Wikipedia:Peer review/Star Wars/archive1

Star Wars
This was previously a featured article candidate, and failed miserably. Since then, many (including myself) have attempted to clean it up, and bring the contents down to a reasonable size, while being comprehensive. Aside from references, which the page is certainly in need of, how can this article be improved? All feedback will be greatly appreciated. The Wookieepedian 05:25, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I knew the The Wookieepedian would try to get Star Wars as the featured article again. =) I wish you he best of luck, Wookieepedian!-MegamanZero 7:45 30,November 2005 (UTC)


 * My suggestion? Blank the Fan Works header. ;D
 * Jokes aside, he're my quick thoughts, looking over the article...
 * Cite sources for factual claims that cannot be derived from the movie itself (sales, any atribution of "generally credited"). Also, get several references analyizing the symbolism present in Star Wars, because some of the analysis sounds kind of OR-ish.
 * Weasel words, weasel words. "It is still under discussion..." "...generally credited..."
 * The subheaders under the "Films" header seem sort of randomly arranged. I don't see any logical order to them.
 * Kick most of the "alternate versions" stuff to Changes in Star Wars Re-releases. You've got a page and a half of prose and images, when you've already got subarticle to merge it out to.
 * See if you can't pare the lists of characters, places, etc. down some more. I think you could cut the lists of people and places entirely, and leave only the See Also header. (The See Also header also needs some trimming; list of languages? List of weapons?)
 * Hope this helps. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestions! The Wookieepedian 11:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Much of the detailed "See Also" can be moved to the portal page, no? — Phil Welch 12:05, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * You've got a problem with your images, all fair use images should have a source and a fair use rationale for appearing in this article. I don't like the films table- it breaks up the text too much and the six posters create a fair use justification headache, mabye it'd be less obtrusive without the images and right aligned. The Re-releases section should not be empty. When you are finished finding refereces, a consistent referencing system should be applied, where all html links have a full citation for future tracibility.--nixie 21:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Generally, try to resist the temptation to add things and remember to cut things and move them into subarticles. Some other details:
 * The Box office performance table is a bit problematic unless you find a good source for "worldwide gross adjusted for inflation". The current numbers are made assuming that all money was earned in the year of the film's first release, which is incorrect. The situation (due to re-releases that also cost money which should bein the "Budget" part) is possibly too complicated to be put into a simple table.
 * Cut major characters down to less than 10. Main characters should appear in more than one movie.
 * Agree with nixie that table is much too large. At least cut the Ratings section with its arbitrary choice of rating agencies (US, UK, HK).
 * Kusma (talk) 23:53, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Agree with most of the above. I just adjusted the top images so that Lucas did not bump the very top image. All of the lone year dates should be de-linked in accordance with the Wikpedia Manual of Style. I think the images in that problem table (the six-film one) are too small to really see anyway, so their removal would save space. The "opening crawl" picture would be absolutely fantastic as an animated gif. :) The spoilers tag appears too high: I don't think the Influences section, for example, spoils very much. Maybe add it at the top of the Plot section? Spelling errors: "oppurtunity", "entirelly", "captial", "therecording", "weatherworn (needs hyphen)". Dino De Laurentiis capitalizes the "De" part of his name. Way too much on the 2007 editions. Nute Gunray at the same level (major film characters) as Han Solo?? Trim that list a lot. Make it and the following list of locations smaller if possible too: they eat up a lot of space on the page. A picture of another of the main characters besides Han Solo would be nice: Darth Vader in particular would make sense, perhaps replacing that scratchy Palpatine image (I realize why it looks that way, but it still looks bad). I'm sure that "the largest fictional galaxy yet" would be contested by some, so perhaps move as POV. Hope that helps. Turnstep 05:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Turnstep's image placement looks better (to me) regardless of screen size in Mozilla and Firefox, while Wookieepedian's looks better in Internet Explorer. Is there a way to make image placement work better in any browser? Kusma (talk) 16:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It can be tricky to get all browsers to work together, but what exactly happens in IE? Wookiepedian's edit summary of "rv. That sucks for screens on a lower resolution." did not give me very much to work with. :) Turnstep 18:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * There's only "For other uses, see SW (disambig)" next to the images when viewed in IE. All other text follows below the images. I couldn't see a connection of this phenomenon to screen resolution/window size. Kusma (talk) 04:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Sounds like IE has some parsing issues (surprise!). I'll try to find a computer running IE I can use to check on this. Thanks for the response. Turnstep 19:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Nice article; great length. I don't think it's ready for featured yet; take it one step at a time. Just keep tweaking it and get that extra 5, 10% done.--HereToHelp (talk) 00:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Bibliomaniac15 21:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I like it. But delete the picture of the opening crawl. It's not needed. If you want to put it in an article, put it in another one.


 * This needs inline citations&mdash;please use ref and note or another note system and mention at least where each section's information comes from (not plot, nor things obvious to anyone watching the movies, but everything else&mdash;development, etc. --Spangineeres (háblame)  22:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Seems pretty good, but there is a distinct lack of references. Haven't read it in detail. One thing I notice is that the structure has improved out of sight! Well done on that front. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)