Wikipedia:Featured article review/Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back/archive1
- 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 YellowAssessmentMonkey 00:18, 27 September 2010 [1].
Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back edit
Review commentary edit
Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Notified: The Filmaker, WikiProject Star Wars, WikiProject Films
I am nominating this featured article for review because it's a three year old FA, and it has several issues, notably citation needed and cleanup tags, promintently in the Reception section, and some of the references could use some cleanup. The Taerkasten (talk) 18:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reviewing the article and its FAC page, I do not believe that the article was properly scrutinized at the time. The references used here are underwhelming and mostly online-based. A film of this age and prominence will not have all its coverage online; much of it will be found in publications such as periodicals, books, and academic articles. The Empire Strikes Back is particularly lacking in critical analysis. This, for example, identifies chapters that specifically analyze the film (and not just Star Wars in general). Similarly, the film's mythology is explored here. The article may also benefit from the release of this making-of book. These are the biggest issues with the article, not taking into consideration the current structure and content, such as "Production" being a wall of text that would benefit from subsections. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Some dubious references, such as this IMDb one [2], a website called Fast Rewind [3], YouTube, [4] among others. The lack of analytical coverage is surprising, given the depth and influence of the Star Wars saga, and this problem is apparent in some of the other film articles as well. --The Taerkasten (talk) 15:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The film's writing, specifically Brackett's first draft (which was leaked online a few months ago), could be discussed more. This book probably goes into detail on that and the making of the film in general (it's already referenced for Episode IV). Cliff smith talk 16:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments regarding the issues:
- There's a small chunks of mess starting with 1981 Academy Awards and "Golden Screen Award in Germany" in the "Reception" section which appears to be unreferenced.
- There are also four dead links in the article:
- I've fixed most of the links, but there's a lot more to be done in this article.--The Taerkasten (talk) 12:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Lede/intro is way too short, per WP:LEAD, this should be expanded significantly in order to function as an adequate stand-alone summary of the entire article's contents. Cast could use some work, in order to comply with WP:MOSFILM. Cinematic and literary allusions is definitely way too short. Lots of issues with Reception subsection. Some short paragraphs throughout article should be expanded, or merged. Soundtrack section has zero Reception info. Other media has unsourced info - again, also lack of Reception info there as well. -- Cirt (talk) 17:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary edit
- Featured article criterion of concern include sourcing, comprehensiveness YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist per review by Taerkasten, Erik, Cliff smith and Cirt, including my review, with FA criteria concerns. No effort has been done since the review has started. There are still sourcing problems throughout the article. Until the article is improved, I can't support keeping it. JJ98 (Talk) 03:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist because the article does not meet FA criteria of comprehensiveness. It may fail the other criteria as well, but the focus on online sources and no inclusion of in-depth publications' coverage is problematic. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist per Erik. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove – Lead is inadequate, there is quite a bit of unreferenced content, a few of the cites seem somewhat dodgy (for example, 18 is what appears to be a personal website), and the reception section is listy and lacking much actual critical reception. Throw in the other problems that have been mentioned and this clearly isn't FA material now. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.