; please see my inline queries. Tony 03:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I run through your inline queries and fixed all of them. :) The Filmaker 20:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment about sources -- I noticed that all of the sources for this article are from the Internet or DVDs. Not that these are unimportant, but there are several important print works that focus on this film not used. Listed below is a sample of printed works with useful information. I think to ignore such sources calls into question the comprehensiveness of this article. Sorry to be difficult. Dmoon1 03:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Bowen, Jonathan L. Anticipation: The Real Life Story of Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace. Lincoln, Neb.: iUniverse, 2005. ISBN 0595347320.
 * Delaney, Robert. "The Myth of George Lucas Surrounding The Phantom Menace." In Kurt Lancaster and Tom Mikotowicz, eds. Performing the Force: Essays on Immersion Into Science-Fiction, Fantasy and Horror Environments. Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland, 2001. ISBN 0786408952.
 * Hanson, Michael J., and Max S. Kay. Star Wars: The New Myth. Philadelphia: Xlibris, 2001. ISBN 1401039898.
 * Kenny, Glenn, ed. A Galaxy Not So Far Away: Writers and Artists on Twenty-Five Years of Star Wars. New York: Owl Books, 2002. ISBN 0805070745.
 * Koschorke, Albrecht. The Holy Family and Its Legacy: Religious Imagination from the Gospels to Star Wars. Trans. Thomas Dunlap. New York: Columbia University Press, 2003. Chap. 23. ISBN 0231127561.
 * That doesn't necessarily make an article uncomprehensive, it just means it uses a different type of reliable sources. If you own this works, feel free to reference them. &mdash; Deckill e r 03:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't say the article is uncomprehensive; if I thought that I would have objected. I just think sources like these (and there are probably others out there) ought to be incorporated to have all the bases covered and avoid charges of uncomprehensiveness by someone pickier than myself. BTW, all of these can be accessed at Google Books. Dmoon1 20:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. This probably falls under the Filmaker's expertise, since I was just here to copyedit with Tony :) &mdash; Deckill e r 04:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support once again. Tony's followup copyedits all but cement this one, IMHO. &mdash; Deckill e r 04:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong object why oh why do we need another fantasy/scifi featured article? It was bad enough when we voted for that wierd space food article... Furthermore, the article is way too long winded and filled with mindless(and mindnumbing) details. Have any of you ever considered the minute fraction of the world's population that has actually watched the movie ??? WoodElf 12:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This objection is inactionable and should be disregarded. The Filmaker 12:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Not to mention, we already HAD a Star wars FA just a few days ago! And it is YOU who should be disregarded, Film maker. One look at your user page and it is clear you would support any article remotely connected to Star Wars. WoodElf 12:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith do not degrade me for my interest in Star Wars. The reason why I support the article's nomination is because I am nominator of the article. And I did not say you should be disregarded, only your objection, as there is nothing I can do to convince you to change your objection to a support. Finally, you seem to be confused on what a featured article is. A common misconception is that featured articles are the articles that appear on the main page, this is not true, featured articles simply articles that are considered to be the best articles on Wikipedia. What you are looking for is Today's featured article and it's requests, which are the articles that eventually appear on the main page. The Filmaker 13:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * okey dokey then . :) WoodElf 15:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * To Filmaker: You don't need to worry about convincing WoodElf to change their vote. As it stands, the reasons for her/his objection is inactionable so won't be counted. | To WoodElf: Please be WP:CIVIL in debate. If you don't think the article is of high enough quality, qualify your objection to let it stand. --Oldak Quill 02:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support good article, although (just like the film) isn't quite in the level of Revenge of the Sith. May the Force be with you. igordebraga ≠ 14:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Object The cast section lets down the article - if it was addressed I think it would greatly improve the article. The FA's Halloween and Night of the Living Dead are examples of where the Cast section is far superior than the one in this article - this one should follow their lead, as they talk about how the casting took place etc. LuciferMorgan 19:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The format of the cast section has already been voted through twice before when Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith were up as featured article candidates. It also purposefully parallels the Blade Runner FA. Finally, the article, like the articles on AOTC and ROTS, does discuss the casting of Anakin Skywalker. As much as I wish there was more to fill the section out with, I have been unable to find more information from reliable sources on notable casting events. Not all film articles have to be formatted the same. The Filmaker 20:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The Cast sections in Halloween (film) and Night of the Living Dead are awful. When I go to a film article, I want to know whos in the cast and a description of their role and career briefly. ROTS, AOTC, Casablanca (film), Richard III (1955 film), and V for Vendetta (film) are all examples of what a cast section should look like. And all of those articles talk about the casting as well, so it's win win. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 03:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Week Support WP:LEAD, but otherwise ok. :) --Shane (talk/contrib) 18:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What problems specifically do you have with the lead? The Wookieepedian 18:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The cast sections in Casablanca (film), Richard III (1955 film), and V for Vendetta (film) are frankly a pile of crap and if the user who commented wishes for a basic list, just go to IMDB. It's obvious you'll all pass this article you biased clowns, even though it's below FA standard. Be objective for a change all you Star Wars members. Lists make disjointed prose, which is mentioned in 2. a. of "What is a featured article?", but obviously none of you can be bothered. I'd also like to say the Blade Runner FA was passed in September 2005, so that doesn't count at all as it'll be up for review sooner or later this year. LuciferMorgan 21:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Please remain civil and do not personally attack users, as you did by saying "biased clowns" and so on. Also, please do not make such generalizations; not all of us are "resistant to change". As a matter of fact, I agree that the cast section should be in a more paragraph format (as per FF8). &mdash; Deckill e r 21:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Support: Good article, and come on, it's Star Wars. -- Boa  Drummer   09:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow. And that's 9 comments below a link to WP:GF and 7 below WP:CIVIL. It is one thing to state your opinion, it is another to attack users after they object to it. The Filmaker 21:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I honestly cannot see how your arguement applies to 2.a, although you could be more clear on what your objection to lists are. And the fact that the Blade Runner article is almost a year old is hardly a suitable reason for it to not "count at all". The listed Cast section has been passed in featured articles numerous times and provides the same amount of information as it would be in paragraph form. The Filmaker 21:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * True; it's more of a subjective objection in this case, but we may want to take it into account if it starts a pile-on (and heck, it might be a decent idea). &mdash; Deckill e r 21:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I never said I didn't take it into consideration, I've taken into consideration as far back as the Revenge of the Sith article, most people have an (incidentally) biased outlook on lists i.e. refering to lists as poor writing without having rationale to back their claim up. I truly believe that if we convert the Cast section into prose that there will not be enough significant information to allow prose reach beyond "Liam Nesson was cast as Qui-Gon. Ewan McGregor was cast as Obi-Wan." I was barely able to scrap out any information on the casting of Anakin Skywalker for the paragraph at the bottom of the section. If the section is converted to prose, it will be flat. The Filmaker 21:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a very good point &mdash; plus, any other info would be excess filler and fluff, info sure to be full of redundancies and equally iffy prose. Perhaps it's best that it remains as it is for conservative reasons. &mdash; Deckill e r 22:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I know I'm biased, but I think the solution in Richard III (1955 film) works beautifully, because It gives information about the casting process, then outlines info about who each character is, and a little info about each actor. But then, I'm biased. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 05:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)