Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope

This is a self-nomination. I am renominating this article after it previously failed. The reasons given, were that it needed a good copyedit and more references. All of the problems were noted and addressed (thanks to a wonderful copyedit by Deckiller) and I now believe it to be among Wikipedia's best work. It has had a peer review and has been rated as A-class by WikiProject Films. It is not only a good article, but also a part of the newly formed featured topic. The Filmaker 04:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Co-nom/Support — a solid article all around; the prose should qualify enough, but I'll definitely be around if anyone believes that further copyediting is needed. — Deckiller 04:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support per my own nom. The Filmaker 04:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support... and not just because I'm a SW geek. Well written, very much in the vein of the other featured SW articles. Hopefully we'll get all six to FA status soon. Anthony Hit me up... 04:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent article, and much improved from last time. You did an especially nice job on Cinematic and Literary Allusions too, as that section is well-referenced. A couple quibbles:

• I'd add a sentence or two mentioning Star Wars' inspirations and impact in the lead.
  • Your other suggestions have been fixed or implemented, however I'm not sure that including the inspirations in the lead is really necessary. The Filmaker 05:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• • I'm not saying include the actual names of all the inspirations and such in the lead; I'd just like the lead to mention that Star Wars drew inspiration from a number of sources, and that it has influenced just as many others. Then the lead would give a nice overview of the entire article.--Dark Kubrick 13:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• The ninth paragraph down in Production History jumps around a bit too much, with a misleading opening sentence.
• From the Releases section: "He was later told that silence was the Japanese's greatest honor to a film." Japanese's? Is that really correct?
• The paragraph that talks about Kurosawa's influence in Cinematic + Literary Allusions has a couple mistakes.

Here's the first few sentences of that paragraph: "1958 Kurosawa film The Hidden Fortress was also an influence, with the two bickering peasants (who evolved into C-3PO and R2-D2), elements of the Obi-Wan/Luke relationship and the Darth Vader-like evil General wears a kamon, and a Japanese family crest seen in the film is similar to the Imperial Crest. Star Wars borrows heavily from another Kurosawa film, Yojimbo. In both films, several men threaten the hero, bragging how wanted they are by authorities." "The" should be inserted in the first sentence, although I think it reads better like Akira Kurosawa's 1958 film The Hidden Fortress was also...". "elements of the Obi-Wan/Luke relationship and the Darth Vader-like evil General wears a kamon" is not a sentence, there should be a comma in place of the "and", and probably a "who" after General. I don't think the comparison between Darth Vader and the General is made very clear also. Also, the last sentence could be (but this one I'm not too sure, so it could be dead wrong)"...several men threaten the hero, bragging how they are wanted by the authorities".

Excellent job. I look forward to Episodes V and VI soon.--Dark Kubrick 17:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I just copyedited some of the later sections and left a SGML comment query about the last part of the first paragraph of the Novelization section, which somewhat confuses me. I haven't had time yet to scan the upper parts of the article, but will do so later. — TKD::Talk 18:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The sentence has been removed as I did not put it there and I'm unsure of what it was trying to convey. The Filmaker 21:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I made some followup edits and reworded that sentence so that it made sense. TKD, please check the top three sections of the article for me when you get the chance. — Deckiller 21:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I've made a start. Going to continue tonight. — TKD::Talk 10:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Finally finished my copyedit. — TKD::Talk 06:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Terrific article, well written and referenced. Hello32020 21:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support per nom. -- Wikipedical 21:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Overall, this is a good article and well cited as well as a good read. The only thing I can see that might need looked at is there are a few citations that are in the middle of sentences not following punctuation in the first half of the article. Other than that it's well written. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 22:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Anyone have issues with the prose? — Deckiller 23:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support I like the article a lot; it seems very well done (and I'm of course a fan of the movie as well). Nicholasink 02:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. It's looking good. I hope reviewers will give it the fine-toothed comb it deserves, as one of the most important movies ever. At the moment the second paragraph in "Production" concerns me, because it seems to be expecting "in-knowledge" of the movie and to some extent reads like trivia. "Luke Skywalker's character changed from a 60-year-old General to a member of a family of midgets." OK, but he didn't end up as a midget, and I'm not told that. Same goes for some of the other sentences in that para. Other possibilities include repositioning this information to later in the article, as it's very early. Also, I'm not sure why the characters, and The Force (Star Wars), aren't wikilinked here. –Outriggr § 06:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah; it might be excessive information. I believe The Force is linked in the article, as are the characters (most likely above the section, as usual policy is to link it the first time it appears). — Deckiller 07:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comments Concerned about the prose among other things...specifically:
  • Why not link 1977 to 1977 in film instead of the year?
  • Moreover, Lucas disliked the studio system... I'm not entirely sure why "moreover" is used there...I don't see the continuity from the previous sentences.
  • Agree with Outriggr's comments about the assumption of prior knowledge in "Production". The Force was initially conceived as the Kyber crystal <-- wikilink the Force here (first appearance). Han Solo needs one as well.
  • ...the left leg shattered down into the plastic of the left foot, stabbing him in the foot. Hmmm...I think I know what's trying to be said here, but how about "the left leg piece shattered down through the plastic that was covering his left foot, stabbing him."? Also, C3PO isn't wikilinked here when it probably should.
  • After Tunisia, production moved... --> "After finishing filming in Tunisia, production moved..."
  • Para that begins with Lucas clashed on the set... includes quite a few unsourced statements.
  • ...playing scenes out in master shots, then flowing into close-up coverage. Might want to wikilink the terms on film technique.
  • Hirsch and Chew "leap-frogged" by one grabbing reel one and the other grabbing reel two; whoever finished their reel first would grab reel three. When the Tusken Raider (played by stuntman Peter Diamond) attacks Luke, the editors ran the reel back and forth, causing the Raider to raise his weapon several times.[2] Huh? Confusing (even more so if the reader is unfamiliar with Tusken Raiders).
  • During production, the cast attempted to make Lucas laugh or smile as he often appeared depressed. No transition? Perhaps a new para would be better here.
  • Mark Hamill's face was injured in a car accident, which made reshoots impossible. Here's where a "moreover" would be helpful in connecting this to the previous thoughts.
  • four shots that Lucas declined --> "four shots that Lucas ultimately declined to use"
  • The dogfights provided a pacing that the script, storyboards, and Lucas could not describe. Huh? Could not describe?
  • these early animatics were later created with CGI effects in the production of the prequel films "created" gives the wrong impression there. This clause is also unneccessary IMO.
  • The voice of R2-D2 was said to be the most difficult sound to develop "said to be" is pretty weaselly.
  • was achieved by placing a miniature microphone into the regulator of a scuba tank, followed by Burtt breathing through the mask itself. "followed by" and "itself" make the sentence quite awkward.
  • He originally wanted Orson Welles to speak for Darth Vader. Darth should be linked earlier than this.
  • It had been suggested that C-3PO... Suggested by whom?
  • I stopped here, but I have a feeling the entire article may need a thorough copy-edit, preferably by someone not familiar with the films. Gzkn 12:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree with most of your suggestions (a couple invite redundancies). Nobody should've had to go through this if I had spent more time on the article or asked for someone else to double team the article. I'm embarrassed that I let The Filmmaker nominate this article without giving it a more detailed treatment. — Deckiller 18:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Ah yes, I took a look at your corrections and your edit of "four shots that Lucas declined" is definitely much better than the clumsiness that I had suggested. :) I knew something was wrong with ending just with "declined" but I didn't know how exactly to fix it... Gzkn 13:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• The main sections to worry about now are the reaction and allusion sections, which I have barely touched. I'd rather have someone else work on those sections at least at first, since I've clearly lost my edge on this article. — Deckiller 18:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with the sentiments above; some Eyeballs with Freshness™ need to review the whole article for copy. I have contributed some, and don't mind continuing, if the dynamics of the process stay collaborative. –Outriggr § 02:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • You did not cross off some other items that were addresed (actually, all have either been addressed or done in a manner that improved the points made). — Deckiller 03:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comments. First, there's a blatant breaching of the rules in the failure by at least two supporters (Outriggr, The Filmaker and are there more?) to declare that they are significant contributors to the article, i.e., before its nomination. I must ask that their text here be disregarded until they insert such a declaration.

• Second, although the copy-editing of Deckiller et al is in evidence, more polishing is required. Here are random examples.
  • "nineteen" but then "14". The usual way is to spell out single-digit numbers, and numericalise all others.
  • At the opening, "is" vs "was" conflict.
  • "a genre that drew relatively low numbers at the box office"—Remove "relatively".
  • "Lucas would later propose that"—Can we go easy on the journalistic backslung conditional? "Lucas later proposed that" is perfectly good.
  • "(ILM). ILM"—close repetition.
  • "Eventually, 20th Century Fox approved a budget of $8,250,000. Furthermore,..."—"eventually" is not encyclopedic: it's just too vague, and begs for precise chronological information. "Furthermore", like "in addition" and "also", is usually an unnecessary back-link. Just remove it.
  • "were constructed based on"—"on the basis of" would be more idiomatic.
  • "Special Edition"—no title case for WP titles. Tony 04:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm...I think the Filmaker stated above that it was a self-nom. Outriggr has yet to support the nomination and he did say he contributed to the article... Gzkn 04:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• • Thanks Tony; I'm always afraid to remove passive "would" wording, but at least you laid down the law here (reminds me of the Shadow of the Colossus FA in a way). What do you mean by the is vs was and the no title case points? — Deckiller 04:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm reminded yet again why I stay away from FAC. I contributed to the article only after it came to FAC, as a result of the article coming to FAC. Tony, I know you prefer armchair commentary, but I tried to help, and I thought that was within my right without having to disclaim it. It's a goddamn wiki. Is this an article improvement and featuring process, or is it some kind of absurd game? I'm not saying another bloody word in FAC again. Bye. –Outriggr § 05:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Did I miss something? — Deckiller 05:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
    • No, I think you probably read, above, Tony's accusing me of a "blatant breaching of the rules" (as you Gkzn noted, which I saw later, I have not "supported" the article). Regardless of his being incorrect on a number of counts, the result is the same—"no good deed goes unpunished". What's the point of pitching in to improve articles in the face of an environment like this? The pedantry around here leaves me cold. –Outriggr § 05:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, very sorry if I made a mistake. I just looked down the edit history and thought I'd seen you before the nomination date. My fault. Tony 08:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. –Outriggr § 02:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll just add, Tony, that I wouldn't have gotten quite as excited if Joe Blow had said something like this to/about me. As you're a FAC regular, and people seem to listen to what you have to say, it is quite different to have you accuse me of a blatant breach of the rules. It is especially ironic that I specifically wrote above, "I don't mind continuing, if the dynamics of the process stay collaborative." Next thing I know, I'm hit with this. Anyway, it's apparent who carries the weight around here—thank you Gzdn for being objective enough to note the facts—as the silence in the face of such assertions is rather deafening. On to other things, indeed. –Outriggr § 02:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support--Rudjek 20:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Let's all be friends :) — Deckiller 03:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Yay! :) Gzkn 03:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but these wonderful editors above have been nice enough to address so many comments that I've become lost to what has been done and what has not. I'm going to state now, for the Wikipedia record that all of the above comments have been addressed. However, should any user be able to point out a particular comment that has not been addressed. Please do so. Thanks guys. :) The Filmaker 03:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• I'd still like to see mention that several works have influenced Star Wars and vice versa in the lead. My point is that Cinematic and Literary Allusions is a big and important section and as the lead is supposed to be a concise overview of important points in the article, it deserves to be given some mention, unlike other smaller sections like Novelisation or Soundtrack.--Dark Kubrick 03:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I've added a little diddy to the lead, but somebody should check my grammar. ;) The Filmaker 23:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Thanks, but could you just add that the films and books Lucas drew upon were based in fantasy and myth/folklore? Right now that half-sentence is kinda vague.--Dark Kubrick 02:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I added two examples, one for each. The Filmaker 03:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Alright, I'm satisfied.--Dark Kubrick 21:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support. The Wookieepedian 14:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Wiki-newbie 18:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. This article is well-written; it has numerous, properly formatted references; and is very informative while remaining concise. —Cliff smith 02:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support after a copyedit. I left only one minor query in the "Cinematic and literary allusions" section regarding a sentence that I didn't fully understand. I think that it's matter of only one word, though, so it's not going to prevent me from supporting. — TKD::Talk 06:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Nat91 14:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I must apologise for making a couple people help audit the prose of this article. It was my reponsibility, and I failed to complete my task before FAnom. Either that, or it proves that solid copyediting (or just prose enhancement in general, less the technical issues) must be a team activity. — Deckiller 00:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. These two sentences make no sense: "The third negative review, from Stanley Kauffmann of The New Republic, where he states, "His work here seems less inventive than in THX 1138.", is now offline.[28] The consensus for the film reads "The action and special effects are first rate." First off, why do we refer to "the third negative review" as if there are only three in existence? Second, what does it matter that the review "is now offline"? Third, what does that lest sentence, about "the consensus for the film reads", even mean? Andrew Levine 20:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree completely with your comments. I have rewritten the offending sentences. I'm surprised nobody else attempted to do so.-Hal Raglan 23:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Really great article. I'm smiling with delight! Gran2 14:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)