Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith/archive1

Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith
This is a self-nomination. I've been fixing this up for FA status for a few weeks now and I think it's ready. I believe I've made it comprehensive and well-written at the same time. The article has had a peer review, where I have received some excellent suggestions that I've tried to implement to the best of my ability. The Filmaker 18:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Undecided, the material is thorough, but it lacks pictures of the Planet where Anakin Skywalker and Obi-Wan Kanobi fight.--Timorrison 19:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I've been very paticular about the use of images. To have too many is not only a turn-off to the voters of FACs, but generally they bunch the text together. The images are used only when they are either notable or can give an example. Hence, if you would like to specifically see pictures of Mustafar (the planet you speak of) you should be looking in the Mustafar article. Not necessarily the film's. The Filmaker 19:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support All my major concerns have been dealt with. Good article. Cvene64 21:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Fantastic job, it has improved so much, and is now very stable, it will be be a model for all Star Wars related articles Judgesurreal777 22:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. As stated above, this article has vastly improved since The Filmmaker began workingon it. It seems to give a concise, yet thorough explanation of all major aspects of the film. The Wookieepedian 23:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Just so we're clear. I support it too guys! :D The Filmaker 01:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Tobyk777 01:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment can you trim down the Synopsis section a little, a bit unencyclopedic in my view, please see the recent Halloween movies that was made FA. Thanks 172.165.98.163 03:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I will try in a moment, but I have to warn you that I may not be able to do much without compromising flow and comprehensibility. While trying not to sound to bias towards horror movies, but the Star Wars films, namely Episode III, are more complicated then a typical slasher movie. Not only do they have general character development, but there is a large conspiracy that is the center of the prequel trilogy. But I'm not saying that the Halloween articles are wrong or easier, Star Wars however is merely different. Something that has to be considered with all articles. They are all different. The Filmaker 03:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * As one of the peer reviewers, this was a request from me as well - the synopsis was trimmed, so I'm not sure how much more can be trimmed off it. Cvene64 03:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, I tried really hard this time and cut out some things I really didn't want to, but I think I've compressed it down to what is about a third less than it was before. I don't think I'll be able to go any farther then that, I also think I should point out that both of the Halloween films are almost an hour shorter than this film. The Filmaker 05:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support, per above. One comment: "Among fans, it is commonly referred to as ROTS." Who keeps on adding all of those to every Star Wars/Star Trek movie?!? I rarely (if ever) see these "commonly referred to" acronyms.--Fallout boy 04:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You'll have to go on the offical website message boards to see that. You could probably find it on the IMDB message boards as well. The Filmaker 05:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The production section seems like it could be cut down a bit. Example: After the earliest draft of the screenplay was submitted, the art department began designing the various ways that every element could appear on screen. Over a period of months, Lucas would approve which designs would appear in the film. He would later rewrite the script to correspond to certain designs he had chosen. None of this is, as far as I can tell, unusual and (tastes may vary) to me the paragraph is somewhat dull. I'd prefer something more specific. Haukur 08:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I've done a tiny rewrite on that paragraph to make it a little more specific. I've tried to accentuate the production work as, while there are design teams on many films, the Star Wars films are heavily involved in that every single aspect must be previsualized, whereas most films simply choose a location and a few costumes. In addition, a writer wouldn't normally willingly heavily rewrite his own work to correspond to a design team. The Filmaker 20:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. It's nice to point out the things that are unusual as most readers probably don't have a very clear idea on how a film is normally produced :) Haukur 16:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Very well written. I'm going to dab to touch-up Fallout boy's comment, why not just say "Among fans it is sometimes referred to as..."? Staxringold 14:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The line has been rewritten as such. The Filmaker 20:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, guys. I've changed it back after it was pointed out that it lost it's value. I honestly felt it should stay this way in the first place since I have "commonly" heard it refered to as ROTS throughout various Star Wars forums. Namely the official site and IMDB. The Filmaker 04:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support, well done! - Mailer Diablo 09:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. If this is featured, perhaps we can have it featured on May 19th? :D The Wookieepedian 14:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You can always make a request at Wikipedia talk:Tomorrow's featured article for this. :) - Mailer Diablo 16:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Wookieepedian. Henry James has already snatched up that spot. The Filmaker 17:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh well. :( The Wookieepedian 19:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

This article needs a lot of work before it passes 2a. Please recruit one or two good editors to sift through it in detail (don't just fix these examples). Let the reviewers here know when it's ready to inspect again. Tony 07:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Object—2a. I can't agree with Staxingold's take that it's "very well written"; am I from a different planet? This needs a thorough clean-up before the prose is acceptable. Here are some examples.
 * "It was the sixth and final film to be released in the Star Wars saga, but it is the third film by chronology of events. Among fans it is sometimes abbreviated as "ROTS". This sentence, exposed right at the top, should be something like:—
 * "It was the sixth and final film released in the Star Wars saga, and the third in terms of the saga's chronology. Among fans, the title is sometimes abbreviated as "ROTS".
 * Why do we get just two sentences in the lead explaining some of the background of the plot? This is too little and too much at the same time, and is out of place in the lead, at least as currently worded.
 * "The film's story was written by George Lucas, in the form of a basic plot outline, in 1973." Awkward. Try "George Lucas wrote the story in 1973, in the form of a basic plot outline." Use active voice where possible.
 * "He later professed that he knew little about the details of the story"—this is perplexing; do you mean "conceived little of" rather than "knew"?
 * "He rewrote his notes into script form"; consider instead "He transformed his notes into a script".
 * "did an uncredited rewrite and dialogue polish" is pretty raw prose, whereas this is supposed to be "compelling, even brilliant". Then we read about a "rumored" subtitle and a "guessed title" that was announced "to be true". This is amateurish writing.
 * "to determine what sets would need to be built"—try "to determine the required sets".
 * "are performed by their respective actors themselves"—remove "respective" and check that the tense shouldn't be past, as elsewhere.
 * "the speed in which it was filmed"—"at which", surely.
 * Wookiepedian has been nice enough to rewrite the article to your suggestions, I have finished up what hasn't been done. I personally think that you at times you are nitpicking over what is the equivlent of commas and who as opposed to whom. But you have raised some relevent issues and I will address them. I will reply again when I have rewritten the article for prose again. The Filmaker 19:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have done another pass over the article and have corrected any problematic prose. I do not see any at the moment, if you happen to find any other objectionable sentences. Feel free to post them. The Filmaker 19:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Article uses 11 copyrighted images, far more than necessary for identification and critical commentary. One of them, Image:ROTSteaser.jpg, does not have a source provided. Angr (t • c) 00:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Decided to be bold, and reduced from 11 to 5 fair use images. If that isn't enough, or if others feel that some should be included instead of others for purposes of explaining the story (though I think what's left is good), feel free to change it. Again, let me know if that is good enough. Judgesurreal777 03:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I've reinstated one image from the cuts by Judgesurreal777. All images have a fair reason to be inside the article. Not only to provide a visual to aid the text. The theatrical poster and DVD poster obviously are notable and belong. The image of Ewan McGregor on the green screen set is for an example of the notably vague and minimalistic sets that were used on the film. Both images in the Synopsis are obviously for an example of the "look" of the film, I agree that the others should have been cut. The cast photo is to compensate for the lack of other photos of the cast, in costume, and in character. The photo inside the Cinematic/Lit section is to give an example of the similarities between the "Odessa Steps" sequence and the corresponding scene in the film. I hope that you can support the article now that we have reduced the number of images down from 11? to 7 reasonable images. The Filmaker 16:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Object.
 * "Among fans it is known as ROTS" - so what? not important enough to be in lead.
 * Yes, it was changed from "commonly" to "sometimes" after a few people have claimed they have rarely seen it abbreviated this way. But now it has lost it's relevence and I've changed it back. See above for full reason. The Filmaker 19:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * "Taglines" section is unnecessary.
 * That section was added by another user in my absence and was removed quickly, but apparently not quick enough. The Filmaker 19:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Bad english, e.g "Many subtitles for the film were rumored", "Eventually, Revenge of the Sith, in reference to a line of dialogue in The Phantom Menace, was also a guessed title that George Lucas would later announce to be true", "While the film was shot entirely on a green screen sound stages ", "This broke several box office records, beginning with midnight screenings previously held by The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King, which earned $8 million from 2,100 midnight screenings. The opening day gross record previously held by Spider-Man 2 with $40.4 million. The single day gross record previously held by Shrek 2 with $44.8 million. And the Thursday gross record previously held by The Matrix Reloaded with $37.5 million", "In addition, a 15 part collection of web-documentaries".
 * All have been corrected. The Filmaker 19:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * dubious assetions eg " In all films of the original trilogy, the two characters were played by at least two different people" doesnt ring true - there is no anakin in ep4 or5, so what does it mean?
 * The line was poorly constructed and I've removed it because it is in fact redundant in the paragraph. The Filmaker 00:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * synopsis is way too long - compare with The Illuminatus! Trilogy which condenses a much much longer and more complex plot into 4 succinct pgraphs. plot should be one third of its current length (5 pgraphs MAX, and thats being generous).
 * I have remorsefully rewritten the section into 5 paragraphs that are severly shortened. The Filmaker 19:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * this assertion has no meaning without post-premiere statistics "The global outplacement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas claimed one week before the premiere that it may have cost the US economy approximately US$627 million in lost productivity because of employees who took a day off or reported in sick", please give the actual compared to the forecasted figures.
 * This is the equivelent of my writing "Lucas has said he eats ham sandwiches every Tuesday" and you asking for actual compared to forecasted results. How would I know if Lucas ate a ham sandwich last Tuesday? These were predicted figures that could not be more accurately taken after the release then before the release. The Filmaker 19:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * whole pgraph about pirate p2p is full of bold assetions without citations. "Reaction" section is lacking in citations.
 * Rewritten and cited. The Filmaker 19:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The word "domestically" shows america-centric bias.
 * The word "domestic" and all it's variants have been removed. The Filmaker 19:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * "Cast" section is far too listy. make it into sensible prose. better still, merge it into the plot synopsis.
 * The "Cast" section is listy because it is a list. If you can provide a suitable reason why it should be changed, then I will do so. The Filmaker 19:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * dont specify hardcoded image pixel sizes.
 * I don't understand what you mean by this. The Filmaker 19:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think I do, each image has a number of how many pixels big it's supposed to be in the article, I have removed them, I hope this meets this requirement. If not, let me know. Judgesurreal777 21:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I am reverting this until you or Judgesurreal777 or somebody can give me a specific reason for why this should not be done. The Filmaker 00:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * "Cinematic and literay allusions" is filled with original research. Die Hard? Poseidon Adventure? these kinds of statements needs seriously reliable citations but have none.
 * I have removed the opening uncitable statements regarding Die Hard, Poseidon, and Tucker Torpedo. As of right now, all paragraphs in that section have been cited. The Filmaker 19:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * One pgraph sections are not acceptable.
 * Both have been rewritten. The Filmaker 00:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Second pgraph of "Novelization" is again citation-free despite many bold assertions about the quality of the work.
 * The second paragraph has been completely rewritten and cited. The Filmaker 19:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Finally, article is non-comprehensive: the only time the film made headlines was when lucas went on record comparing the goerge bush administration with some of the events of the film, yet it gets no mention here. and why discuss only the US, UK, canada DVD release? rest of the world doesnt matter? Zzzzz 12:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * To say that not only a Star Wars film, in addition to being the last Star Wars film, only made headlines once is ridiculous and should be disregarded. Also, Lucas never went "on record" and compared the film's events to the Bush administration, but merely made one offhand comment. At one time, long before my coming here, there was a "Political Comparision" section which was loaded with OR that could not be cited by any conceivably reliable source. It is not worth mentioning one offhand comment in one interview out of hundreds. The Filmaker 19:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * While it is improbable that I would know, or be able to find out, anything about the Bulgaria DVD release, I have added a comment and citation to fix the problem. It could be a fair assumption that since all of the DVD's in UK, US, and Canada were exactly the same. That the others would be as well. The Filmaker 18:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * All of the above objections have been addressed. The Filmaker 19:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support.Hezzy 18:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose No free illustrations, as a free content encyclopedia we need to do better. There are a couple of easy ways this one could have a free illustration or two, that it lacks any at all is a clear demonstration that no one is even trying. --Gmaxwell 19:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Though I agree in sentiment, there is yet no requirement for free use images, and to expect this on such a difficult topic to get free use images, like Disney, should not keep this from being a featured article. Judgesurreal777 21:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Ditto to Judgesurreal777. To have free images is not the large purpose of Wikipedia, and it doesn't warrant a strong oppose. Wikipedia aspires is to provide information, more than photos for free use. The Filmaker 01:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is intended to be a free content encyclopedia, not the free except for images encyclopedia. We don't feature articles without illustrations unless they meet a very high bar... and this article does not meet a high enough bar to support featuring it without any free images. How shameful would be be if the DVD version (which will not have fair use images) of Wikipedia included many 'featured' articles without a single illustration?  In any case, the above claim that free images are 'difficult' is untrue in this case. For example, the article discusses people waiting in line for the movie, yet there is no illustration for that. A moments websearch shows many. I really doubt that no one would be willing to freely license such a photo. The problem is that authors in these subject areas think they can get away with a completely failure to attempt to obtain free illustrations, and our goal of free content is suffering substantially. --Gmaxwell 03:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I never meant to imply (and for that matter, I don't think I did) that Wikipedia was the "free except for images encyclopedia". But you are up in arms about this as if we are writing in Spanish on the English Encyclopedia. From what I understand about obtaining free images is that it is a difficult, lengthy and frustrating process, hence the reason why it is not required. In the end an encylopedia is a collection of information, some happen to have images, to paraphrase the DMV "Images are a privilege, not a right." even for featured articles. The Filmaker 04:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * One more thing to add, the simple fact lies in the rules, the requirements, the criteria. For an article to be promoted to featured article status, it does not require free illustrations. The reason for this objection appears to be a personal preference on your part, something that also does not belong on FAC voting or Wikipedia for that matter. The Filmaker 04:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No. It is not a personal preference. It's a stated goal of the project. The article is inferior to others because it fails to meet the stated criteria of Wikipedia. Thus it is not an example of the best we have to offer. If you think this article is feature worthy without images, feel free to remove all of them, and I'll remove my objection. I would not be opposing if I thought this article was clearly feature worthy enough that it could stand without images. --Gmaxwell 05:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point, again. I'm not saying that the article could stand up without images. Although now that you mention it, it probably could, but I still will not remove them since they do aid the article. And what is this about it failing the stated criteria of Wikipedia? "It has images where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status; however, including images is not a prerequisite for a featured article." this is from the featured article criteria and is the only mention on the subject of images. My quote from the DMV "Images are a privilege, not a right." was meant to say that you should be grateful for the fact that you have images at all. The rules and requirements of the official article on the subject say nothing about free images being mandatory, to the point that they don't even require images at all. That criteria is the stated goal of the project. The Filmaker 06:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Having images isn't a requirement, I fully understand this and I made as much clear in my response. However, being free content *is* a requirement. You can argue that images are not completely part of the article, and I wouldn't disagree... but they are part of the article to some extent, and as a result they make the article less than fully free content. We will tolerate this to some extent (you should note that most language wikipedias do not permit any form of fair use at all) because some fair use is sometimes needed to make a really complete article. Here we have an article where no attempt has been made to have any free illustrations instead it is filled with non-free images which compromise the completely free status of the article. I believe everyone can agree that featured articles are intended to be the best of what Wikipedia can offer... and a page slathered with unfree images when at least some free ones are possible is certainly not the best our Free Content encyclopedia can offer.--Gmaxwell 19:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Let's say we have an 8 floor building, the 8th floor dominates the other 7. According to 8th floor rules, no employee may use the bathroom between the hours of 5:00pm and 7:00pm. At the same time another set of rules is sent down to each floor to correspond it each floor's paticular needs. The 8th floor sends a set of rules down to the 7th, saying that handicapped employees may use the bathroom at all times. Your objection is the equivlent of my being a handicapped person and wanting to go to the bathroom at 6:00pm. You stop me because the general rules say that I cannot use the bathroom at this time. My arguement is that the rules of the 7th floor state that I can. Now let's jump back to reality, the general requirements ask to for free-content (making no mention of images), while the FA requirements state that the article does not even need images at all. You are refusing to allow a perfectly good article to gain FA status simply because there isn't an image of some costumed nerds standing in front of a theater. Since I cannot find an article that discusses this at all, please provide a link to an article on obtaining free illustrations as well as the rules and regulations of them. Otherwise it cannot, and will not, be done. The Filmaker 22:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Your analogy is just confusing things. Wikipedia exists for a clearly defined purpose. "To create a free content encyclopedia". This article is not a shining example of the work that a free content encyclopedia can create, thus it should not be featured. As I said above, I'd would not be opposing on these grounds if you were trying to pass an unillustrated article through. An unillustrated article doesn't fail to meet the goal of the project. You can learn more about obtaining images for wikipedia at Images. I'd be glad to help improve your understanding of this subject, but insisting to me that free images will not be provided unless I go out of my way to educate you about a core requirement of Wikipedia... is a little rude. :-/ Still, I really would be glad to help. --Gmaxwell 04:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I asked for the link because it is your responsiblity to provide a suitable reason for your objection, since I have been having serious trouble understanding, or agreeing, with your opinion, you have to provide suitable information on why your objection is relevent or actionable. This especially true you quote some article from somewhere in the site that apparently clearly defines Wikipedia's purpose, without providing an actual link to this article. Wheareas I have in the past with the FA criteria link. Finally, the images in the Synopsis section and the Cinematic/Lite section are screenshots from the film, created by me, which I donated to public domain. How is that not a free illustration? The Filmaker 06:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * An amateur picture of people standing in line to go watch the movie would not, I think, add significantly to the article. It would be especially silly if all the other images were removed. Haukur 19:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you honestly think a picture of the crazy people standing in line for weeks for a movie wouldn't add something to the article or are you only saying that to support this articles use of copyrighted images? --Gmaxwell 19:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * "Drats! He saw through my hiddan nefarious motives." :D No, seriously, I was visualizing a boring amateurish underexposed picture of a bunch of people standing in a queue. If you've got an interesting freely licenced professional quality picture of crazy people standing in line then by all means upload it. But I think the current image use in the article is pretty good. I might lose the picture of the cast, though. Haukur 20:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I have just browsed flickr, and the only CC licenses that would be allowed are just images of a rots poster on the side of a bus and not much else. No fans sleeping outside the movies unfortunantly. Anyway, I still don't fully agree with the objection. If there were such images available - they would be used. But there just is not. Cvene64 02:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yay. End of discussion. The Filmaker 03:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * And suddenly Flkr is the end of the internet? I'm glad someone made some effort at all, but 'I spend 2 minutes on Flkr looking doesn't say 'featured article' to me. --Gmaxwell 04:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, Flickr is one of the main sources of free images, that is, unless a user uploads their own (which, obviously has not happened!). There are no appropriate images on Wikimedia either. Fair-use images are being used in the absence of free images - what is the problem? It would be nice to have some free images, but none are available, so I can't see the point of your objection. Cvene64 07:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually,There is already a free image on Wikipedia related to this movie, but it seems all involved are more interested in arguing ... with claims that movie screenshots are free images.. than actually understanding what free content is, and actually putting in a little effort to find some... Shameful. --Gmaxwell 14:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * So now we're supposed to go scavenger hunting? You could save both of us a lot of trouble if you would just start helping (like you said you would) instead of ignoring my question as to why the screenshots are not free images. Why does it appear that you are the only user who is even half-way interested in free images? Could it possibly be because they aren't a valid reason to object to an article? The Filmaker 15:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The screenshots are not free images in the sense of the words used on Wikipedia (or any sense of the words I am familiar with). We do prefer free content where possible and those images are not free content. The thing is that almost any picture relevant to this article will not be free. Gmaxwell is entitled to his crusade, I just don't see a big difference between a FAC with 5 FU images and 0 free images and one with 5 FU images and 1 free image. Haukur 15:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The only free image I can find is a very blurry photo of George Lucas signing a book at the Episode III premiere in Germany. Doesn't seem particularly relevant and certainly isn't featured-quality. I hope that's not the pic Gmaxwell is referring to. Kafziel 16:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, Image:GeorgeLucas.jpg would not enhance the article if added. I would prefer no image at all. Haukur 16:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Superior1. The article is a lot better than before and provides lots of information.
 * Object, 2e. Comment Fails the "stable" criterion in a big way. Constant edit wars, vandalism, and changes on a nearly daily basis. Kafziel 16:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree. We have no such "constant edit wars", if you are refering to the reverts I made to two people this morning for adding un-needed info into the Synopsis, then that's hardly a suitable arguement for "constant edit wars". Vandalism isn't a large problem, at the time that I was editing the article for FA status it was not a problem at all. It only recently began now that it is a FAC and even still is not much of a problem at all. The edits that are made on a nearly daily basis are to comply with FA voters. Common for an FAC. The Filmaker 16:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * How do you quantify "stable", then? It barely had time to cool off after the peer review before it was nominated, and there have been nearly 200 edits since then. If you can't judge stability based on the period before the nomination, and you can't judge stability on the period during the nomination, when can you? After the nomination?
 * An article should find its level for a while before being pushed to FAC from PR. This one jumped the gun. Kafziel 16:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If an article is vandalized daily, then we have a problem. If it's vandalized every three days then we have a problem. But to say that an article should "cool down" after a peer review is useless, because a peer review and an FAC are fundamentally the same thing. The only difference being the outcome. Think of the 200 edits after the peer review as an extended part of the peer review. In other words, you can judge the stability of the article before the nomination. By judging the stability before the peer review. The Filmaker 17:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't feel it's accurate to judge the quality of an article based on its state before the peer review; nine times out of ten, the article you submit for FAC is vastly different than the one you submit for a PR. It's not useless at all to let an article sit after a peer review. It shows whether the community in general is happy with the changes suggested in the peer review. In my opinion, if an article isn't stable enough to go a single day without a significant edit, then it's not stable. I don't count random, stupid vandalism in there. The best articles still attract idiots. But if, every day, someone shows up and feels the synopsis is confusing, or the content is incorrect, then it's not stable.
 * Of course, if Raul654 feels my standards are unreasonable, he'll ignore my objection. If this is the only remaining one, chances are it won't sink your ship. For what it's worth, I do think the article looks good. Kafziel 17:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you, but in final defense of the article, your original objection to the article was for constant edit wars, vandalism, and changes on a daily basis. So far you have only been able to describe grounds for one: changes on a daily basis. I have only recently finished addressing all of the FA voters problems with the article. This is the reason there are a billion edits on a daily basis. I have received wonderful support from many people in the community who are very happy with the changes. As for the Synopsis being edited every day, I don't believe it has/will be. At the moment I believe any editors that happen to try to edit the Synopsis wish to add more detail for the sake of adding more detail. Such as the fact that Grievous' death is extremely brief in the synopsis. A Star Wars fan who happens to visit Wikipedia once may see the synopsis and think "That's not all that happened!" and edit the synopsis in order to add detail that should in fact be in the General Grievous article. This is just the article being caught in the crossfire of amatuerish wikipedia writers. It cannot ever be avoided, not now, not by letting the article sit for a few months after a peer review. The Filmaker 17:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Believe me, I understand. I work on Clone troopers, and Battlefront II all the time, and it's a constant battle against childish junk. But if that's the case here, then it would never meet the basic stability requirement and shouldn't even be nominated at FAC. That stability clause is by far the most overlooked requirement here, but it was put there for a reason. It helps avoid creating featured articles that will be vandalized and hacked at every day. If a featured article looks bad even for 5 minutes, Wikipedia looks bad, too. Kafziel 18:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This battle on Episode III is not a constant battle. I don't believe it would be daily. But you can't say that out of 1000 featured articles there is not ever any vandalism or some kind of frequent unneeded change. I wouldn't be surprised if I was told with that statement that Wikipedia constantly looks bad. The article is stable and edit wars are not present, vandalism is not frequent at all, and constant changes will dwindle now that all objections to the article have been addressed. The Filmaker 18:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I've added a hidden warning to the top of the synopsis warning people not to add unneccesary info to the synopsis. This should stop many new users from doing so. The Filmaker 18:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Neutral for now. I may help out a bit if I can. &mdash; Deckill e r 19:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Please be specific to which Objections you wish to be addressed. Both objections that feature lists of problems have been fully addressed. The Filmaker 19:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You have failed to address my objection. :) --Gmaxwell 19:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps he did not directly mean your objection. Also, your objection is currently being debated. Although you haven't responded to my last reply. Hence no action has been taken to correct it, since as of right now I still don't believe that the objection is on good grounds. The Filmaker 20:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, changed the wording. &mdash; Deckill e r 02:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Very detailed (which compensates a "lack" of images), but some sections are lenghty (specially the "box office" one). And it's time to have our first Star Wars FA! igordebraga ≠ 19:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC) (may the Force be with you...)