Wikipedia:Featured article review/Jabba the Hutt/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 delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 4:01, 12 March 2022 (UTC) [1].

Jabba the Hutt edit

Notified: Dmoon1, TAnthony, UpdateNerd, David Fuchs, Treybien, WikiProject Film, WikiProject Star Wars, WikiProject Fictional characters, diff for talk page notification 2021-03-03

Review section edit

The article has gone through changes over the years since its FA promotion in 2006. Issues were raised in March of last year, like large amount of unsourced/unverified info, odd and imbalanced structure/layout (e.g. appearances before design, more in-universe details and less real-world perspectives). There have been edits since, but the issues apparently still persist, i.e. haven't been yet addressed. George Ho (talk) 20:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

George Ho is there an update? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:41, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: I checked over and over just to be sure. All I see are minor cleanups, eliminating alternative name from lead, and reverts. Issues still unaddressed, even with "cn" tags. --George Ho (talk) 17:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC, per George Ho. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:32, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC sourcing concerns remain. I also think there's a lot of fancruft, with two sections talking about his appearances in the franchise. Z1720 (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and structure. DrKay (talk) 17:07, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delist~~, considerable issues, no progress. Chompy Ace 08:23, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Striking delist for now, as work has been occurring, so keep. Chompy Ace 00:12, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, goes against the manual of style, citation needed tags, definitely not up to modern featured article standards.--The helper5667 (talk) 03:35, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I touched it up some how does it look now? ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 14:27, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I see, you removed starwars.com; from what I can tell, it was a primary source (official website) and would be reliable. Why remove it, and how is it unreliable? --George Ho (talk) 15:22, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My bad I thought it was something like Wookipedia. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 17:00, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the touch-up. Aside from layout changes and removal of unverifiable statements, both revisions appear almost no different from each other. I can't tell whether remaining major issues are addressed. George Ho (talk) 19:59, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @George Ho:, if you can give me a list of things that need to be fixed I can easily do them in hopes of keeping this a FA. Maybe give me like around a week and if it still looks bad we can delist it. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 21:12, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I was just skimming the article; I haven't thoroughly reviewed the whole article yet. Talk:Jabba the Hutt#FA criteria concerns can help if possible. George Ho (talk) 21:19, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 00:48, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

About the sources you added:

Uncertain whether Uproxx's article is trustworthy, especially as a limited liability company (past discussions).

Per WP:RSP#Screen Rant: Screen Rant is a marginally reliable source but is not considered reliable for info about living persons.

Regarding Comic Book Resources, its same company also owns questionable Screen Rant. That shouldn't make CBR less reliable, should it?

According to one past discussion, Looper is a clickbait website and unreliable.

WP:RSP is a good list of which sources to use or avoid, just in case. --George Ho (talk) 05:11, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’m pretty sure the way I used the screen rant, cbr, and Uproxx is fine and I’ll look into replacing looper. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 12:48, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho: How's it lookin now? ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 15:26, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I wonder whether an inline ref for Kevin Michael Richardson as one of voice actors in Star Wars: The Clone Wars (film), the info you removed, is necessary. The film has ending credits and, despite being a primary source, is more reliable than looper. Sometimes, I don't use inline refs for info provided by primary sources themselves, but that's just me.

The Daily Beast's reliability has been debated for years, and the community couldn't come up an agreement about what to do with it. Yet they have reservations or cautions about using it for controversial statements about living persons, like Andrew Cuomo. I also wonder whether the Cuomo addition is due or undue weight.

Also, the community hasn't reached an agreement about the reliability of Business Insider, yet they have considered its Culture section reliable. The way you used the opinion piece to verify that person's opinions may be okay for me as long as it's not used to verify factual statements, but someone else may disagree with me.

The rest are fine to use, but that's just me. George Ho (talk) 22:15, 5 February 2022 (UTC); edited, 02:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho: I never used a Daily Beast ref tho, I used the Daily Voice. Also I dont see how it is undue weight I think its a good example for the past sentences right before it Outside literature, the character's name has become an insulting term of disparagement. To say that someone "looks like Jabba the Hutt" is commonly understood as a slur to impugn that person's weight or appearance. In another sense of the term, Jabba the Hutt has come to represent greed and anarchy, especially in the business world. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 02:14, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. My bad! I got confused and overlooked "Voice". George Ho (talk) 02:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho: So what is left that I can do? ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 02:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.... Can't think of anything else to suggest other than.... Well, best to leave the article alone for now if (1) either no major issues remain or (2) other major issues still remain, but you are unable to figure out what to do with them. George Ho (talk) 02:39, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Chompy Ace: and @The helper5667: what do you gys think of the article now? Anything that jumps out to you that I can fix? ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 03:22, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Further improvements have either slowed down or stopped for at least a week or two. Also, one of editors whom Kaleeb18 pinged hasn't responded yet. George Ho (talk) 02:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, sample, five-year-old speculative content, and no one is working on the issues raised. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:06, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done and y’all aren’t telling me what the problems really are. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 13:43, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @SandyGeorgia: I think I might have fixed the issues now. Do you still see things I can fix. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 16:18, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will catch once others have finished their reviews; sorry to be running behind. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delist~~ - reception section is a mess. A mixture of trivial cultural references, empty placements on listicles, and trivia from various fictional works, rather than actual reception of a major cultural figure. Hog Farm _Talk 03:40, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: I’m sorry but can you go more in depth for me on what the trivial info is and what empty placement on listicles means, because I’m willing to fix it. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 14:00, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is with stuff like "Jabba the Hutt became an icon of not just Star Wars, but American popular culture as a whole" - yet that sweeping statement is supported by 1) a citation to a toy directory; 2) a book review of a graphic novel; 3) Spaceballs; 4) a short-term museum exhibit; and 5) a parade float. That's a broad sweeping statement that should be backed up by a scholarly journal article or at least a higher-quality journalistic piece supported by a collection of trivia. Or "Since the release of Return of the Jedi, the name Jabba the Hutt has become synonymous in American mass media with repulsive obesity. The name is utilized as a literary device—either as a simile or metaphor—to illustrate character flaws" - another broad, sweeping statement, but it's supported by random lines from novels, and excessive detail about a humor/introduction to Buddhism book.

Again, a broad sweeping statement that should be backed up by scholarly or "higher journalism", rather than fictioncruft. For the listicles bit, that paragraph contains 6 facts - 5 of them are Jabba being ranked in lists of Star Wars characters - including a physical attractiveness one that I'm not convinced is encyclopedic. The first paragraph of Homer Simpson#Analysis is a better (but not perfect) way to do that. Hog Farm _Talk 00:41, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: Thank you, I've tried to do some work to the article based on what you've said so what do you think now as it probably still needs help? ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 03:49, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend removing "For example, in Under the Duvet (2001), Marian Keyes references a problem with gluttony when she writes, "wheel out the birthday cake, I feel a Jabba the Hutt moment coming on."[69] Likewise, in the novel Steps and Exes: A Novel of Family (2000), Laura Kalpakian uses Jabba the Hutt to emphasize the weight of a character's father.[70]" unless out-of-plot significance can be established, and then providing a better source for the sentence before it. Ideally, we should have more of the higher-level criticism such as "the name Jabba the Hutt has become synonymous in American mass media with repulsive obesity and a negative term to call someone.". Hopefully we can find some journal articles or a journalistic piece or two that provides some of this higher-education coverage; but I have no idea where to look for such sources. Hog Farm _Talk 03:58, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: Me either, but I will remove it and try to find something probably tomorrow. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 03:59, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: so what do you think about the edits i made to the section mass media? ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 02:39, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is improved, although I'm not super familiar with handling reception of fictional items. Hog Farm _Talk 05:23, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: Alright, I think I have fixed the reception now. Do you think the article should still be delisted, if so please tell me what else needs changing. Thank you. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 18:48, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that it'll need a bit more work yet, but I'm not familiar at all with potential sourcing or even what is really currently standard for article like this, and I have no idea who to ask. Pinging George Ho as FAR nominator and David Fuchs as the one who left the notice. Hog Farm _Talk 16:27, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article wasn't nominated GA ever. Rather it was promoted FA in 2006, and I've never reviewed FA nominations before. Nonetheless, I've taken FA-promoted articles to review before. Except Quatermass and the Pit, most articles I've taken to review were delisted. The matter isn't whether the article meets FA's current standards. Rather it's whether the whole article still meets WP:FACR.

Regarding criterion #3 (Media), five non-free images and one free image are used. The lead image is still appropriate, and an image of the comic version of him is appropriately used as a body. Unsure what else to say about rationales. Most of file pages of those images seem to almost copy each other, and the lead image's rationale is almost complete. But those issues may be fixable. Regarding #4 (Length), well... the article has stayed on topic... hopefully, because the article has been about the fictional character. Unsure whether it's exactly "well written" (#1a), but the writing isn't too bad to my eyes.

Unsure about #1b (comprehensive) and #1c (well researched), but at least it kinda meets #1d~1f in my eyes. ~~Reading the lead, however, I was unsure how else to say about it. Well,~~ I changed one of the 'First appearance's in the infobox from "Star Wars" to "Return of the Jedi", which was his first real-world film appearance. Hopefully, no one objects to the change. Unsure about consistent citations (#2c), but I don't mind the reference style(s) used there. George Ho (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When I was in a rush, I forgot my further comments about the lead. Three paragraphs are decent amount. I wasn't sure whether the lead emphasizes too much or too little. After re-readings, ~~however, I guess there's nothing wrong with the lead as it is.~~ The first paragraph briefly introduces the character and details his (fictional) language.

The second paragraph details what he really is in the right amount, but "the storyline context of the original trilogy" somewhat irks me because, as said before, his first real-world film appearance was Return of the Jedi and... well, when I was watching the original versions of the original trilogy, I couldn't pay attention to much of the dialogue and couldn't care less about Jabba as an off-screen character. Howevery, if anybody else here is fine with it, then... okay.

The third paragraph briefly his media appearances and what he symbolizes. ~~So far, looks okay overall.~~ BTW, I renamed "Cultural impact" to "In popular culture" and separated it from "Reception", and I changed the sentence's tone more active. Are these edits okay? George Ho (talk) 22:58, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my mind about the lead per SandyGeorgia's review. --George Ho (talk) 21:29, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it passes #1b I looked for sources that could be major things and I found none. I also looked at Wookiepedia to see if that had anything major that we didn't, and there was none. I am also unsure about #1c but I know it is a lot better than before after I verified a lot more info. Definitely passes #1d, #2e, and for #1f. For #2a I actually think the lead is not bad surprisingly. I think #2b is good. I think #2c is good after I removed unverified info I could not find RS for it, and after I replaced citation needed templates. For #3 the only image I might have a problem with is the 2nd one. I can truly say that I think it passes #4 after reading it 3 times. Also George Ho, I think your edits are fine, but I do not think it really matter if "In popular culture" is its own section or in reception, but my opinion is that it stays in reception, but that is just my opinion. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 01:55, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If it doesn't belong in the article, then a screenshot of the deleted scene (File:FordandMulholland.jpg) should be either in Declan Mulholland or PRODded (either manually with {{subst:PROD}} or via Twinkle). What would you like to do? George Ho (talk) 02:15, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho: Oh wait I forgot Declan Mulholland is dead. Now I really don't know what to do with it. Do you think it should stay? ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 02:20, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded File:Declan Mulholland photo.png as the lead image for the actor bio. George Ho (talk) 03:16, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have an idea. Which any of the images (1997 version, 2004? version) do you think should be used? I thought uploading one or two more screenshots. George Ho (talk) 06:54, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho: used for what? ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 13:17, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaleeb18: I intend to use the "CGI" Jabba image(s), either 1997 and/or 2004 versions, for the "Episode IV: A New Hope" subsection to either compare with the stand-in actor image or replace it. George Ho (talk) 20:52, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho: Maybe use the 1977 version so the readers can understand why it got a lot of hate. As seen in the critical response section. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 21:47, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaleeb18: When you typed "1977", do you mean 1997 Special Edition version or the original 1977 deleted scene one? --George Ho (talk) 21:53, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho: oops my bad I meant 1997. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 22:08, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey George Ho would you mind looking over my rewrite of the lead and fixing any problems you might see. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 02:44, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://carnegiemuseumnaturalhistory.tumblr.com/post/184620311591/is-jabba-the-hutt-a-slug is flagged by Headbomb as unreliable (I don't know where to figure out why, but it appears to be a museum employee blogging). If lots of sources think Jabba the Hutt is a slug, surely a better source can be found. If not, the information may be WP:UNDUE. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:14, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's tumblr. Social media is as reliable as the account owner. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:36, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, here is Lucas Films on slug, which is cited in the body of the article, so a) no need to cite it in the lead at all, b) it is not controversial, and c) no need to source to a marginal blog. That said the entire first para of the lead needs to be rewritten anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:00, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~None of these are cited in the article; unclear why they are there.~~
What was "Further reading" in the FA version, was incorrectly moved to "Works cited", and have now been deleted entirely. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:31, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this in External links?
What makes https://www.consumerfreedom.com/about/ a reliable source, and even if it is, it cannot be used to cite the sweeping statements that are sourced to it (sample: Outside literature, the character's name has become an insulting term of disparagement. To say that someone "looks like Jabba the Hutt" is commonly understood as a slur to impugn that person's weight or appearance.)
Copyedit needs, colloquialisms, redundancies, tense changes, samples only (not comprehensive):
- "In another sense of the term, Jabba the Hutt has come to represent greed and anarchy ... "
- "Robin Mukherjee wrote about what inner selves were like and described his "inner self" to Jabba the Hutt, stating: ..."
- "The Turkish Cultural Community of Austria called out a Lego toy set of Jabba's palace of being racially biased of two religious structures in Turkey."
- "They stated it was clear as what it was going for as Jabba the Hutt ... "
- "With the premiere of Return of the Jedi in 1983 and the accompanying merchandising campaign, Jabba the Hutt has extended his popularity in other things besides Star Wars. "
- " Jabba the Hutt ... is an ... alien known as a Hutt who operates as a powerful crime lord within the galaxy.
The lead is disorganized ... the first paragraph tells us who developed a language, which is surely not one of the most important things to know here. This is found in the lead:
- The character has incorporated prominently into Star Wars merchandising beginning with the marketing campaign corresponding with the theatrical release of Return of the Jedi.

I remain at Delist, as stated above; edits are being made but the article is not heading towards FA status. This was not even a comprehensive look; the glaring deficiencies here stand out on a cursory look; this article will be better served if delisted, with a return to FAC if it is rewritten. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:14, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: I have done all that you stated (I think). I didnt remove Wookiepedia from external links as that is pretty normal for a star wars character. See The Mandalorian, Luke Skywalker, and Han Solo as references.

You addressed almost nothing that I mentioned, and even if you had, I provided only samples of the prose issues. A top-to-bottom copyedit is needed; the prose is not at FA standards. There is no need to ping me again, until/unless an independent copyeditor, experienced with FA standards, has been through, and reliability of sources has been checked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:27, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a sample of prose from the first paragraph in the lead:

. He was originally supposed to first appear in Star Wars (1977) as a stop motion character with Declan Mulholland as his stand-in ...

We can't get there from here ... this FAR needs to be shut down. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:35, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article is significantly improved from where it was when I dropped off my comments on the talk page (and I want to credit Kaleeb18 for the work they have done), but I agree with Sandy above it's still significantly distant from modern FA standards for an article of this type. The main issue is that the real-world reception and impact seems incredibly thin. A quick search on my local library's database and scholar.google.com picks up a lot of potential coverage for the thematic use of the character, but I feel like there's also got to be more general reception (perhaps going back to look at contemporary reviews so see how the character was received at the time?) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 11:45, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks David Fuchs. Maybe I’ll try to work on this article some more later, when I become a more experienced editor. I just hate to see an article like this get delisted because we all know it’s likely this article wont be touched much for a while. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 13:03, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Sometimes that's just the best outcome; going through another FAC in the future will make a better article. Whether or not it retains featured quality doesn't really relate much to how much attention it gets; most Wikipedia articles are just one or two dedicated editors from being substantially better, and your efforts have still made this article improved over the one viewers were reading a few months ago, so I don't think it's been a net negative. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:46, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist for now, per David Fuchs; hopefully this one will be back at FAC some day. Hog Farm _Talk 15:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:01, 12 March 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.