Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Empire Strikes Back/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 promoted by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 21 January 2022 [1].

The Empire Strikes Back edit

Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:39, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about The Empire Strikes Back, which modern critics argue is the best film in the Star Wars film series. A conflicting reception at first its legacy is now one of setting new standards in blockbuster trilogies and advancing an overarching narrative. This is a former featured article from a very long time ago, in a galaxy very far away, and now it's back with a vengeance for modern audiences to enjoy once again. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:39, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article in its current form was copy-edited by Twofingered Typist who concluded his work on November 3, 2021, and sadly passed away on November 19. I didn't know him personally but he has copyedited quite a few articles I've worked on for this FA project and this statement is to preserve in perpetuity his contributions to helping elevate this article. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:31, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D edit

I'll probably post a full review, but first some random comments:

  • Watch out for excessive detail. For instance:
    • " at a cost of about $250,000", " the instruments included oboes, piccolos, pianos, and harps" (the LSO doesn't work for free and has lots of instruments, so this is unremarkable)
    • the last para of the 'Commencement in Norway' section is full of unimportant facts
    • "While filming Vader's entrance, the snow troopers preceding Prowse tripped over the polystyrene ice, and the stuntman behind him stood on his cape, breaking it off, causing Prowse to collapse onto the snow troopers" - trivia
  • "the second unit remained through March to film explosions, incidental footage, and battle scenes featuring thirty-five mountain rescue skiers as extras; their work was compensated with a donation to the Norwegian Red Cross." - surely the crew were paid? Or were they working as a donation? Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of the article discusses the budget of the film and the massive inflation it goes through, so I thought the cost of the music was an interesting addition to it. The instruments mentioned are specifically to note what was involved in the score, for example it doesn't mention guitars. I don't know if that is a full list of the instruments involved it's just what I've found.
I can rewrite it a bit if you'd prefer but per the previous reply, it's in essence discussing things which contributed to massive delays and budget increases because of the extreme cold and technical issues and then they returned with damaged footage anyway.
The Vader's entrance part is just a fun anecdote about filming for me personally, the idea that Kershner wanted the characters to have grand entrances and someone stepped on Vader's cape and they all went flying. I can move it to the Special effects of The Empire Strikes Back if you'd prefer as I'd like to keep it in some form. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:19, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's meant to be the skiers who were paid in a donation. I've reworded it a bit.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:19, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here's my full review. In short, the article is in great shape, except for one section:

  • "Lucas considered replacing producer Gary Kurtz with Howard Kazanjian because of issues that arose when Kurtz had not fulfilled his role while filming Star Wars, but Kurtz convinced him otherwise" - this is beating around the bush a bit. Say what Kurtz didn't do.
  • "Mayhew fell ill from wearing a wool suit in 90 °F (32 °C) heat" - where was this? (given that the article up to this point has stressed how cold conditions at the studio were)
  • "This was a rare feat; only 10% of films typically achieved this figure" - surely few films tried to hit the figure though as they had much lower budgets though? The previous material in this section notes that the studio was very confident the film would be a hit, so this seems out of place.
  • The 'Critical response' section is over long and heavy going - it is unclear who all these critics are, and we don't need anywhere near as much about their views given the article has very good sections providing thematic analysis of the film and how perceptions of it have developed. The quality of the prose is notably inferior to the previous sections, which are very well written and enjoyable to read. I'd suggest a major revamp of this section to simplify and shorten it.
  • "Arnold wrote it is an irreplaceable connecting work, but lacked Star Wars's self-contained narrative and asked audiences to wait two years for a resolution." - this sentence is pretty clunky
  • "was critical that" - also clunky
  • Sentences like "Critics were consistent in their praise for the Yoda character as both a performance and a technical achievement" need a reference that says that 'critics were consistent' or similar, not a bunch of examples of this.
  • "Although Arnold praised Kershner's direction, others believed that Lucas' oversight was obvious because Kershner's influence in his other films was not evident." - this is unclear
  • "and groundbreaking piece of cinema" - it's not clear how the film was 'groundbreaking'?
  • " is now considered as arguably the best film" - is the 'arguably' needed here? This feels unnecessary. Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have to look up what Kurtz's issues were, it doesn't mention specifics in the book, bear with me. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It was on the Han torture room scene because of the steam, I've elaborated a bit. It gets a bit confusing because I've obviously had to move a lot of content to the special effects page. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Removed Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Working reception section for comments 4-8.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Working for more detailed sources. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Removed Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK Nick-D, I think I've addressed all these. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:43, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support I still don't love the 'Critical response' section (still a bit too long and much too US-centric), but I think that my comments are sufficiently addressed given the strength of the rest of the article: nice work. Nick-D (talk) 08:21, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crit reception sections are the bane of my existence, especially for older films like this. The reviews that are available are mainly US and they barely mention things like the cast, it's all comparisons to the first film so there isn't much info to work with unfortunately. Thanks for your support. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:10, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pamzeis edit

I'll probably want to give this a review but haven't got the time at the moment. Ping me if I don't leave comments by Sunday. Pamzeis (talk) 13:42, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Pamzeis Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:15, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not screw this up:

  • "its realistic expressions and" — "realistic expressions" is WP:VOICE
  • "In case the film had failed" — not entirely sure which film the article is referring to
  • "Fox had the right of refusal for a sequel. ... Fox had already given Lucas controlling interest in the series' merchandising" — I'm kind of confused because the article implied earlier on that Lucas did not sell the film to Fox
  • "replacing producer Gary Kurtz with ... that arose when Kurtz had ... but Kurtz convinced him otherwise" — Kurtz's (last) name is dropped three times in this sentence. Try to reduce it
  • "accident after filming Star Wars, (Lucas told Hamill his character would have been replaced if he had died), and" — this seems kinda awkward, probably because the sentence in brackets is a full sentence
  • "embraced their interesting ideas" — "interesting" is WP:VOICE and doesn't add anything IMO
  • "improve his Star Wars performance" — can this be more specific? Did Ford act badly in the original film and want to act better? Did fans dislike him leading to him want to improve his popularity?
  • "According to Fisher, Williams struggled to remember his lines during filming." — not sure why this bit is relevant

That brings me to #Filming. I've made a few tweaks myself; feel free to revert anything you disagree with. Pamzeis (talk) 02:08, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing another review Pamzeis on these long articles. I've done all of these apart from the one about Ford. In the source he literally just says "I had no difficulty deciding I would do part two. In fact, I was happy to do it again because I thought I could do it better. I also felt iI had a moral obligation." Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:04, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More comments:

  • "103 days of filming two days later" — per MOS:NUM, be consistent with figures vs spelled-out numbers
  • "Including crew and special effects teams, around 700 people worked on Empire." — I don't see the point of the first part of the sentence because crew and special effects teams would obviously work on the film
  • "Adjusted for inflation, the North American box office is equivalent to $920.8 million, making it the thirteenth highest-grossing film ever adjusted for inflation." — repetitive
  • "His realistic expressions impressed" — WP:VOICE

Not a lot. That brings me to #Thematic analysis. Pamzeis (talk) 10:03, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pamzeis I think I have fixed these, thanks again. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:42, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tim Robey wrote that" — who is he? His name just seems to come out of nowhere
  • "Brandon Katz described Yoda" — same as above
  • "described Luke's journey ... with Luke serving ... to lure Luke toward" — Three instances of Luke in this sentence...
  • I feel like #Duality and evil spends too much time discussing the film's plot: the three of the first paragraph's seven and two to four of the third paragraph's seven. Can this be trimmed?
  • "Luke's impatience to leave for Bespin exemplifies his lack of growth to this point." — I feel like this should be attributed
  • "because it is easy to understand good and evil" — seems like WP:VOICE
  • "one of the more famous lines of improvised" — in comparison to what...?
  • "the bold unresolved ending" — this bit isn't really obviously attributed the Empire magazine
  • Per MOS:CONFORMTITLE, can the citation titles be consistently formatted in either sentence case or title case following MOS:5LETTER?
  • The second book cited has inconsistent cite formatting with the others (that being, it uses a 10-digit ISBN unlike the other 13-digit ISBN ones) Pamzeis (talk) 04:26, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK Pamzeis, I think I've addressed all of these. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 00:22, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Friendly neighbourhood pinger-man Pamzeis Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:50, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the delay. I will finish giving the article another look by Sunday. Pamzeis (talk) 14:00, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Pamzeis (talk) 04:43, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for another detailed review Pamzeis! Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:59, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from 👨x🐱 edit

Been a while since I have review an FA. This looks bigger than the Star Wars' Empire itself, but here's a couple of comments so far:

  • Inconsistent citing: Why are three New York Times pieces cited the Harvard way, but others are full references?
  • A lot of sections are filled with cite bundles that make the article unreadable. I would do what I and Cat's Tuxedo do and place the cite bundles into notes.

👨x🐱 (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 16:41, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What are you considering too many bundles, so I know what to look for? The difference in the NYT references is that some are the website and some are the physical paper. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:43, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I get the NY Times thing now. As for the cite bundles, it's not the cite bundles themselves or that there are too much of them. In fact, I encourage them as much as possible so that the highest verification of details and opinions is there. It's just we have to make the prose readable at the same time; see the reception sections for Bubsy 3D (recently passed to GA) and Wetrix to see what I mean. 👨x🐱 (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 00:33, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi HumanxAnthro, I've attacked some of the more egregious examples, not sure where to draw the line so I stuck to anything with >4 references. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:40, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd draw it at three, though that's a good limit too 👨x🐱 (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 22:49, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, done HumanxAnthro Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:57, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome. Ping me if I forget to comment more on this review in the coming weeks. 👨x🐱 (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 17:12, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
HumanxAnthro Pinging as requested Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:27, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
HumanxAnthro Checking if you got the ping? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:55, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did, don't worry. I'm onto it. ;) 👨x🐱 (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 22:19, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FunkMonk is done HumanxAnthro, only you can save Christmas now. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:31, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here's some prose comments, real quick:
  • "the rare sequel that is better than its predecessor." Wait… *The* rare sequel that’s better? I understand if some critics think it is the only sequel to be better, but *The* implies its the only one of its kind, and there’s obviously other examples, like Shrek 2, and the second LOTR film.
  • "success" is overused in first paragraph of development section
  • "People" WP:WEASALWORD, was it all types of people or just those in the industry? Did the source specify this?
  • "to control the development of the film and to absorb its liabilities" you do not need two… um…. tos here

👨x🐱 (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 23:41, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done most. I'm assuming by "people" you mean the line about him receiving unwanted attention and threats? No the source doesn't specify. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 00:02, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaving it at that. I trust the other experience reviewers have provided all the comments needed to be made, sources reliable. If someone else wants to spotcheck the book sources, I do not have them on hand, so Support. 👨x🐱 (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 19:18, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image Review edit

General Kenobi, you are a bold one.
Let me do an image review for this. Images used are either under public domain or have Creative Commons licenses. The poster, while non-free, is being used appropriately under fair use (illustrates the article). No other image copyright issues.
A few ALT issues (see):

  • Missing ALTs for File:Leigh Brackett 1941.JPG and File:Lawrence Kasdan by Gage Skidmore.jpg
  • File:Jokolen.jpg: Suggest a bit more descriptive alt: A top-down photo of the Hardangerjøkulen glacier (a vast snowy plain) in Finse, Norway.
  • File:David Prowse at Mountain-Con III in 2007 (cropped).png and File:James Earl Jones (8516667383).jpg need alts.
  • File:Theempirestrikesback-logo2.svg: Suggest a bit descriptive alt: The logo for The Empire Strikes Back. The movie title has been stylised for the logo.
  • File:Kennedy Center seen from the Potomac River, June 2010.jpg: Suggest a bit more descriptive alt: The Kennedy Center (a low-rise white building) as seen from the Potomac River.
  • File:Fan Expo 2015 - Darth Vader & Yoda (21580250840).jpg. Alt can be: Fans at a convention dressed as Darth Vader (left) and Yoda (right). (if you want, you can be a bit more descriptive with their clothing and physical description).

Sorry for being a bit too nitpicky, but just wanted a bit more descriptive alts for accessibility.
May the Force be with you. Another happy landing. ZKang123 (talk) 13:36, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing nitpicky here and thanks for suggesting alternatives ZKang123. All done Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:27, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are still missing ALTs for the following: File:Leigh Brackett 1941.JPG, File:Lawrence Kasdan by Gage Skidmore.jpg, File:David Prowse at Mountain-Con III in 2007 (cropped).png and File:James Earl Jones (8516667383).jpg --ZKang123 (talk) 09:32, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Does alt footer not work? That's what I've been using. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:44, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to alt1 and alt2 Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:51, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok looks good. Another happy landing. Farewell, my friend. May the Force be with you. ZKang123 (talk) 01:03, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And also with you. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:48, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Funk edit

  • This looks massive, so could probably use a review more, so marking my spot. FunkMonk (talk) 01:22, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, should begin soonish, just finished the other reviews I had started. FunkMonk (talk) 11:55, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Frank Oz (voice) as Yoda" And puppeteer, no?
  • I wonder if the head-shots used of the actors, crew, etc. should be closer to how they appeared in the film (time wise)?
  • "Hamill recounted being told she might be Leia, which he found disappointing." I'm not sure what this means. That his character would be replaced by Leia? Could be made clearer.
  • "Lucas included elements such as Han's debt to Jabba" Wasn't this already established by the script for the first film, considering the scene where Han talks to Jabba about his debt was already filmed but cut by then (of course, included in the special edition)?
  • "all reprised their Star Wars' roles" Not sure the possessive apostrophe is needed here.
  • Link African-American and Armenian?
  • "Clive Revill provided the character's voice while Marjorie Eaton physically portrayed the Emperor in test footage. The footage proved unsatisfactory, and Elaine Baker wearing a mask, with chimpanzee eyes superimposed over her face, replaced her." Any explanations for these unconventional choices? Always baffled me.
I can't do anything about the photos, the earliest one is like 2001 for Harrison Ford and it's not a particularly clear photo of his face, but I've done the rest of these FunkMonk. The Jabba's debt thing, it doesn't mention anything about hte original film, just that he revived the idea from the treatment as it had not been in the first draft. So it's possible Jabba just wasn't going to be brought up again in hte sequel until they were brainstorming and the New Hope mention was just for that film.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:29, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Yoda puppeteer point was in regard to the cast section, where Oz is only credited for the voice.
  • "Hamill and Fisher were on location, although Fisher only wanted to observe." What is meant by this? She didn't want to to film, or she just wasn't scheduled to film? If the latter, doesn't seem like only observing was her choice. Maybe "she was only there to observe"?
  • Footnote a could need a citation.
  • "causing Prowse to collapse onto the snow troopers" Collapse seems very strong, "fall"? Especially since you use that term again in the following paragraph for Fisher's illness.
  • "dendritic salt, mixed with magnesium sulfate" Link these substances.
  • Isn't tauntaun one word and not capitalised?[2] You now say "Taun Taun".
  • "700 people had worked on Empire." This is one of the only places where you abbreviate the title like that. Why not just say "the film" or similar to avoid confusion?
  • It would seem fitting to use this photo of Hamill at a press conference[3] for the movie somewhere?
Done all but the "700 people" one FunkMonk. Do you mean abbreviating the title to Empire? It's used quite a lot through the article not infrequently. It's even used in the lead. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:49, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and a Lucas-modified version in February 1997" Seems odd phrasing instead of just mentioning and linking the special editions?
  • "and the Clive Revill/Elaine Baker Emperor was replaced by Ian McDiarmid who had performed the role since Return of the Jedi (1983)" But wasn't this only done for the much later DVD release? Now it's written as if it was part of the original special edition.
  • "The original, unaltered version became officially unavailable beyond this point." Beyond what point? There is at least one official DVD release where the original versions were included as extras.
  • Some of the films had additional changes on Disney+, is that not the case with this one?
Done FunkMonk, sorry for taking a while to reply. There is no mention of any changes to Empire on Disney+, just the addition of "Maklunkey" to A New Hope. Empire, in general, seems to be the least modified of the three original films. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:52, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Harmy's Despecialized Edition is an unofficial project led by Petr Harmáček to remaster and preserve the films without Lucas's alterations." Is this level of detail really necessary in this already very long article? Seems like it makes more sense in the general special edition article.
  • "When the film debuted on television" What date?
  • "Lucas made other alterations." Isn't this redundant, as you already mention changes in the previous section?
  • "Merchandise for The Empire Strikes Back includes Lego sets,[276] posters, children's books, clothing, Funko Pops, character busts and statues, action figures, and furnishings." Considering the gazillion different kinds of figures that were made, seems a little random to mention two specific brands first, especially since those were not among the original merchandise for the film.
  • Much of the info under "Sequels, prequels, and adaptations" seems very tangential to this film. Is it all necessary? Looks like it could easily be cut down to a single paragraph. Especially since essential sections like "Special effects and design" and "Music" are a good deal shorter. For example, what does this level opf detail have to do with anything here? "although reactions to The Rise of Skywalker, as the conclusion to the Skywalker narrative, were typically negative and derisive." and " Retrospectives have highlighted that those who saw the prequel films first were more positive than those who grew up with the original trilogy." Looks like this and similar stuff belongs in a more general article.
  • Since the "Mythology and inspirations" section seems to be mainly based on Yoda's training of Luke, it seems a bit off that there is little to no description of this training in the plot section? Especially since many other parts of the film, like the beginning, is described in small detail.
  • You spell out Anne Lancashire's name at second instead of first mention.
K FunkMonk, done Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:59, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Modern reception" The word modern makes it seem like the film was made in the 19th century or something, in The Thing you had the more fitting "Critical reassessment".
  • "She believed that" Probably best to use her name if you're going to start a new paragraph.
  • "his lack of growth to this point." By this point?
  • "Empire magazine named it the third-best film of all time" Always wondered if their name was related to the movie, anything to it?
  • " the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU)" Why establish an abbreviation that you don't even use again?
  • "Critics praised the character Yoda, a diminutive puppet that serves as Luke's teacher" This makes it seem like he's a puppet in-universe, "diminutive alien"?
Done FunkMonk, I can find no evidence or implication that the magazine is named after the film so I'd guess it's just a British thing. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:26, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you FunkMonk Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:06, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from zmbro edit

I've been checking out your work a lot lately, not just on this article, and am heavily impressed. Very well written and researched. Happy to offer my support. I'd love to see Return of the Jedi get this level of treatment one day. – zmbro (talk) 21:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Buidhe, do you think we're ready to promote yet?Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:27, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Source review is still needed (t · c) buidhe 12:48, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from SNUGGUMS edit

  • After making one minor edit here, I see no issues with the article and wholeheartedly support! It is very well compiled and deserves to regain the gold star. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:09, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Amakuru - Pass edit

Version reviewed on first pass: [4]

Formatting review
  • What criterion have you used for putting things in long reference versus short reference? There seem to be a few inconsistencies, e.g. ref 382 has a Variety article inline, while ref 228 has one with a short ref. Personally I don't really see much need for the split out magazine and newspaper cites myself, I'd leave it at books and journals, since all those can be handled inline with pretty much just a single page number. In any case, it needs to be consistent.
  • I'm not too keen on the display name for some of the short references, for example "VarietyAugust 1980.", which corresponds to the long reference "Smokey 2 No. 1 in Domestic B.O. Maiden Wk. With $17,805,900". Daily Variety. Los Angeles. August 25, 1980. Although these are correctly linked via the sfn anchor, they should also be easily readable and translatable by a human, and formatted with spaces etc. Something like "Daily Variety 1980" might work instead. Similarly, "NYTimesMay24 1980" is not very human readable. Suggest something like "The New York Times, May 1980" or similar.
  • The "Hutchison, David (November 1980)" long reference is not cited anywhere in the article as far as I can see.
  • Mixed styles for volume/number - the "Lancashire, Anne" reference uses the 5 (3) notation while others below say "Vol." and "no.". Make it consistent.
  • "Box office Mojo" - our article is titled Box Office Mojo. Is there a discrepancy?
  • Ref 8 - "11 actors who are Harrison Ford-y enough to pull off a young Han Solo" - minor point, but I might put a {{nowrap}} around "Ford-y". It's splitting it on my screen, and the lone "y" looks a little odd.
  • Ref 18, 246 etc. - "British Film Institute" probably shouldn't be italicised, as it's a publisher rather than a work. Ditto 186, the BBFC.
  • Refs 5 & 19 - both look like website-based news sites, so probably should both be italics or both not, unless there's a fundamental difference between them that I'm missing. Check for other website names.
  • Ben Bova, Spencer Ackerman, John Morton (actor) all have their own pages, so can be linked as authors of refs used in the article. Check for others.
  • Ref 24 - "Franch" is a misspelling of "Franich"
  • Refs 214/218 - inconsistent italics
  • Refs 241, 243 - including the "(Page 3)" as part of the title looks a little odd. Might suggest the usual "p. 3" notation later in the ref

About halfway through now, will continue later on.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:10, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

      • What criterion have you used for putting things in long reference versus short reference? There seem to be a few inconsistencies, e.g. ref 382 has a Variety article inline, while ref 228 has one with a short ref. Personally I don't really see much need for the split out magazine and newspaper cites myself, I'd leave it at books and journals, since all those can be handled inline with pretty much just a single page number. In any case, it needs to be consistent.
The inline ones are the website, the others are physical magazines. I don't choose to use the magazine template for websites, the bot forces the change whenever I change it back and when I explained this to the people in charge of the bot they deemed me stupid for thinking a website was different to a physical magazine, and that it made sense to use a magazine citing template to cite websites. This, of course, is stupid, but I'm not in control of the bot and any time I change it back to website the bot changes it back to magazine. But that is the difference, one is citing websites and one is citing physical media. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not too keen on the display name for some of the short references, for example "VarietyAugust 1980.", which corresponds to the long reference "Smokey 2 No. 1 in Domestic B.O. Maiden Wk. With $17,805,900". Daily Variety. Los Angeles. August 25, 1980. Although these are correctly linked via the sfn anchor, they should also be easily readable and translatable by a human, and formatted with spaces etc. Something like "Daily Variety 1980" might work instead. Similarly, "NYTimesMay24 1980" is not very human readable. Suggest something like "The New York Times, May 1980" or similar.
Fixed Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:25, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • The "Hutchison, David (November 1980)" long reference is not cited anywhere in the article as far as I can see.
This was used for the special effects before they were split out so I've removed it. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Mixed styles for volume/number - the "Lancashire, Anne" reference uses the 5 (3) notation while others below say "Vol." and "no.". Make it consistent.
I don't know if changing this is an option. The refs are using the same field name but they're different types of ref (journal vs magazine) so that just seems to be how it's displayed. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Box office Mojo" - our article is titled Box Office Mojo. Is there a discrepancy?
Fixed Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ref 8 - "11 actors who are Harrison Ford-y enough to pull off a young Han Solo" - minor point, but I might put a {{nowrap}} around "Ford-y". It's splitting it on my screen, and the lone "y" looks a little odd.
Fixed Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ref 18, 246 etc. - "British Film Institute" probably shouldn't be italicised, as it's a publisher rather than a work. Ditto 186, the BBFC.
FixedDarkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Refs 5 & 19 - both look like website-based news sites, so probably should both be italics or both not, unless there's a fundamental difference between them that I'm missing. Check for other website names.
The Numbers is just a different site doing what Box Office Mojo does and it's article is not italicized, whereas Deadline Hollywood is a media site so it is italicized. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ref 24 - "Franch" is a misspelling of "Franich"
Fixed Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Refs 214/218 - inconsistent italics
Fixed Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Refs 241, 243 - including the "(Page 3)" as part of the title looks a little odd. Might suggest the usual "p. 3" notation later in the ref
Fixed Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amakuru Thanks for working on the source review! (t · c) buidhe 14:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: you're welcome, hopefully I'll finish it off tomorrow. Actually, while you're here, what do you think about the volume/number issue above? It seems a bit odd to me to have a mixture like that, but perhaps if that's the way the templates output it we can accept it? I'm also a little concerned that some bot is forcing our hand here with regard to how references are formatted, but again perhaps this is standard. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 17:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen this come up at other FACs, and in this case the best solution might just be using the same template (either cite journal OR cite magazine) for both journals and magazines. (t · c) buidhe 17:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Amakuru, I've sorted the "Volume" discrepancy and corrected the websites that were cited to magazine templates. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Amakuru:, got any updates? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 15:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, back for more... looking at this version now.
  • 289/325 - inconsistent italics for Business Insider
  • 308 - is there a reason why this is "(2020)", when the linked article has a more precise date of June 4, 2020?
  • Den of Geek is italicized in the references, which seems correct, but in the prose of the Critical reassessment section it is written without italics.
  • Rotten Tomatoes is also treated differently in prose and refs. Not sure which is correct here, but make consistent.
  • Ditto Metacritic
Spotchecks
  • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 - I think this checks out for the Box Office figures, although I can't see the NY Times so will AGF on that one.
  • 6 - checks out
  • 27 - checks out for (a); (b) is part of a larger set of "Attributed to multiple references", for which it verifies the first sentence. Checks out, although formatting that way seems slightly odd to me.
  • 28 and 29 - checks out
  • 267 - checks out
  • 285 - checks out
  • 373 - checks out

I think that's enough spot checks, as the author is an experienced FA contributor. Looks good otherwise, once the few issues above have been looked at. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:11, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Amakuru.
I've fixed the Business Insider issue. The date for 308, not sure why that has happened, possibly just oversight from looking at too many refs in one go. Fixed the Den of Geek italics. Now the RT and Metacritic issues, those sites have their own specific templates, Template: Cite Rotten Tomatoes and Template: Cite Metacritic which just italicize the websites, again it's not something I have control over beyond switching those templates to regular Cite Web, which I can do if necessary. I think in this scenario the template italicizes them because they're websites. The cite template system is all a bit convoluted.
RE: The spotchecks, if you ever need to check a site like the NYTimes, use the Wayback Machine, that thing saved my ass, without it most of my best sources would be hidden behind a paywall.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:24, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Darkwarriorblake: Ah, I see. I think I'd prefer it if we did switch over to cite web then, if that's OK. It's a fairly trivial point in the grand scheme of things, but reference consistency is one of the things we look for in an FA review, and personally I don't think we should allow the vagaries of external template designs to impact that consistency in an otherwise internally-logical article. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, done Amakuru Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, thanks. Happy to pass on sources. Cheers, and great work.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Darkwarriorblake, could you correct the p/pp errors? Eg cites 54 and 68. There are others :-) . And give the page range for Schneider. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes no problem. EDIT: Oh wait, I can't for Schneider, it's an e-book with no page numbers, I have to use the chapter. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/The_Empire_Strikes_Back/archive1&oldid=1067144453"