Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope/archive1

Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope
WITHDRAW: I unfortunately underanticipated my work load from the outside world. I recognize that this article needs a through copyedit and more references and perhaps more information. However I am not prepared for such a task at the moment and will instead focus on something smaller. I would like to withdraw this nomination from the FAC. The Filmaker 16:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Self-nomination. I've been working on this article since The Phantom Menace was promoted to FA status, having finished the prequel trilogy I decided to continue on with the original trilogy. 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. It has also received a copyedit from User:Judgesurreal777. I believe that if The Phantom Menace, Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith are worthy of FA, this article is as well. The Filmaker 12:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support per my own nom. The Filmaker 12:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose:
 * "Nineteen years after the formation of the Galactic Empire just as development has been completed on a weapon capable of destroying an entire planet, the Death Star." Is this a sentence?
 * "After American Graffiti debuted as the third highest grossing film of the year, Lucas received rave reviews. " Doesn't getting "rave reviews" usually mean the movie was well reviewed? And isn't the movie usually reviewed before its release? And when you say it "debuted as the third highest grossing film of the year," do you mean that on AG's debut weekend, it was already the year's top-grossing film, or was it not reckoned as the #3 film until the year was over?
 * "a "used universe" in which all devices, ships and buildings could be seen as having been logically built." Logically built? This is vague and hard to understand.
 * "Burtt ran "beeps and boops" of his own voice with an electronic synthesizer." Er, what did he do?
 * "According to Daniels, one of the major voice actors was impressed by his voice and recommended to Lucas that it be left in." The actor's own voice? Daniels' voice? Freberg's?
 * For that matter, there are no contemporary reviews of Star Wars mentioned in the article. We get no idea of what contemporary film critics thought at the time of its release.
 * Added Roger Eberts 1977 review. Judgesurreal777 19:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Ebert's opinion is fine, but we need more than that. What about Pauline Kael, Andrew Sarris, Vincent Canby, or other notable film critics active at the time? Andrew Levine 03:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I am concerned by the fact that an article on such a well-known subject draws almost entirely from two sources (a DVD feature and a single unofficial website).
 * Comment -I would be concerned as well, were it not that the documentary is co-directed by Ken Burns, one of the most acclaimed documentarians in American history. Why have 50 different references, when you have a vast resource all in one place to draw from? Judgesurreal777 18:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Then the documentary is subject to Ken Burns' own point of view and his own decisions about what to include and exclude. This is something that fans of baseball and jazz are already familiar with, though really it is the same with any documentarian, historian, or chronicler. That's why we need more diverse sources. I admit that I haven't watched this movie myself since I was a kid (late '80s), but there are probably less than a dozen films ever made which have been more heavily written about, reviewed, probed, praised, criticized, and generally remarked upon than Star Wars. There is no shortage of material out there. Andrew Levine 03:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I will read the rest of the article later, and make other suggestions. Andrew Levine 15:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support King fish erswift  17:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - I have contributed to this article, and I must say it is a real treat, in that since such extensive documentation was done on this film, there is a depth of detail that is hard to top. It does the film justice. Judgesurreal777 18:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Object per Judgesurreal777. -86.132.113.77 20:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Ummm, I didn't object...lol Judgesurreal777 21:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Haha - well, whoever it was then. I oppose per the objections above. :) -86.138.100.21 22:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Inadequate range of references, relying entirely on the internet and a documentary. This was a major movie. What did the newspapers and film journals have to say about it? Books? It's dangerous to rely on such a narrow range of sources, as you're going to be reporting Burns's view not the NPOV. --kingboyk 20:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC) (edit conflict)
 * Oppose, per above. A lack of variety in references was a point I brought up in peer review as well. The Wookieepedian 02:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose - It looks pretty good right now, but the article probably should have gone thru at least one more peer review, I think, before being submitted for FA. Definitely have to agree that using such an incredibly limited range of references is a major failing.  This is an important film with a wealth of available information out there.  Many other sources could be utilized for production details; as an example, Cinefantastique did an amazingly detailed "Making Of" article a few months after its release.  Using strictly fan sites or Lucas-approved documentaries will only tell you part of the story.  Also, the critical response section desperately needs to be greatly expanded.  The film received many positive reviews at the time of its initial release, not just from Roger Ebert -- why is his the only one cited?  And a mention should be made of some of the negative responses, too (such as Pauline Kael in The New Yorker  or Terry Curtis Fox in Film Comment).Hal Raglan 02:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Just as a point of fact, there was a peer review right before we submitted it. Thanks for the comments. Judgesurreal777 03:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Object due to the prose problems mentioned above and others ("Ladd, Jr. was often scrutinized in board meetings because of the rising budget and drafts of the screenplay that was difficult to grasp."). – Outʀiggʀ 03:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per above. I also think there could be a few more refs.  This is one of my favriote movies and I would be proud to support it in FAC.  If you fix the objections listed here (without creating new ones), I will support.  The article is almost there just needs a bit more work.  Tobyk777 05:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Object for now per prose problems; I promised to copyedit the article, and I have some free time this afternoon (and maybe even before morning classes). &mdash; Deckill e r 11:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Response While I can see the desire for a wider range of references in the "Allusions" section. It would redundant and unproductive to ask for different references for the "Production" section. The documentary the section is sourced on appeared on the 2004 DVD edition of the Star Wars trilogy. It was produced by Lucasfilm Ltd. therefore giving it George Lucas' own personal stamp of approval. Whereas film journals, news articles, and magazine articles can contain misreports or misinterpretations, or even fabrications. As a result they are more POV then Burns' film which I would consider NPOV since Lucasfilm itself signed off on it. Any references found books, magazines, newspapers, or film journals would provide the same amount of information and would be inferior unless they had been written by Lucas or someone actually involved in the production of the film. As for the prose problems, Deckiller will be my hero and copyedit it, and hopefully Thefourdotelipsis will too. I will attempt to gather more people together to copyedit the entire article. The Filmaker 15:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You have stated a preference for sources that are only limited to Lucas-sanctioned production reports. This means that any contentious details, or comments from technicians/actors that don't conform to Lucasfilm's POV, would be eliminated from the article.  From your response, you seem to be assuming that any other sources would not include information from people who worked on the film.  The Cinefantastique article I mentioned in my original comment above is actually full of dozens of lengthy interviews with a multitude of individuals associated with the production.  Its an extremely comprehensive production history article, one of the best I've ever read on any film.  Because the interviews were conducted by different writers, and the article was published by a reputable magazine with no actual association with Lucasfilm or Fox, I would think its actually less POV than a self-serving Lucas puff piece.  I'm not strictly pushing this one magazine; certainly there have to be many other periodicals/books that have also conducted interviews regarding this film.  The problem with sticking only with very few fan-associated or press release references is that you are consequently only stuck with their inherent POV -- which in fact could involve  deliberate "misreports or misinterpretations, or even fabrications".  My personal view is that I can't fully trust a wikipedia article that only provides citations to a small amount of potentially biased sources.Hal Raglan 17:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Hal's right. More sources for the information could only serve to strengthen the credibility of the article. You don't have to remove the Lucas-approved reference. Just add alternative sources to go with it. If the information pans out, there should hopefully be more than a single source for it anyway. That isn't always the case, of course, but with a subject like this, it certainly should be. It's one of the most documented films in history. By including other writers' perspectives, the NPOV factor of the article would not be compromised. Quite the opposite, in fact. It would be reinforced. Ryu Kaze 17:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * NPOV is quite possibly the most misunderstood policy we have. It doesn't mean casting subjects in a favourable light, it doesn't mean we have to neuter articles, it means simply that we report what the "experts" (the reliable, verifiable sources) have to say without letting our own opinions get in the way. If majority critical opinion is that a film stinks, with a few dissenters, we report mostly on the majority and mention the minority opinion to give some balance . If majority critical opinion is favourable, we lean the other way. In short, a top quality article draws on as many reliable sources as possible and lets the reader draw their own conclusion. --kingboyk 08:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Object per above. — Wackymacs 09:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Fixed the prose problems listed above, will start looking for suggested reviews. Judgesurreal777 18:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Object per Hal Raglan. Also, can you get better photos for the Cast and Production sections? The production photo is blurry and boring (a pic showing Alec Guinness just sitting there could go in any of his films) and the cast photo fails because Chewbacca is cut off. Why not use the very final shot of the film in that section?--Dark Kubrick 19:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Object. A film as important as this should have a section that deals with its influence on other films, pop culture, etc. (besides the reaction from the critics). I'm sure there are some valuable print sources that deal with this, particularly works by film and cultural historians. I ran across various references as I was writing the recently featured character articles. I can list some here for you when I have the time. Dmoon1 20:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)