Wikipedia:Featured article review/Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 10:04, 28 October 2007.

Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Messages left at Star Wars, Science Fiction and Films. Also notified Deckiller, the copyeditor and one of the main editors of this article and The Filmaker, the nominator and one of the main editors of this article. Greg Jones II 20:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this featured article for review for the following criteria violations:

REACTION SECTION:

1a:

"After the release of the film, there was controversy over whether several alien characters reflected racial stereotypes"

This does not sound professional.

REACTION SECTION & MAIN ARTICLE:

1b 1c, and 1d:

Not only are major facts and details missing, there is a general bias toward the negativity the film received. The neutrality is definitely a question here.

The introduction of midi-chlorians (microscopic organisms that allow communication with the Force) in the film has been controversial. Those against it have seen it as a concept that negates the spiritual quality of the Force.

These two lines are the only lines in the article that mention this major plot point. It's only mentioned here as a negative aspect of the film in the reaction section. Hardly neutral and is clearly fan opinion rather than FACT. The original source was an internet forum. The source has been removed, however the lines still remain.

Some aspects of the scripting were criticized. Much criticism was directed at the character of Jar Jar Binks, who was regarded by many members of the older fan community as a purely merchandising opportunity rather than a serious character in the film.

None of these lines are supported by their cited sources. At least one of the sources (CNN) actually refers to the character, however none of them actually represent "many members of the older fan community" and in general when you make a bold statement such as that without an air-tight source, you lose credibility. I question whether you could find a source to give credibility to that statement at all.

Even if the sources were valid, it doesn't sound professional. "Much criticism was directed"

In 2002, with the release of Attack of the Clones, actor Ewan McGregor admitted the film was "kind of flat".[33] Comedians and former Mystery Science Theater 3000 alumni Mike Nelson (who in a recent interview claimed he considered The Phantom Menace "the worst movie ever made"[34]) and Kevin Murphy have provided an audio commentary track for Nelson's RiffTrax service, mocking the film.[35] In a February 17, 2002 poll on the Internet Movie Database, The Phantom Menace finished first in response to the question, "Which film, that you were really keyed up and effusive about just a few years ago, embarrasses you now the most?

This entire paragraph is ripe with trivia. None of it is important to the article or the reaction of the film.

Overall there are many references throughout the article to websites such as imdb or rottentomatoes that are used more as a source to give false credibility to fan opinion such as "the film received mixed reviews" or "Many people thought this or that" rather than to cite actual sources.

I have attempted to make changes but an edit war always ensues.

Movieguy999 00:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, starting with the 1a violation. So it needs to be rewritten, so either rewrite it or ask someone else to on the talk page.
You're are going to have to state these "major facts" that are missing, if you want to be taken seriously. Most of your edits that have been quickly reverted by myself and others appear to remove almost all negative details whether they are properly sourced or not.
First, the midi-chlorians is a particularly major plot point. Second, midi-chlorians are mentioned in the Cast section under Anakin Skywalker's description and not in any negative aspect. Clearly only fan opinion? Is that speculation I am hearing? And when did majority fan opinion suddenly become non-notable? Yes, I will admit that the original source was inadequate. The source has been removed and replaced with a tag to allow other users to attempt to source the information. If it cannot be sourced, it will be removed (I nor anybody have ever denied or implied that it wouldn't be).
Again, "It doesn't sound professional" is not a criteria for deletion. Trivial is, however this is not trivial. The sources themselves do cite information on the fan community dislike Jar Jar Binks, the CNN article is practically about fan dislike of Jar Jar. All of the sudden CNN is not a reliable source?
The star of the film degrading his own film and the head writer of Mystery Science Theater 3000 mocking the film and openly calling the "worst movie ever made" is not notable?
IMDB is credible source only when citing IMDB related information. Rotten Tomatoes is owned by IGN which is turn owned by Rupert Murdoch, it cites many well-known film critics as it's own sources. The Filmaker 01:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the line you have about midi-chlorians in the CAST section (it's misspelled):

a nine-year-old slave boy from Tatooine. He is discovered to have a higher midi-cholorian count than any Jedi, and is therefore exceptionally gifted in the Force.

It's not mentioned at all in the plot synopsis and then it's described in the reaction section as it's being smeared.

I had also tried to reword those lines. I even expanded greatly on the topic and YOU yourself quickly reverted them...

The article does need to sound professional as per criteria 1a. I'm not trying to get the article deleted. I am having it reviewed because I have hit a brick wall. You refuse to make changes to this article.

I have no problem with the CNN source. I actually used it when I expanded on the topic. But, you can't use that and those other sources just to backup a bold statement like "Many members of the older fan community thought, blah, blah, blah." By wording it that way, you are clearly saying "Many fans of the original trilogy, didn't like Jar Jar." and then you go onto give reasons which are also not sourced.

The whole thing just sounds like a fan would have written it.

The star of the film saying the movie was flat, was from an article promoting the second film, Attack of The Clones. If it's going to be in these articles at all, it should be in THAT article. He is comparing the second film to The Phantom Menace. It's being put in the reaction section of this article that makes it look like it's being used soley to amplify the negativity.

As with Mike Nelson, you are giving all this credibility to a comedian who makes his living off of mocking well known films. By him saying he thought it was the worst movie ever made, he reveals himself as more of a fan than an unbiased critic (which he isn't a film critic to begin with).

If you really wanted to have a neutral point of view, then you wouldn't single out a statement like this from a comedian like Mike Nelson, who has no reason to be neutral.

When I had expanded on Roger Ebert's review, he had a perfectly neutral POV...

"Star Wars: Episode I--The Phantom Menace," to cite its full title, is an astonishing achievement in imaginative filmmaking. If some of the characters are less than compelling, perhaps that's inevitable: This is the first story in the chronology and has to set up characters who (we already know) will become more interesting with the passage of time.

He sums up everything that you have been trying to put in that section, except without bias as a fan would. Instead, you chose to revert back to your version where you are speaking directly for the majority of fans, as if what you were saying were FACT...

Movieguy999 01:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, how is it a major plot point? You said it is only mentioned in a negative aspect in the Reaction section. I provided another section of that does provide mention. Now your opinion has changed to say that it needs to be in the Plot section. Once again. Why?
Any edits you made did not (or at least appeared not to) cite any sources. Thus your information was original research.
Wrong, I refuse to allow your edits to the article. The article is edited every week with changes that are allowed. I recently even changed the genre we allow the film to be called. You are the only person so far to believe that the article sounds unprofessional.
I do believe that the sources do contain information that refer to the supposed "older fan community", if they do not, sources will need to be found. But still, the information should not be outright removed as you have done so time and time again. Your edits are generally unhelpful to the section. If you have a problem you should discuss it in the article. This does not include yelling about the section, ignoring my response and then falling back on your original argument for your own replies.
Again, you are purely speculating and not assuming good faith. With McGregor's quote, what is notable is not what he did, but what he said. He was promoting AOTC (something all stars do), he was degrading TPM (something stars never do). Now where should the information be?
And again you are falling back on your original argument while ignoring the fact that Mike Nelson is notable as the head writer and producer of a well-known television series that was later transformed into an internet company which is notable within itself. A film critic is not neutral. A film critic's job description includes the word "opinion". The only neutral aspect of criticizing films is to removal personal preference, which I don't see in any of Mike Nelson's interview.
And one more time with the accusations. I honestly don't see the huge difference between this quote and the one found in the article other than it incidentally is more of the positive aspect that want in the article. It is slightly too long to be included, when his feelings on the film are easily enough summarized by saying that he called the film "exhilarating". If you wanted to use a slightly smaller version of that. That would be fine.

So far in the course of your last post, you refuse to answer outright questions, you speculate and assume bad faith, you fall back on your original statement while ignoring my replies, and once again simply throw around accusations of fanboy logic and opinion. If we are going to continue with accusations, I personally believe that you don't like the fact that film has received such a negative response by the general public or have been living under a rock for the last 8 years. In either case you dislike that the article reflects the mixed to negative response and wish to change it to reflect your own views on the film. In the course of your time here, you have pretty much argued against any information in the article that reflects the film in a negative light (or what you call "smearing the film") The Filmaker 02:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is it a major plot point? Gee, I don't know...

Maybe because it tells the origin of how the jedi get their power? Maybe because it tells us how Anakin would become powerful enough to destroy all of the jedi? Maybe it's because it's the main reason why Quigon would risk everything on a podrace just to free him and bring him all the way to the Jedi counsel to beg for him to be trained?

::Any edits you made did not (or at least appeared not to) cite any sources. Thus your information was original research.

This is a weak argument. Not only did I have sources cited, I used the same sources that you already had on the page :)

If you think you can get out of this one, please tell everyone what information I added to the article that wasn't backed up by a source... Movieguy999 04:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is history, not plot point. The article does mention that Qui-Gon sensed a strong prescence of the Force within Anakin. Qui-Gon risked everything more specifically because he felt that Anakin was the Chosen One, not just because of a high midi-chlorian count.
That is why I said "at least apppeared not to", it is very difficult to tell you are adding information in the midst of you constantly removing sources and relevant information for the benefit of your own personal agenda. The Filmaker 13:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Oh, damn it all. This should have never been in an FAR, but as being bold, I will need some help in rewriting this article to keep it at FA status. Greg Jones II 01:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, please notify. Please follow the instructions at the top of WP:FAR to notify all relevant WikiProjects and involved editors. Follow the example on other FARs to include a list of the notifications at the top of this FAR. And please confine lengthy commentary to the article's talk page and focus here on identifying items that need to be addressed to restore the article to standard. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Films and WikiProject Star Wars are notified Greg Jones II 20:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - What is this garbage? This mess of text needs to be chopped down to a few readable coherent sentences to be taken seriously. I already think this FAR is more about being disruptive and should have been talked out on the talk pages in a civil manner. Judgesurreal777 20:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Damn it, man. Movieguy999 has been acting uncivil. I agree with you, Judgesurreal777, that this FAR is distruptive. Greg Jones II 21:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some comments on the film's talk page. Girolamo Savonarola 22:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS - can you guys please be more assiduous about signing each of your indented responses, even if you're doing several at once? It's damn confusing trying to read the back and forth above. Girolamo Savonarola 22:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove from this page - The nomination is disruptive and should be removed, enough of this. Judgesurreal777 16:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy removal from this page as per Judgesurreal777. Greg Jones II 19:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination stays put. There are currently several discussions on the talk page of the article. Movieguy999 01:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We will wait until this nomination stops. Greg Jones II 22:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, well. We will wait until these issues are resolved. Then, we can remove this nomination from here. Greg Jones II 22:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This nomination is all but unreadable and should either be restarted or withdrawn. — Brian (talk) 04:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the FAR page is fine, there are some problems with the article that need to be addressed. There is uncited hard data, but more troubling is that a lot of data is sourced to IMDb, which is not a reliable source. There are some quotes for which a citation is provided several sentences later and it's not clear the quote is in the source given; all direct quotes and hard data need to be cited to reliable sources. Right now, the article violates criterion 1c. While ya'll are in there, please clean up per WP:DASH; emdashes are not spaced on Wiki, and endashes are used to separate date and number ranges. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close nomination—uncivil nomination about a dispute this user has with others. FAR is a childish way to escalate debates. Sandy, those issues can be addressed by those interested, but it's not enough to warrant a FAR (otherwise, I'd nominate half the FAs for having flabby prose). — Deckiller 03:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I concur. Alientraveller 19:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Over reliance on the IMDb is a valid concern -- I see thirteen consecutive references to them! It would be nice to have many, if not all, of them replaced to reliable sources. The JPStalk to me 21:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for noticing; I wondered what I was missing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not sure if this is applicable, but the IMDb refs in the article seem to be for the news articles reported on the site. According to the disclaimer at the bottom of these news pages, IMDb does not generate these reports. They are edited by someone named Lew Irwin and are copyrighted by StudioBriefing. Some of the articles are licensed from World Entertainment News Network (WENN). It might be possible to find the same information from a more trustworthy media source. Dmoon1 01:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the recent changes that were made have put the articles reaction section on good terms. Movieguy999 02:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c).

Or at least citations appear to be the last thing being debated. We should be careful with IMDb, to be sure. Marskell 15:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Greg Jones II 23:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Not happy with the prose of the first few paras. Copy-edit needed throughout.

  • "a young slave boy who is unusually strong with the Force"—Readers shouldn't have to hit the link to "the Force" to learn what this clause means.
  • "Despite mixed reviews by critics, it grossed US$924.3 million worldwide,[1] making it the highest grossing Star Wars film in the series (third when adjusted for inflation). It is also the highest grossing prequel after adjustment."—"was the highest".
  • "Because of their short-range weapons, Gillard theorized that the Jedi would have had to develop a fighting style that merged every swordfighting style, such as kendo and other kenjutsu styles, with other swinging techniques, such as tennis swings and tree-chopping."—"Theorized" is not the right word in this context.
  • "Filming began on 26 June 1997 and ended on 30 September of that year, primarily taking place at Leavesden Studios in England"—Spot the two redundant words.
  • "On the night following the third day of shooting in Tozeur, an unexpected sandstorm destroyed many sets and props. With a quick rescheduling to allow for repairs, production was able to leave Tunisia on the exact day originally planned."—Can this be just "On the third night"? I don't quite get the logical connection. Tony (talk) 14:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We need to do this ASAP. Greg Jones II 01:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. The intro is flatly awful, neglecting to mention the names of some main characters or anything about the production of the film. The middle paragraph is back-of-the-box material: "When the group returns to Naboo, they realize that the situation is much worse than they thought—the evil Sith have returned." Other problems include inadequate sectioning, lack of critical reaction apart from You Know Who, an advert-like DVD section, flimsy references and in-universe captions.--Nydas(Talk) 16:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some of these problems have been addressed, but others remain. One thing which this article needs is information on the current attitude towards this film. It's been eight years, there is plenty of critical re-evaluation to discuss.--Nydas(Talk) 21:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Some major copyediting seems to be going on, so give this one some time, I may help soon too. Judgesurreal777 22:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove, 1c, reliable sources. It's been a month since I noted the article was heavily sourced to IMDb. Note that current citations 12 thru 25 are all to IMDb, which is not a reliable source for the kind of hard data being cited. Also, there is still a mix of unspaced and spaced emdashes (see WP:DASH) which could have been fixed by now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If it is removed, we will get it back up for FAC. We, however, find IMDb an invalid source as a reliable source unfortunately as per SandyGeorgia's comment on the removal. Greg Jones II 23:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closing: Nothing has happened with citations and I agree that the near total reliance on IMDB for much of this raises a serious 1c concern. Marskell 10:01, 28 October 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Star_Wars_Episode_I:_The_Phantom_Menace/archive1&oldid=1088820900"