Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi/archive2
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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted 04:56, 3 September 2007.
Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi[edit]
A A-class article with a few great reviews. A Raider Like Indiana 01:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Co-Nomination/Support I was the prime editor of all of the Star Wars film articles and their FACs. My progress of Return of the Jedi has been slowed down in the last few months due to real life. However, I do think it is now finally ready for FA status. In addition to the above stated, I'll add that it has had a peer review and that it has been passed as Good article. The Filmaker 03:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Co-Nomination/Support I was also the prime editor of all the Kingdom Hearts articles and their FACs. I have previously nominated ROTJ for FA, but it wasn't ready at the time. I now think it is ready for FA. Greg Jones II 03:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I really like this article, and made some small contributions to it over time. This article meets the criteria, and should be added to the roll of Featured article. Judgesurreal777 17:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So....... is that's a Support. I assume? The Filmaker 02:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL yeah, forgot to write it :) Support Judgesurreal777 05:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So....... is that's a Support. I assume? The Filmaker 02:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I really like this article, and made some small contributions to it over time. This article meets the criteria, and should be added to the roll of Featured article. Judgesurreal777 17:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support did some edits to this article, is great and while not as detailed as the other ones, worthy of the FA criteria. Now we only need to improve the main Star Wars page. igordebraga ≠ 18:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - seems to me that you're missing a giant source on production info here... Girolamo Savonarola 10:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In my experience those pages offer nothing more than what the current sources provide, any extra information is too trivial to be included. The Filmaker 14:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- These are production information articles written by department heads regarding their work. While there are certainly trivial details, there are also prominent ones worthy of noting. I am very disappointed that you are unwilling to do the legwork - I know this is a lot to comb through, and it's somewhat dense reading at times - but this link was mentioned by three separate editors in the ESB FAC, with no real response, and I think it's shameful to dismiss it. Things that could be added include: the order in which locations were shot (I mean which days they started in Yuma, Crescent City, and Elstree), weather issues involving the Crescent City location on scout vs. shoot, the fact that Lucasfilm went to considerable expense to pay loggers to remove potential "widow makers" from the Crescent City location ahead of time, the original release date chosen and then changed, why the Millennium Falcon is only used as a matte plate during the Han/Lando goodbye, the fact that ILM did farm out about 400 effects shots, substantial quotes from Marquand, Kazanjian, and Lucas, details regarding the hiring of Marquand, the fact that Lucas wanted to cut Yoda from the picture entirely, how much of the script survived the cutting room, the number of special effects shots, the fact that over 100,000 feet of film was rejected by ILM before usage because of perforation problems, the speeder bike plates required a Steadicam additionally fitted out with two gyroscopes (very unusual) and were operated by the device's inventor, location scouting at Death Valley, Moab, and White Sands before settling on Yuma, the development of computerized puppetry "go-motion" by Tippett, which was a precursor to his work on Jurassic Park (detailed in the Cotta Vaz book), the breaking of the optical elements record (about 70 different pieces of film), official cites for the infamous "Nike in space" and chewing gum for ships...do you want me to continue?
- What's really most shocking is that for a film which was the culmination of ILM's first phase of history, which completed the SFX extravanganza of the Star Wars trilogy, and was undoubtedly the most complex and advanced SFX film when it was released (and remained so for some time) - there is not even so much as a mention of ILM, much less all the work that they did! The production section is very threadbare as far as actual shooting details go, and with the highly accessible articles called: Art Direction, Cinematography, Creature Design, Effects Photography, Effects Art Direction, Location Photography, Matte Effects, Model Construction, Optical Effects, Production and Direction, and Steadicam Plates, each of which runs several pages you have absolutely no excuse not to do your homework. I know it's annoying, takes time to parse, and does have a fair bit of trivia that needs to be skipped. But there as much wheat as chaff there. If you're willing to nominate an FAC, you should be willing to sit down and do the work. Girolamo Savonarola 19:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you really wish, I will comb through the site again. Please assume good faith, as I am willing to do the legwork, however the last few times I had looked through the site, I saw nothing worth inclusion. For the record, while there is no response on the ESB FAC, the site was included in some text to aid other sources that were already there. The Filmaker 20:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Good. You might want to start in the Production and Direction section first, since that is more of a general overview. If you need any help deciphering the technical details, let me know. Thanks! Girolamo Savonarola 20:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you really wish, I will comb through the site again. Please assume good faith, as I am willing to do the legwork, however the last few times I had looked through the site, I saw nothing worth inclusion. For the record, while there is no response on the ESB FAC, the site was included in some text to aid other sources that were already there. The Filmaker 20:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In my experience those pages offer nothing more than what the current sources provide, any extra information is too trivial to be included. The Filmaker 14:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. All the images in the article are nonfree. Are there no free images of the actors or the director that could be used? All of them have rather weak rationales that don't provide all the information requested at WP:FURG. Image:RevengeOTJedi.jpg doesn't seem to meet WP:NFCC #8, as it doesn't add anything that the text "The film was originally titled Revenge of the Jedi, and the original teaser trailer for the film carried this moniker" doesn't already tell us; it also lacks source information. Image:Return of the jedi 1.jpg doesn't seem particularly significant; the sentence it supports, "Luke is also captured and is sent with Solo and the others to the Great Pit of Carkoon to be slowly consumed by the Sarlacc", isn't so descriptive as to need an image. Image:Return of the jedi 4.jpg is so dark you can hardly see anything other than the lightsabers themselves. —Angr 18:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We need to fix the rationales up ASAP. Greg Jones II 18:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed the problem with the darkness in the second image in the Plot section. This sometimes happens when capturing images from DVD players, using such programs as PowerDVD. However, Free images are not required per the featured article criteria. The Filmaker 20:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, free images are not required; I never said they were. But non-free images are neither required nor desirable, and yet that's all the article has. —Angr 05:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So what's your point? That we should add free-images for the novelty of it? Just so that we can say that we have at least one free-image in the article? The Filmaker 15:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think what Angr was trying to say is: can some of these nonfree images be swapped for similar free ones? Because presumably it would make for less problems down the road. Girolamo Savonarola 00:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, no. To replace the screenshots with free-use would not achieve the purpose of the images (to illustrate the text in the plot), there is also know free-image photo of the entire cast, much less one that features them in character. The Filmaker 00:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My point was not that we should add free-images "for the novelty of it", but rather that we should aim for a minimal use of nonfree images (per NFCC#3). As I mentioned above, two of the images used in the article do not meet NFCC#8. On the other hand, we have several free images of the cast that could be used: Image:Mark Hamill (1978).jpg, Image:Harrison Ford IJ4.jpg, Image:Carrie fisher with steven spielberg.jpg, Image:David Prowse, 2006.jpg, Image:JEJones.jpg, Image:Daniels03.jpg, Image:Kenny Baker convention.jpg, Image:Peter Mayhew2005.jpg, Image:Warwick Davis, 2006.jpg, Image:Jeremy Bulloch.JPG. Since articles on fiction are to be written from a real-world perspective, not an in-universe perspective, images of the actors out of character are preferable to images of them in character, for encyclopedic reasons in addition to free-content reasons. —Angr 20:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe you are speaking of the cast photo. The photo illustrates both the major cast and the major characters. You will notice the section contains information both on the casting and the characters themselves. Also, after viewing the image again, I would less say that they are in character, just in costume. Considering they are obviously posing for a publicity photo. The Filmaker 21:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My point was not that we should add free-images "for the novelty of it", but rather that we should aim for a minimal use of nonfree images (per NFCC#3). As I mentioned above, two of the images used in the article do not meet NFCC#8. On the other hand, we have several free images of the cast that could be used: Image:Mark Hamill (1978).jpg, Image:Harrison Ford IJ4.jpg, Image:Carrie fisher with steven spielberg.jpg, Image:David Prowse, 2006.jpg, Image:JEJones.jpg, Image:Daniels03.jpg, Image:Kenny Baker convention.jpg, Image:Peter Mayhew2005.jpg, Image:Warwick Davis, 2006.jpg, Image:Jeremy Bulloch.JPG. Since articles on fiction are to be written from a real-world perspective, not an in-universe perspective, images of the actors out of character are preferable to images of them in character, for encyclopedic reasons in addition to free-content reasons. —Angr 20:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, no. To replace the screenshots with free-use would not achieve the purpose of the images (to illustrate the text in the plot), there is also know free-image photo of the entire cast, much less one that features them in character. The Filmaker 00:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think what Angr was trying to say is: can some of these nonfree images be swapped for similar free ones? Because presumably it would make for less problems down the road. Girolamo Savonarola 00:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So what's your point? That we should add free-images for the novelty of it? Just so that we can say that we have at least one free-image in the article? The Filmaker 15:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, free images are not required; I never said they were. But non-free images are neither required nor desirable, and yet that's all the article has. —Angr 05:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed the problem with the darkness in the second image in the Plot section. This sometimes happens when capturing images from DVD players, using such programs as PowerDVD. However, Free images are not required per the featured article criteria. The Filmaker 20:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed the fair-use rationales, for all four images. I've added new information on the Revenge of the Jedi poster on the notability of it as a very rare collector's item. I've fixed the darkness in the second image in the Plot. The first image in the Plot section illustrates the entire paragraph with the location of Tatooine and is the beginning of the major action at the beginning of the film, which takes place on the ship they are being transported on. The cast photo illustrates both the cast and the look of their characters, both of which have information contained in the Cast section. Please re-evaluate your oppositions, if you still have any, based on these changes. The Filmaker 01:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We need to fix the rationales up ASAP. Greg Jones II 18:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'd take out the phrase "(actually a Jedi Padawan)" from the character descriptions. It's a poor choice for a number of reasons: Padawan status is not mentioned in the film or the original trilogy; it's debatable if Lucas even had a concept of Padawan prior to 1994; and it can be argued from an in-universe perspective that the old system is de facto obsolete from the point at which the Jedi were dismantled and exterminated. Girolamo Savonarola 01:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, it must have snuck in during one of the many edits over the months. I guess I just didn't notice it. Good catch. The Filmaker 01:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=link}
Comment: I'm too tired to read the whole article, but it's looking great like the other episode articles. One thing I noticed in Production is this little tidbit: "Some reports have suggested that Lucas was so heavily involved in the shooting of Return of the Jedi that he could be considered a second or a co-director. It is likely that he directed much of the second unit work personally as the shooting threatened to go over schedule — this is a function Lucas had willingly performed on previous occasions when he had only officially been producing a film (i.e. Raiders of the Lost Ark, The Empire Strikes Back, More American Graffiti).[4][5]" Can you turn these slightly weaselly words ("some reports"; "it is likely") into concrete statements? Also, a few more commas throughout would help readability. But anyway, it's looking good.--Dark Kubrick 01:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone else on comments or objections? Greg Jones II 20:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm still working on improving production info to the article, so I'm technically still "Oppose" for now. Will try to do more work on it tonight. Girolamo Savonarola 22:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixes needed, WP:DASH issues throughout (no spaced emdashes) and WP:UNITS, conversions needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:49, 31 August 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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.