Talk:Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith/GA2

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
This article is woefully under sourced, and would likely be a quick fail if nominated for WP:GAN. Some of it is easily fixable because some references are just not being reused (see this edit). However, it needs a lot more work due to years of neglect. New information has come to light at the very least. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:24, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the avoidance of doubt, the only issue I see for this article in concerns with the good article criteria are points 2 and 3. Regards, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:26, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's short in sourcing, not sure this assessment is needed. Govvy (talk) 20:10, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Govvy: It's not short on sources, but it doesn't support all its facts with citations. I tried being conservative with my previous tagging, but to explain the scope of the problem, I added more tags. There are now 24 instances of citation needed tags, 3 better source needed tags, and one inline original research tag. This needs to be addressed if the article is to retain its good article status, please. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:46, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MJL: You asking for citations in a lot of places and really some of the spots you pointed out don't need a citation. You don't need a citation to point out where an obvious is, like where someone has their cameo in the film. This is over-analysation. Also for the sentence "This album was chosen as one of Amazon.com's Top 100 Editors' Picks of 2005 (#83)". (You added needs a better source!) It's a primary statement with a primary source, you can't get much better than that! I think you are showing stupidity there. I suggest you review what you have done, I feel as if you're going to waste a lot of peoples time here. Govvy (talk) 11:55, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Govvy: Amazon.com is listed under WP:BADCHARTS. If it is not acceptable for albums, then it should not be acceptable for movies unless reported on by a reliable secondary source per WP:UNDUE. There is nothing stupid about that. To your first point, per our BLP policy, all potentially contentious information about living person's should be cited with a referenced footnote. The fact the article is claiming Lucas had his own family cameo in the movie is potentially contentious and should contain an inline citation.
You're welcome to disagree with my interpretation of policy, but I am backed by policy nonetheless. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:49, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the Amazon source. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 09:24, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lord Sjones23: Awesome! If you or someone else correct the citation issues, then this would be all set.

–MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:31, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no one came to save this one after like a month and a half of waiting. Therefore, I felt obligated to delist it at this point. Hopefully, this can get fixed up and renominated though. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:52, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]