Wikipedia:Featured article review/Padmé Amidala/archive1


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

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 15:11, 18 December 2009.

Review commentary

 * Notified: Deckiller, Jappalang, LtPowers, Dmoon1, and Star Wars.

I am nominating this featured article for review for a number of reasons. It's understandable that this may have happened, as the featuring of this article was many years ago, but it still has to be addressed. Some concerns include:


 * 1) It has a severe lack of referencing in much of the Appearances section;
 * 2) It has a dispute over the number of fair use images;
 * 3) Speaking OF the fair use images, I'm eternally neutral. While their purpose is clear, I'm not entirely sure it's necessary to demonstrate the inspiration for particular costumes twice.
 * 4) The 2008-2009 Clone Wars section is criminally underdeveloped, merely stating she appears in it. Perhaps even, it should be slightly expanded and The Clone Wars film section should be trimmed, since they are clearly connected.
 * 5) The film Clone Wars section seems incredibly large, considering that not only is her role not as "major" as in the prequel trilogy, but it seems undue weight with or without the long plot summaries in it. The other appearances sections, especially Episode III, could use some trimming as well to just the bare, most important facts of Padmé's role.
 * 6) To call her "appearance" in Jedi an appearance comes off as very in-universe - she didn't appear, and she was likely a very different character then (if there was a character to speak of). It should be given a short sentence in the beginning of the Appearances section.
 * 7) It really has no reception or appearances in popular culture which are both, in all intents and purposes, the most important out-of-universe content. I'm sure someone involved in Star Wars could go on for the longest time about creating the Gonk Droid, but if no one else gives a crap, the Gonk Droid won't have its own article. Not to suggest Padmé does not have her own reception, just that even after it was brought up on its talk page [which is clearly not inactive, or not too so], nothing was done to fix it.
 * 8) Does not cover the character in video games in any way; it was even mentioned a few years ago, but was dismissed that her appearance in video games was irrelevant and she had no major roles in the games.
 * 9) It lacks any coverage of her appearance in Star Wars merchandising.

I wouldn't mind throwing my hat in the ring to improve it in some way, but what I can provide ATM is very limited, so basically the same FAR jargon - I'll give the editors a chance to fix the problems, but if it's not addressed in the next seven days, I will move to the consensus process. Good luck! The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 05:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Please add alt text to images; see WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 05:54, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

On the "free" images On the copyrighted images The images used as they are would not have passed muster at current FAC standards. Jappalang (talk) 00:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Image concerns
 * File:Xenia.jpg: there is no proof that this was first published in Russia, nor is there proof of the publishing date. The two links provided are dead, but can be retrieved at http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/3513146.html and http://web.archive.org/web/20030522063737/http://www.hoover.org/pubaffairs/newsletter/99winter/romanoff.html.  According to them, this photo is very likely a private possession of Xenia until the Hoover Institution acquired it.  If so, first publishing of this photo is 1999 (in the exhibition), which means US copyright lasts for 70 years after the death of an author, or 31 December 2004, whichever is greater.  That leads to to question the authorship; someone has put down in Russian that the photographers are "Boasson and Eggler".  The Hoover Institution does not state this and no proof is given by the editor that they are the photographers, but the photographers did take another photo that has Xenia in another pose and location, wearing the same gown.  Not conclusive, but a likely identity.  If they are the authors, then we would have to find out their death dates (for the 70 years pma) if the photo was not first published as a post card.  All in all, this photo lacks verification for its first publishing date and location, and authorship, to claim that it is public domain in its country of origin (and United States).
 * File:MongolianRoyalty.jpg: link provided does not point to the page of the photo. Neither does it provide the necessary information to verify that this photo is indeed "free"&mdash;i.e. first publishing date and location, and authorship (including death dates).
 * File:Padme ep1.jpg: does not fulfill WP:NFCC. Specifically, there is nothing stated about its significance (other than her first appearance), not is there critical commentary about this image.
 * File:RefugeePadme.jpg: per Talk:Padmé Amidala, the costume portrayed by this image is so close in appearance to File:Xenia.jpg (if Xenia is a verifiably "free" photo) that a free replacement is available (Xenia + words). Hence, it would fail NFCC on that ground alone (again provided Xenia's photo is indeed "free").
 * "Xenia + words" is not a suitable replacement for the actual image. Powers T 13:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In fact, once this article is demoted, I will be merging it into an appropriate list. Out-of-universe content is one thing, but no one seems interested in the least in saving it, so I doubt anyone's going to do the work to add critical reception of the character. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding? A main character of the prequel trilogy?  You've got to be joking.  There are sufficient references just for her costuming alone.  There is no way this should be merged.  Powers T 14:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What about her clothing makes her notable? How the director made the character is so far from adequate notability. This article lacks any coverage by independent secondary sources. At what point does "notable to Star Wars" become notable to the real world? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not the place for that discussion. If you propose a merge once this review is closed, we can discuss it there.  Powers T 01:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to drag this out here, but you responded to the statement by arguing against my statement with a countering point, so don't try to look like like the mature one. I was stating my intention that when this article is demoted, I would be merging it because it has no critical commentary. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Completely uninvolved admin here, any merge of an article without being properly discussed on the article's talk page will be reverted. -MBK004 04:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I probably wouldn't merge it in the end, but it just goes to show how people react. No one cares that it's of low quality, but people care when its low quality is reason to merge it [but will also do nothing to fix the problem]. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's because low quality isn't a reason to merge; the merged content would still be low quality. Powers T 15:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Low quality attached to an article of normal quality. Though the list is in horrible, horrible shape, too, so it's actually impossible to merge anything anywhere at this point. The problem isn't "it's bad", it's "at no point does it ever suggest that this subject is important to anything but Star Wars itself". And like it or not, being notable to Star Wars is not an argument. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 15:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, comprehensiveness, undue weight, copyright. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ?  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket '') (Invincibles Featured topic drive:one left) 23:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Remove. Few to no problems listed on the review have been addressed. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delist I concur with Jappa above on the serious issues with non-free content. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 20:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delist per above, none of the issues have been addressed. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delist, unaddressed issues. Cirt (talk) 02:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.