Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones/archive1

Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones[edit]

This is a self-nomination. I've been working on this article since I finished getting Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith article up to FA status. I've written this article to follow suit in the same style as that article, it was recently named a good article and has received a peer review which unfortunately did not receive much notice. Instead I decided to simply put it up for FA. I believe that if the Revenge of the Sith article is worthy of FA, this article is as well. The Filmaker 22:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support I have helped work on this article for a while now, it has grown tremendously, and it grew from the Good Article review to what it is now, ready to be featured. Judgesurreal777 22:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per above. The Wookieepedian 23:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support per my own nomination. The Filmaker 23:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Conditional Support~~ Support This is my opinion and please dont flame me because I'm a newbie, but I found the dvd realease kinda useless and some infomation that could be abridged or removed, but other than that it is a great article -ScotchMB 02:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I wish there was more information to fill out that section. But so far I have found none. At the moment I think the section is fine. So would you mind being more specific on what about the section bothers you? The Filmaker 04:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Once again please don't flame me or call me anything but to me the DVD part sounds a bit like advertisement like the listing of features and what is inside. Don't get me wrong, this article is great and informative and is ready to be on the featured. I changed my opinion to support because I was browsing and noticed that Episode 3 was just like this article and since ROTS was on featured its only fair if this goes up.-ScotchMB 00:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. I went through and tried to improve a few awkward-sounding sentences, but another round of copyediting would be beneficial. A few problematic sentences that I found were:
- "Because of the enormous number of elements from different departments that are created in the practical and digital world, Attack of the Clones became to the first film to ever to be produced through what Rick McCallum refered to as "virtual filmmaking" because of George Lucas' method of creating shots through various sources that are sometimes miles and years apart from each other." I'd break this up for clarity.
- "While Lucas had used other ways of producing motion-based storyboards in the past, with cutting documentaries footage together in A New Hope, using cartoon animation in The Empire Strikes Back, and using small models in Return of the Jedi, after The Phantom Menace the decision was made to take advantage of the growing digital technology." This sentence is a bit too busy.
- "The films that outearned it were Spider-Man and The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, which also enjoyed a more favourable critical reception." The referent of "which" is unclear; does it refer only to Two Towers or to both higher-grossing films?
- "Attack of Clones references The Empire Strikes Back most often as a nod toward them both being the middle film in their respective trilogies." The "them being" construction is awkward; technically, it should be "their being" but that's a bit jarring, too. Recast the sentence to avoid that wording.

In general, the article could stand to use more active rather than passive voice. Switching voices in some sentences would improve the vigor of the prose. The content is there, it seems; just tighten the wording. — TKD::Talk 07:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed all of your points, but I'm finding your words pretty vague, would mind going into more detail to what you mean by having an active vs. a passive voice? The Filmaker 01:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- See grammatical voice. Active voice is "X did Y", while passive is "Y was done by X." Too much passive voice makes the prose dry. I haven't re-read the article fully yet, but it seems like this isn't as big of an issue as when I read it last. — TKD::Talk 06:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've given the article a copyedit top-to-bottom. However, reading it thoroughly again, I spotted a few sentences that could stand to have inline citations. I've marked those with {{citation needed}}. Thanks. — TKD::Talk 08:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've fixed all citation problems you've pointed out. The Filmaker 02:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Support. Good work. I'm satisfied. — TKD::Talk 04:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's been a few years since I've seen this movie, and I'm wondering about this, "Anakin, Padmé, and Obi-Wan are drawn into the heart of the Separatist movement." If you say they were drawn into the movement it sounds like they joined the movement, which IIRC they didn't. Perhaps they were drawn into separatist territories? "As a disguise during filming, the film's "working title", intended sarcastically in light of the fan response to Episode I, was Jar Jar's Big Adventure." Perhaps a little context explaining who Jar Jar is, that people dislike Jar Jar and why they dislike him? "Back on Geonosis, Count Dooku tries to persuade Obi-Wan to join him, warning him that Darth Sidious is now in control of the Senate." I'd like a little more context here. Who is this character (I know it's Palpatine, but for the purposes of understanding the plot, what do the Jedi know about this character and why should they care whether he controls the Senate)? Which actor won the Worst Supporting Actor award? (and I'd add on a more humourous note, how could Anakin and Padme not win the Worst Screen Couple Award :-)?). "Also, it was not the top grossing film of the year, the first and only time that a Star Wars film has not had that distinction." ROTS topped the box office in the US, not worldwide. Maybe clarify? I also thought the references to other Star Wars section could use a bit more referencing. Other than these things the article is looking good to me. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 08:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, "As confirmed in a video on the StarWars.com Hyperspace section, a deleted scene involved the Jedi battling the droid army on Geonosis, with the droids all powered down (just as they did in The Phantom Menace after the Trade Federation ship was destroyed). This was part of an unused subplot involving Jedi master Plo Koon infiltrating the Trade Federation ship and destroying it. Dooku had planned for this and found an alternate way to power up the droid army." It's not really clear to me what this is doing in the cast section. Is this where NSYNC came in? Is there anything else to add to the cast section, anything interesting about how the actors chose to play their roles? Wasn't there a big search for an actor to play Anakin? Shouldn't that be mentioned, and an explanation given on how the part was cast? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 09:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed most of your suggestions. I've also added a paragraph on the casting on Anakin, and I've taken out the the part on the supposed deleted scene because it is uncitable (atleast in any tangible way). Two things though, to expand on why the fans dislike Jar Jar is non-comprehensive mostly because if you want to know than you should be looking at the article on Jar Jar himself, or the Episode I article. Also with the Darth Sidious moment in the synopsis, to elaborate on that would also be non-comprehensive since the reader/viewer would remember him from the previous film. Both the Sith and Darth Sidious are explained in the previous film and I shouldn't have to go over their history again in this synopsis. I have reworded both of those sentences though. Other than that, I completely fixed the rest of your suggestions. The Filmaker 19:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I took the liberty of adding a bit more about the search for Anakin. That said, I still have two comments: About more referencing for the section about references to other Star Wars films, what I meant was that it could use a few more footnotes. The Jar Jar material is now clear enough. However, I disagree with you regarding Darth Sidious. Whether or not "the reader/viewer would remember him from the previous film" is George Lucas' problem. In truth I didn't remember him from Ep I or even Ep II (I only remember the stuff about him in ROTS), but that's beyond the point. Wikipedia's problem is to make sure the reader knows who he is without being required to see any movies or read any other articles. Let this article stand on its own. I'm not asking for Darth Sidious' article to be merged into this one, just some kind of brief explanation would do it. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 20:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - You personally don't remember anything about him from Episode I or II. If what you said were true than I would also have to explain the concept of the Jedi and the Force. Each Matrix film article would have to explain what the matrix is. Why would someone read this article without having seen the other film, or at the very least read the previous article? Should the reader become confused, than they would realize that they are beginning in the middle of the grand story and would have to find another article to explain what they do not know, which is already conviently placed with a link to the Darth Sidious article. Finally, in the interest of the prose in the article, by giving the character a description, it appears that he is being introduced as a new character, and he is not. The Filmaker 20:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually the article is a bit more clear now than what it was when I first read it, "warning him that Darth Sidious is now in control of the Senate." The version now explains he's a Sith Lord. That said, the article should stand on its own. People like me might have seen the movie and may want to read about it without remembering all the crufty details. What if I were a Natalie Portman fan, and I absolutely hated sci fi, and I wanted to know about her work without sitting through this movie? Lastly, if this were a featured article on the main page, everyone would see it, not just Star Wars fans. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 20:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Let's say on the off chance that I didn't know what peanut butter was. If I read about Elvis' favorite food being peanut butter and banana sandwiches, should the Elvis article have to explain that? If the article was on the main page, everyone would see it, not just food fans. By entering an article on a subject so vast like Star Wars you will realize that one article cannot comprehensively take in the entire concept. But am I beating a dead horse? Are you fine with the sentence now? The Filmaker 21:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - P.S. The Elvis article that does not explain what peanut butter is, is a featured article. And Star Wars is not a sci-fi movie. :P The Filmaker 21:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm OK with the sentence now, though perhaps it could benefit from another descriptive term or two, like "mysterious Sith Lord". Anyway, peanut butter and bananas are things one would have lying around the house, and even if they weren't by saying they were Elvis' favourite food you'd know they were food. It's been a long time since I've had Darth Sidious over at my house. Concepts like the Force and Jedi are probably more or less sufficiently well-known. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 21:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very interesting article with nice well-rounded writing. I found the "Historical and cultural allusions" section most fascinating. Most of the other sections didn't deilever any new information on the subject, but I thought it was well done nonetheless. I think if it has the potential for feature article status. If not now, soon. Cormacalian 24:14, June 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Support Neat, tidy, comprehensive, ref'd, just like Revenge of the Sith. Well done. ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 04:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. A citation spot check performed on this article turned up three problemmatic footnotes out of five sampled. (Results are here.) Please go through and make sure all citations lead to information supporting the footnoted statement. --Robth^Talk 04:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- All three citations have been fixed one way or another. :) The Filmaker 20:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Good job with those three. My point, however, was not just that those three need to be fixed, but that if three out of five randomly selected citations have serious problems, it seems unlikely that those are the only problematic citations in the article. Please go through and check for any other errors and correct them; if there are actually no others, that's all well and good, but I'm inclined to suspect that at least a few more are going to be iffy. --Robth^Talk 05:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've run through all of the references in the article and I've had to change only a few lines. I hope you can support the article now. :) The Filmaker 17:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you. Objection withdrawn. --Robth^Talk 05:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC
As there are no official Wikipedia guidelines regarding the role of the FA director or how an article is promoted to featured status I am giving this article my support. Please see the discussions [[1]] and [[2]] at the featured article talk page for my reasoning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayzel68 (talk • contribs)
Neutral for now. I'm satisfied that the citation and weaseling problems have been cleared up, but I need a chance to read the article more critically before I can support or object. Thanks to the Filmmaker and Wookieepedian for doing the legwork to fix the citation issue. — BrianSmithson 18:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC) Object per Robth. There are a couple of weaselly sentences, too: "This scene appears to be influenced by an execution method employed by the ancient Romans at the Colosseum where lions and other dangerous predatory animals were permitted to have their way with condemned prisoners." (Please say exactly who said this, not that it "appears to be" so.) "NSYNC reportedly filmed a cameo appearance which was cut from the movie. This was reportedly put in by Lucas to satisfy his daughter." (Two "reportedlys" in a row. Give a name for the person or agency who reported this.) — BrianSmithson 18:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- All of Robth's points have been corrected and the weasel words have been removed or changed. The Filmaker 20:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks. Can we clean up some more weaselling? "The end credits erroneously list Alan Ruscoe as playing Neimoidian senator Lott Dod.[citation needed that this is erroneous] In fact, not only is there serious doubt as to whether the Neimoidian abetting Nute Gunray is actually Dod (as some sources identify the character as Gilramos Libkath),[citation needed listing which sources] the character was actually played by an uncredited David Healey and voiced by Christopher Truswell.[citation needed that this is indeed the case]" It's possible all of this can be cited from one source; if so, all the better. But it needs to be more clear: "In fact, [so-and-so] has raised doubts as to whether . . . (as [this source] identifies the character . . . ). And later: " Leonardo DiCaprio was speculated to be in the running but has never been confirmed" should be "[Source] reported that Leonardo DiCaprio was in the running, but this has never been confirmed." The whole "Cast" section needs some work; for example, shouldn't the quote about Haydn Christensen and the discussion of casting Anakin go under the heading "Hayden Christensen as Anakin Skywalker"? Alternatively, the part about casting might fit somewhere in the "Production" section. — BrianSmithson 20:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Your objections have been taken care of where applicable by The Filmmaker. The Wookieepedian 20:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But Robth's point has not yet been addressed, and I am also objecting based on it. For example, the article says, "Leonardo DiCaprio was speculated to be in the running but has never been confirmed." The source cited says, "The actor's rep tells USA Today that the 25-year-old star did meet with George Lucas about the 'Episode II' prequel. But the conference was all for naught. Says DiCaprio publicist Ken Sunshine: '[H]e is definitely unavailable.'" In other words, nothing about speculation or confirmation of that speculation. Like Robth said, don't just fix the examples he provided; there's likely more where this comes from. — BrianSmithson 20:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robth's point is well taken. I've run through all of the references and had to change a few lines here and there. But now I believe that all of the references are in place. The Filmaker 17:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]