Wikipedia:Peer review/Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith/archive1
This article is quite long and has a lot of information, and putting it under wider community scrutiny would help improve it greatly. Aside from getting this article to featured or near-featured article status, I'm hopeful that a peer review can impove the article in a way such that it can establish some kind of consensus on how the 6 Star Wars film articles should be like. Coffee 08:09, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
- The introduction has no real information aside from the film's volume number and release date, when style would have it be a summary.
- Posting the opening crawl in whole without any kind of criticism or comment is a copyright violation, I think.
- There are no references.
- The sections "References to the original trilogy" and "Trivia" are bulletpoints whose contents don't seem to have any notability. "Just before Darth Vader and the Emperor survey the partially built Death Star, we can see a slightly younger Tarkin. According to some, a younger Captain Needa can be seen in the crewpit."? I don't think minute analysis of who is visible in what shot with no explanation of any possible significance of this information is suitable for an encyclopedia article.
- --119 10:44, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
- Alright. 1. I've added a very shory synopsis to the lead section. I'm a bit wary about making it longer, since sensitive people would cry spoilers. 2. The opening crawl has also been removed. Can you (or someone) provide a link or source to back it up that posting the opening crawl is a copyright violation? Because I've wanted to remove it on all the Star Wars film articles, and I'd like some ammunition to back me up. 3. References... I'll hunt for them later, once it's decided what's in and what's out. 4. Ok, the blatantly non-notable "references to the OT" and "trivia" have been removed. I'm unsure what to do about the rest... eventually most of the trivia should be migrated to other sections, I guess. Coffee 16:06, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
- This is a good article, but I agree it needs the improvements 119 has recommended. I also feel the "Production" section needs more content. It is currently a collection of fairly minor trivia. There should be more on filming locations, special effects, make up, etc. The analysis also seems to focus exclusively on the plot, it would be good to get film studies and cinematography perspectives on the film. - SimonP 21:32, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
- I agree with the above points. The two large trivia sections are the big problem though, as far as I see it. The "references" bullet points should be culled, I think, but more importantly consolidated into prose if at all possible. Same for the "trivia" points, which should be culled even more vigorously. Most of the surviving points can probably be incorporated into other sections. If the cast section is to remain just a big list it should be removed to the end of the article, but a summary of the major actors involved could appear in the lead or production section. In terms of comprehensiveness, the article should go into some detail about such things as the substantial marketing and advertising associated with the film. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:59, 2005 August 28 (UTC)
- The "trivia" and "references to the OT" sections have been merged, and the number of bullet points more than halved. I'm cautious about trimming it any further right now, as there seems to be some hypersensitivity on this article and being too bold might spark some backlash against my edits. :/ I'd like some comments on what people think of the plot summary... too detailed? Not detailed enough? I completely rewrote that from the previous plot summary, which was three times as long. Coffee 04:25, 30 August 2005 (UTC)