Wikipedia:Peer review/Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith/archive2

Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith

I think the article is pretty much ready for FA status, but I think that it still has a few kinks to work out. So anyone can give me some suggestions? The Filmaker 20:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

• Way too much in the trivia section, very little of which is cited to reliable sources. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The trivia section has been heavily shortened and I've added a few references throughout it as well. The Filmaker 00:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The refs dont looks right being numbered to 18, then having a bullet point. That should be fixed. Tobyk777 01:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC) Some ideas

• There is not one reference in the cinematic/liter. references as far as I can see
• Though I see it is in chronological order, plot should be at the top
• All the images should have a fair-use rationale (the posters do not)
• Havent read through the trivia yet, but I'm guessing its not that important. Find out what is useful, discard the rest
• Avoid dot points/list [Triva]
• DVD section is a mess. See dot points/list. It is also debatable as to if it even desereves such a large section. Anyway, turn into paragraphs
• This article runs the risk of getting in trouble for having too many fair-use images (bonus disc DVD set...righteo?)
• You may want to shorten the plot, I understand it is Star Wars, but consider shortening it a little
• There should be a much larger section on the build up-->Pple sleeping outside theatre/general anticipation of seeing Darth Vader etc etc
• Awards sub-heading does not offer much. It should be merged into reception/reaction. it is debatable whether a Rasberry award is even worth mentioning...You could asdd Lucas' views on the PCA award (I believe he as pretty happy about it/was the only award that he cared about)
• You may want to expand the production section and split it into subheadings
• ..Gray & Christmas claimed before the premiere that it may have cost the US economy approximately US$627 million because.. need a citation
• The MPAA paragraph seems a tad USA-focused, even though Great Britain and Canada are tacked on at the end, may I suggest rewriting it into a paragraph about how it was meant to be the most dark/emotional out of the six..thus...got an X MPAA rating..no need to ramble on about the American rating
• The reaction section could do with a cleanup. Go easy on the romantic criticism/'wooden' stuff...at best, tone it down (it's a little POV)
• Turn box office section into paragraphs..not really sure how much that is important either...seems like a bunch of info pasted from boxofficemojo...remember its not a competition with LOTR/Spiderman/whatever..it reads a little fan-boyish
• Cast infobox is annoying..check out some other film FAs for ideas..
• Don't need sountrack cover in the article Cvene64 01:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, "Gray & Christmas claimed before the premiere that it may have cost the US economy approximately US$627 million because of employees who took a day off or reported in sick" doesn't even make sense -- did they make the claim before or after the event? Christopher Parham (talk) 02:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• A few thoughts. The Box Office Performance section is very US-focused for a film that was released in 115 countries. The wording in the DVD Release section implies that the DVD was only released in the US. The Bonus Discs subsection needs some clarification - does it only refer to bonus disc releases within the US? i.e. was the two-pack DVD with the bonus disc only available at Wal-Mart stores in the US? or was it available at Wal-Mart stores worldwide? or from other suppliers outside the US? Jazriel 11:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• My thoughts, from having viewed many evaluations and FAC nominations:
  • First of all, extremely good job, I am impressed by your efforts to make this happen. Jsut a few things:
  • You should strongly consider reducing down the number of fair use images by a few, see Tenenbrae for a recently approved FA.
  • Not all images that should have fair use rationales and sources have them.
  • trivia really should go, always first thing to get axed in an FA for film. If important, incorporate, if not, scrap it.
  • too many two sentence paragraphs.
  • Sources look excellent overall, just think about replacing the "Hitler +World War II" and "The Shape of Days" references do not inspire confidence in their reliability. Who are they?
  • Do a final sweep and check for any statements that may need references, and then find reliable ones like you have for virtually all of the things in the article.

Good job! Let me know if you put this up for FAC, I'll try to help you Judgesurreal777 01:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

So far I've taken into consideration all of your suggestions, and I thank you all for them. For the purpose of this message though I'd like to say to Judgesurreal777 (thanks for the extremely kind words by the way), that the cast list is written to be in the same style as the articles Blade Runner, Casablanca and Arrested Development all of which are FAs. Not only that, it was re-written namely because of a complaint above over a Cast Box that he refered to as "annoying". At the moment I feel that the list is fine. The Filmaker 05:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

If it's cool with FA standard, it's cool by me :) Judgesurreal777 05:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

That was me, "annoying" was perhaps the wrong word choice, but it is generally (tables in general) frowned upon at the FAC. Cvene64 11:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• I'm very impressed with what has been done in such a short time. Congrats. There is still a way to go though, may I offer thr following improvements.

* Statements that may need a source:

• Bai Ling's claim
• Lucas' denial of Ling's claim
• "It is often said the film contains a number of plot holes, although this claim is widely disputed and debated by fans"
• The Gay Oldman info as well as Wood's comments on it
• Die Hard references
• Tucker Torpedo
• Dr. Mabuse references

* Images:

• There is not an even distribution of images per characters
• There isnt really a good reason to exclude Padme
• Maybe an image of the scene between Anakin/Palp/Mace could solve the issue of Palp/Mace not having an image from the movie
• The cast image is cool, but I still think Padme/Palp/Mace should be featured in the plot..maybe even General Gre. as well

* Other:

• "including McDiarmid himself" Does this mean that people have made comparisons between Palp and Ian, or Ian himself made comparisons between Palp. and lago..
• Deleted Roles could flow a bit bitter
• The criticisms of the film, in my opion, still kind of mirror the views of a "Lucas Basher" as opposed to a general audience...

...More to come..but great work! Cvene64 12:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)