Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 User:Marskell 20:11, 24 June 2008 [1].

Star Wars Episode III: Revenge Of The Sith

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Wikipedia:WikiProject Films Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Wars, Wikipedia:WikiProject Science Fiction notified.
  • Article is incomplete; same problem with Episode 2. Lots of books are available about literary criticism and cinematic style of Star Wars but this article contains nothing from them. Film scholars and historians have much info about the film that is missing from the article I found some in a two-minute book search:
    • Visions of the Apocalypse: Spectacles of Destruction in American Cinema by Wheeler Winston Dixon
    • Star Wars and Philosophy: More Powerful Than You Can Possibly Imagine by Kevin S. Decker, Jason T. Eberl
    • Alternative scriptwriting: successfully breaking the rules by Ken Dancyger, Jeff Rush
    • Special Effects: An Introduction to Movie Magic by Ron Miller
    • Sound Design and Science Fiction by William Whittington
    • The Gospel According to Hollywood by Greg Garrett
    • Genre Studies in Mass Media: A Handbook by Art Silverblatt
    • Building Sci-Fi Moviescapes: The Science Behind the Fiction by Matt Hanson
    • Creating the Worlds of Star Wars: 365 Days by John Knoll
    • Culture, Crisis and America's War on Terror by Stuart Croft
    • The Myth of Media Violence: A Critical Introduction by David Trend
  • Intro is stubby.
  • Plot too detailed and confusing for a lay reader.
  • Later parts of cast are challenged claims but remaing unsourced.
  • Box office, DVD just half sourced.
  • Awards, music and video game unsourced.
  • "References to the original trilogy" sections contains a lot of fancruft.
  • Uses IMDb, MovieWeb, bigfanboy.com and The Movie Blog which fail RS.
  • overwhelming ext. links, some linked twice, US flag, etc. Ultra! 18:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Emphasis on Soundtrack, Novelization and Video game can be lessened. I also have to agree with the comments above about referencing; is there no book or other textual resources that can be used? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 06:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • It might not be a good idea to have two Star Wars articles on review at the same time, as the pool of people able to respond to the concerns are probably close to identical. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree, and nominating more than one article at a time is against the instructions at WP:FAR. If editors need more time, it will likely be granted, but Ultra should refrain from doing this again. Ultra, please complete the notification instructions at the top of WP:FAR by notifying significant article contributors and relevant WikiProjects and posting notifications back to this FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I haven't read all of this thing, but I've read enough to see that it needs a lot of attention. Here's my first take on just one section ("Awards and nominations"): I'd like to think that it's not quite so bad as it was before I tackled it, but the confused second paragraph still doesn't seem to know what it's about (the small number of anti-awards? Christensen?), and I'm left puzzled by the significance of a "pre-planned" award, and also by descriptions of awards that aren't linked. A brief look at one other section: "Box office performance" has a single explicit mention of "worldwide gross" but the rest seems to be about North America (which I suspect means the US and Canada) and/or America (which I suppose means the US) -- what is pretty clear is that this needs retitling at the least. Morenoodles (talk) 10:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria concerns are comprehensiveness (1b), lead (1a), and prose (1a). Marskell (talk) 19:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Slavoj Zizek, The Parallax View, p. 101-103
Jonathan L. Bowen, Revenge: The Real Life Story of Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith
Greg Garrett, The Gospel According to Hollywood, p. 56-57
An Orson Scott Card critical essay
Camille Paglia makes some observations
more here
www.sagajournal.com - this site essentially is a peer-reviewed academic journal focusing on the series, and at the very least has a lot of other good references contained within. Any case, between Google Scholar, MRQE, and more, there should be strong references to be found. To whomever is reading this, I wish you good luck and look forward to seeing how the article improves! :) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on comment: First, if Žižek said anything coherent about this film, then it's out of character for him. Secondly, let's look more closely at "peer-reviewed academic journal". "Peer reviewed" essentially means "reviewed by people in the same position as the writer", and this "Saga Journal" you're advocating seems to be written up by fans who just happen to be at university and thus know how to footnote. I chanced on this paper as an example. The author may be an adjunct prof of history somewhere, but his paper is sophomoric. It doesn't even have an introduction that states what it is that he's setting out to demonstrate; instead, there's an airy assertion about unspecified "concepts", which he then seems to forget about. Clearly he's on some holistic (or similar) medicine trip, writing Many medical experts are limited to what is earthly [sic] visible. [...] The medical establishment in the real world and the Star Wars universe is overly mechanized. They see a client as someone to be altered, not listened to, just as Vader's medical droids put him back together without consideration for his pain. As is his right, but this kind of disparagement of "the medical establishment in the real world" again seems odd in academia. (If I had cancer, I'd be uninterested in what was marsly [?] but not earthly [?] visible, and a lot keener to be "altered" than to be "listened to", but perhaps that's just me.) He calls the Star Wars stuff The saga we all love, which doesn't square with my idea of a dispassionately academic approach; but then, just like a religion or quack therapy, the "journal" even has a page of personal testimonies. I say all this not (well, not primarily) in order to knock the "journal", but rather to point out that what claims to be academic and has some of the trappings of academia isn't necessarily intellectually rigorous or worth careful consideration by anyone, let alone the harried editors of a Wikipedia article. Morenoodles (talk) 06:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC) revised a bit 04:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The prose isn't up to it. As far as I could be bothered to read it, it's pitched at about the right level and avoids the truly awful, but it's flabby or dull or something. I worked on one short section and commented earlier/above on having done so, but this doesn't seem to have inspired anybody else to do much more of the same. Here's just one example of what I'm referring to: In 1973, Lucas claimed to have written the Star Wars saga's fundamental story in the form of a basic plot outline. He would later profess that at the time of the saga's conception, he had not fully realized the details — only major plot points throughout the series. (i) I first took this to mean that his claim was in 1973, but what follows suggests that the claim was about 1973. (It's sourced to material published in 2005, not 1973.) (ii) Are "basic" and "fundamental" different here; if so, how, and if not, why the repetition? (iii) "Profess" sounds strange; what's meant? (Chilling suspicion: a fancy would-be synonym for "confess"?) (iv) Since the claim was about having written something basic, fundamental or both, and as an outline, it's pretty obvious that details weren't included; so why add that details weren't included? Now, I wouldn't go on about these two sentences if they were an isolated or obscure example -- but they're neither, they're at the very start of a section near the top of the article, and there's a lot more like them. Morenoodles (talk) 05:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC) revised a bit 04:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove, IMDb is not a reliable source. "Video game" section is uncited and may contain original research. Ce needed, redundant and flabby prose, sample: Some unseen or unheard-of elements to the Revenge of the Sith story were fleshed out in the course of the novel. "Soundtrack" is uncited. Article is tagged as containing OR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Original research tag needs clearing. IMDb is unreliable. DrKiernan (talk) 16:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Star_Wars_Episode_III:_Revenge_of_the_Sith/archive1&oldid=1088203352"