Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 03:45, 3 March 2007.

Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back[edit]

Self-nomination. I am continuing to work on the Star Wars film articles in the hopes of getting all six films promoted to featured status. I have been working on this article since A New Hope was promoted just a few months ago. It has had a peer review and has been rated as A-class. It is not only a good article, but also a part of the newly formed featured topic. If The Phantom Menace, Attack of the Clones, Revenge of the Sith, and A New Hope are featured worthy, I feel that this article is worthy as well. The Filmaker 08:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per my own nom. The Filmaker 08:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support. This is written well and lays everything out coherently and easy to follow. Good Job! Mike Searson 14:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. As is, it's FA enough for me. It could use some more additions, like pictures (I know...fair use). More info on some of the other derivative products, such as toys, books and games. For the games, I can remember a NES game, a SNES game and then the recent Lego Star Wars - The Original Trilogy. Plus Star Wars Trilogy arcade. Shrumster 14:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Just realized though. Shouldn't Synopsis be before the Production section? Shrumster 19:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is not required that Synopses be before Production section. In this case, the layout has worked well, and to change it would push images to awkward places. The Filmaker 23:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added a section dealing with the games that were specifically based on the film. There have been so many games released that weave in and out of the Star Wars films or deal with the entire trilogy, that if they should be mentioned anywhere it should be in the main Star Wars article. The Filmaker 15:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the article is as good as the other featured ones. Hope Return of the Jedi gets there soon... igordebraga ≠ 17:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC) (BTW, I think ESB is the most overrated movie of the series)[reply]
  • Comment I'd like citations for the number of people who listened to the radio adaptation, as well as its canonicity. WikiNew 20:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support - I worked on this a while ago before it was GA, and I must say, as many times as I see it done, I am still impressed by how good these Star Wars articles are. I did some minor copyediting, and I think it is good to go! Judgesurreal777 21:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support per Mike Searson and Igordebraga. This is what FAs are meant to be like; nice job. Cliff smith 03:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Could do with a copyedit to weed out redundancy ("the fact that", "in order to", "both", etc.) and awkward phrasing. Some random examples:
    • Originally, Lucas had written an exchange between Han Solo and Princess Leia to read as Leia saying to Han "I love you." with Han replying "I love you too." could be shortened to 'Originally, Lucas had written a scene in which Princess Leia professed her love to Han Solo, with Han replying "I love you too."'
    • Harrison Ford felt that the character was not being taken advantage of That's a bit vague. What does that mean?
    • You can gut some unnecessary stuff, such as: After many different takes with several different and versions, Kershner shouted to have the cameras begin filming and told Ford to improvise; Solo's line was changed in this moment to "I know."
    • I'm concerned that the second graf of Production may be confusing to those unfamiliar with the movie since "Imperial walkers" are introduced without any explanation or link.
    • The DGA then went after Irvin Kershner. Vague, what does "went after" mean?
    • I didn't really understand this: The film includes a brief image of Vader with his mask off, facing away from the camera. For the original viewers of the film, this scene made it clear that Vader is not a robot, but instead organic — and possibly human. This fact becomes significant later, when Vader makes a surprise revelation that might be confusing without the earlier scene.
    • It also included 1930s film serials such as Flash Gordon Not sure "included" is the best word there. "Alluded to"? Gzkn 07:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made some of the adjustments. WikiNew 14:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article has been copyedited by Deckiller, I believe all of your concerns were addressed. The Filmaker 21:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Fair use images Image:ATAT_Sketch.png, Image:Battlehothesb.JPG, Image:Esbduelclimax.JPG, Image:Castesb.JPG. Add nothing to the article. Adding insult to injury, Image:Esbduelclimax.JPG is the kind of fair use image that DOES have sourced information that would lead it to be used for criticism or commentary (books have been written about the cinematography of the film, the meanings of the colors and the shadows, and the like), but it's not - in fact, it's just shoved into the overly long and detailed "Synopsis" section, which is poorly written. The fact that the article is basically sourced to the fanzine websites as opposed to the professional literature on the film adds the final slight. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did not upload these and did not enter their fair use rationales, I have however changed them to the fair use rationale I have used for the images in the other Star Wars film FAs. It is common to include images within the Synopsis in order to illustrate the film's visual style. The cast photo is used to illustrate the appearance of the actors/characters within the film. According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines, the Synopsis should not be more then 900 words. This synopsis is 966. However the guideline also mentions that the section should be longer if specific reasons warrant it to be, such as a complicated plot. Empire has quite possibly the most complicated plot in the original trilogy, if not the entire saga. In addition, not only is Empire not far off from the other Star Wars FAs, but the Revenge of the Sith article contains a longer synopsis that has also been voted through as an FA. The Filmaker 18:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That things have been done wrongly in the past does not make doing them that way now acceptable. Those images are there to provide eye-candy to the article. They make Wikipedia not-free. This is a bad thing. There is not a single mention - not one - in the text regarding the film's "visual style." How can these fair use images be illustrating something that not a single word is said about in the text? Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The fact that my work is in line with what has been done in the past was not my main point. I provided a wikipedia guideline that stated that the Synopsis was fine. Why does the visual style have to be mentioned within the text? The images illustrate the Synopsis. When a user is reading the article they would most likely be interested in the visual style of the film. It is provided in the photos. The Filmaker 18:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Fair use images cannot be just thrown into articles because you think the user might like to look at them, or will likley want to see them. There must be a justification. Please review our fair use policies - WP:FU and WP:FUC. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • The fair use images are not simply thrown into articles because I think that the user might want to look at them. As I stated, I think that they most likely will want to look at them. Your reasonings are rather pedantic. By the same rationale, we should eliminate the poster from the infobox as well. We make no mention of the poster in the text, therefore we should remove it? No, because readers have come to expect the poster to be there, just as they expect at least one or two images within the synopsis. The Filmaker 18:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Users should not expect us to provide them with unfree content. We are the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, after all. The difference between "might" and "most likley" is in scale - I merely state that you have innapropriately prioritized pretty article pictures over free content. Clearly we will not reach agreement on this - as such, I think that my actionable concern about the overabundance of not-free content is substantial, and obviously, my editing the article to correct it would meet stiff resistance from you. My additional concern that not a word of the cinematographic advances this film inspired are mentioned, and that the sourcing is incredibly weak are also uncorrected. Don't worry - the gloves have not yet been removed with respect to pretty pictures in articles, but everyone knows it's coming. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've been through this argument before over fair-use material vs. free-use material and I am not willing to go through it again. Free-use material is not a requirement for featured articles and the fair-use material within the article does not violate any guidelines except for the most pedantic users. I also disagree with your assertion that the film was a major cinematographic influence on cinema and that the sourcing is "incredibly weak". The Filmaker 19:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The fact that the article is basically sourced to the fanzine websites as opposed to the professional literature on the film adds the final slight." Only if you consider the Internet Movie Database, Underground Online, the official Star Wars website, Home Theater, Entertainment Weekly, the Motion Picture Association of America, DVD Active, Amazon.com, MSN Movies, Box Office Mojo, the Washington Post, The New York Times, the San Fransisco Chronicle, Rotten Tomatoes, RogerEbert.com (Chicago Sun-Times), the American Film Institute, Yahoo! Movies, Empire Magazine, Sci-Fi.com, and National Broadcast Radio to not be suitable sources. The Filmaker 18:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think you understand what I mean by "professional." American Society of Cinematographers - unused. This is a film with major cultural and cinematographic impact, but the article is little more than one we'd write for a science fiction film. Not an example of our best work. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, Star Wars (as in A New Hope) was a major cultural and cinematographic impact. As a whole, the Star Wars saga was a major cultural and cinematographic impact, but only bits here and there. A New Hope was the caused the majority of the impact, any other impact should be discussed within the main Star Wars article. The Filmaker 18:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Also, the majority (if not all) of the sources I gave above are "professional". The Filmaker 18:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Let's not fight people. Although I can see what Hippocrite is saying, but I have to disagree with him. The sketch of the chicken walker is in the "Production" section & one could invisage a reader imagining that the writers came up with that during this stage. This goes for the photo's in the "Sypnosis" section too, one would invisage that scene about the look & feel of the movie. Now I'd have to agree with Hippocrite if say, a sketch was in the cast section & a picture of george lucas was in the sypnosis section, but this is not the case. Spawn Man 07:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I definitely disagree. The synopsis images are perfectly fine in showing what happens in the film, as are the cast and production images. The latter compliments the synopsis in simply showing something going from concept to finished product. All highly mandated under FU. WikiNew 15:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would try to lose the IMDb refs. The way it's set up doesn't meet the requirements about reliable sources, an issue that has come up at FAR's, so older articles that use IMDB refs may be reviewed in the near future. Jay32183 19:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • IMDB is generally unreliable when it comes it's trivia and goof sections. Any information on cast and crew however is typically accurate. I use IMDB only for references to cast, crew, and awards given. The Filmaker 21:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as it is just as good as any of the other Star Wars articles. As a side note, I do not at all agree with Hipocrite's opinion regarding the use of images to illustrate the articles. JHMM13 19:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Eveything in the article is fine. Just wondering if it could be exspaned a little. I think it needs a lit of references in popular culture, a section on controversy (if there was any) and historical allusions. Buc 09:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've just added the only expansion: video games. Sections on references in pop culture are simply trivia sections in disguise and there was not any controversy to my knowledge over the film. I also do not believe there were any notable historical allusions. The Filmaker 16:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • But there needs to be something about it's position in pop cul. Like the line "Luke I am your farther" has huge cult status. Buc 19:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've added a paragraph on "I am your father" to the reaction section. The Filmaker 20:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Excellent article. Well-cited and very comprehensive. - Anas Talk? 15:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's pretty close in my mind. One point that bothers me is in the Special Edition subsection: "However, they remain controversial among fans, some of which believe that they relegate the film." Relegate the film to what? Also, once you've cited a ref in the <ref name=X></ref> format, you can use <ref name=X/> elsewhere. It saves some space and can make things less confusing when you're trying to remember where a ref ends and the text begins. J. Spencer 15:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • One other little thing. Do you want the first film to be Star Wars all the way through, or A New Hope, or do you want the name to change after whatever year that was added to the opening crawl? Right now, both are used in the article. I know, I know, pedantic, and it'll always be Star Wars to me, but I was wondering about the terminology. J. Spencer 15:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, now I Support. J. Spencer 05:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose Support — 1a. Some examples from the text:
    • "In captivity, Han and Chewbacca are systematically tortured in order to lure Luke to the city." Two, perhaps three redundant words.
    • "The novel was originally published under the title Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back, however, later editions were renamed Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back to conform with the change in the saga's film titles." Missing semicolon; "under the title" is redundant.
    • Redundant usage of "however" and "then".
    • "Like the other novelizations of the Star Wars films, some background information is added to expand beyond what is depicted onscreen." Redundant word, and clarification needed: what is being expanded (the answer is the story).
    • "A novelization of the film was written by Donald F. Glut, based on upon the screenplay by Lawrence Kasdan and Leigh Brackett was released on April 12, 1980, published by Del Rey." This sentence needs a lot of work per obvious reasons.
    • Few instances of "over", which should be changed to "more than".
    • Cases of "utilize" - this needs to be changed to "use"; it's misplaced formality, and misplaced formality does not satisfy 1a.
    • Cases of "over the years"; this phrase is rarely needed.
    • Cases of "many different", etc.

A lot of work has been done, but it needs a lot more tweaking. I'll go ahead and give it a pass. — Deckiller 15:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I took a quick pass, but I'm still a bit concerned with the "spoiler guard" paragraph in the development section, as well as the reaction, soundtrack, and marketing radio drama sections. There might also still be some overlinking or duplicate linking in the cast section. — Deckiller 17:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel that the article's prose is passable, but it might need another look to weed out anything missed. — Deckiller 21:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Well constructed article. I agree with Deckiller's initial objections, but I see most of the problems mentioned have been weeded out. Qjuad 04:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm a bit surprised to find that none of the Star Wars articles (including the FA'd ones) seems to have used the extensive and freely-available American Cinematographer archives. They are a wealth of information not only about cinematography, but general production and larger conceptual ideas. Girolamo Savonarola 14:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Very good article. ZG 22:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. "Cinematic and literary allusions" absolutely must be sourced properly or removed. This subject has been written about prolificly, yet the entire article is built on horrible fansites. There is no excuse for this. Better sources exist. Use them. --- RockMFR 01:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The references used in this section of the article have already been voted through before in the FA process. I disagree that they are horrible fansites and should be discredited. In addition, if you can claim that there are better sources out there, then you could provide them. The Filmaker 07:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes; a 1c objection is usually considered inactionable unless the person provides sources that show more reliability. — Deckiller 14:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • My link to [1] is now the third time that it has been linked. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • That link does not contain any information on "Cinematic and literary allusions" and is therefore irrelevant to this conversation. The Filmaker 23:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • They are a wealth of information not only about the cinematography, but general production and larger conceptual ideas. Have you read the articles yet, at least? Girolamo Savonarola 01:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A well written and comprehensive article. Darthgriz98 19:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment refs 18 and 20 are incomplete. Jay32183 23:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed this. M3tal H3ad 01:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support An excellently written and well structured article. H4cksaw (talk) 19:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Star_Wars_Episode_V:_The_Empire_Strikes_Back&oldid=1207757701"