Talk:Chapter 13: The Jedi

Sources

• Vanity Fair [1](A)
  • All the deets on Ahsoka, but also a clear and concise explanation of casting Diana Lee Inosanto

Admittedly just the one source for now, but I'll update later if find more good sources. (I want help make the the upstream sources clear because VF is a high quality source and answers many questions about casting, character development, etc, before anyone references other lower quality downstream sources that are largely based on the VF article anyway.) -- 109.76.211.124 (talk) 13:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Image caption

Someone added an image of Dave Filoni with the caption "Writer and director Dave Filoni was praised for his work on the episode". This is not a good caption. This is the kind of low quality generic caption editors add when they have an image and have decided in advance that they want to add it to the Critical response section, and they need a caption to justify the position they've already decided. These kinds of captions are not always based the actual contents of the Critical response section, but in this case at least Dave Filoni did actually receive praise.

• I tried to show that the low quality caption was not arbitrary and made up by reusing an existing reference that praised Dave Filoni specifically (as opposed to generic praise for the episode).
  • My edit summary: "Make it unambiguously clear that generic sounding caption is actually supported by the reviews, and that there wasn't only generic praise for the episode but actual specific praise for Filoni" [2]
  • Adamstom.97 reverted the change saying "This is unnecessary, and makes it seem like he only received praise from one review which is not the case." [3]
  • I disagree with this perception, but even so, since Filino received praise it shouldn't be difficult to add another reference, or to change the caption to say something interesting in what ways specifically Filoni was praised. I'm open to other solutions, but I don't think the low quality caption is something that we should revert back to.
• I tried a different approach.[4] I moved the image of writer director Dave Filoni into the Production section, and simplified the image caption to be more generic and simply state that Filoni wrote and directed the episode. By not saying anything about reviews/praise there is no need to verify the image caption. (This caption is also generic but still serves a purpose, it highlights the director and the fact that this episode was not written Favreau as most other episodes were.)
  • Adamstom.97 reverted the change saying "It is better to have the three images spread out throughout the article, not all bunched together."
  • Again reverting back to the same image caption as before. It depends on your screen size,[5] but an image of Filoni at the start of the Production section and Dawson in the Casting section did not look bunched up to me.

I've tried to improve the image caption but my changes have been rejected, and no alternative changes have been made despite my efforts to indicate that I thought the caption was not good enough. The changes don't need to be exactly the ones I made but please do something, anything to improve the image caption. I really think we can all do better. -- 109.79.86.4 (talk) 23:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

You say you have "tried to improve the image caption" but that is not true. You added one reference to it and I explained why that was problematic, then you moved the image entirely and I explained the issue with that as well. If you actually want to improve the caption then go ahead and give a suggestion for improved wording. The onus is on you to do this since you are the one having a problem with the perfectly fine caption. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Having left this for a while and thought about it some more I still feel the caption was never "perfectly fine" and it was always generic and barely adequate. My opinion has not changed that it is the kind of caption that Wikipedia editors write because they've already decided they want to put the image in the Critical response section, instead of trying to make an objective to decision on image placement based on content and context, not subjective opinion about layout on certain screen sizes. As the writer and director of the episode it would be better to put the image of Filoni the Production section.

There was significant praise for Rosario Dawson in the Critical response section (more than there was for Filoni). Her image could just as easily be put in the Critical response section to address Adamstom's concern about distributing the images through the article. -- 109.76.192.5 (talk) 14:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I have reverted per MOS:IMAGELOCATION and because you did not solve your original problem at all (your suggested captions were no better than the current ones) so this was just an arbitrary change. If you insist that there is a problem here then please suggest better wording, not alternate but just as bad wording. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:31, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Do you disagree that the Production section is a good place to put the writer director of the episode, and co-creator of the character Ahsoka Tano? I keep putting the image there because he is more relevant in that context. It is the low relevance of Filoni to the Critical response section that results in a low relevance generic caption.

Do you disagree that there is substantially more Critical response specifically praising Dawson than there is praising Filoni? A very similar caption is better simply by being more obviously relevant, and clearly supported by several references, context matters. I'm merely claiming it is less worse, not that it is ideal, that's Wikipedia. I would not mind if both images were in the Production section, but Adamstom previously rejected that layout, and has put the onus on me to suggest changes.

I ask Adamstom to please clarify exactly what specific part of MOS:IMAGELOCATION he is referring to? It says images should generally be on the left, which I would have done except I kept the image alignment from before. Please make your layout complaints as clear as you possibly can, because your specific complaint or the problems that you see may not exist for other readers. If Adamstrom can make his complaints clearer maybe I can make better suggestions. At this point I think progress is more likely if I ask for a neutral 3RD opinion.

I think the best place for an image of Filoni is the Production section, the rest of my complaints and suggestions follow from that. -- 109.76.192.5 (talk) 23:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Per MOS:IMAGELOCATION, images should generally be right-aligned, but if there are multiple images we can alternate them left and right. Images should also go in the most appropriate section, if possible, or later in the article, and they should generally "look" inwards. Because we have three images in the article and one is looking forward, one is looking to the right, and one is looking to the left, we have a natural way to alternate them throughout as is currently being done. This means that the Filoni image should come after the Dawson image which helps with the fact that putting both images in the most logical place (development and casting, respectively) has them too close together. The logical place further down the article to put the Filoni image (with enough space from the Dawson one) is the reception section since he is mentioned there. And as I have been saying this whole time, if you do not like the captions used, feel free to suggest alternative wording. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)