Wikipedia:Peer review/Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace/archive3

Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for April 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
The entire Star Wars prequel trilogy are current GAs that lost Featured status. So, I'm trying to bring this one back to the FA. Tried to fix problems appointed in the last Peer Review and the FAR (IMDb refs, badly-written home releases, narrow critical reception), and willing to take any suggestions for improvement before nominating it again.

Thanks, igordebraga ≠ 02:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article would be improved greatly by the incorporation of the book The Making of Star Wars, Episode I - The Phantom Menace (ISBN 0345431111) by Laurent Bouzereau. See Star Trek: The Motion Picture for how similar books are referenced at that article in the "Notes" and "References" section. That would probably be a good start. Since this is a 1999 film, there is too much reliance on online sources where there is likely to be more coverage found in print sources. If you want, I can put a list of print sources on the film article's talk page. —Erik (talk • contrib) 12:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know, the Production section seems detailed enough - and the refs there are mostly from the DVD, showing it's not all focused in online sources. igordebraga ≠ 01:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two of the featured article criteria is that the topic should be comprehensive and well-researched. We cannot say for sure that the "Production" section covers sufficiently how the film was made until the book can be reviewed for useful coverage. You don't have to buy the book; use WorldCat to find the nearest library that has it. This article will not achieve Featured Article status with a half dozen new sources and some minor copy-editing; the topic is a film that is part of a major franchise, so comprehensiveness and strong research is even more expected in this case. I am happy to critique other parts of the article, too, but I think that incorporating the book would be a strong addition to covering this topic. —Erik (talk • contrib) 01:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The descriptions in the Cast section could also be improved, and references would be nice there. Gary King (talk) 02:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Expanded on almost every character. igordebraga ≠ 23:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A very minor thing I noticed, but the CGI characters say both "as" (Sebulba, Watto) and "voices" (Yoda, Boss Nass). This may have to do with cases like the two-headed announcer (film performances merged with CGI) but the page Sebulba's name links to says "voiced by". I'd also be willing to help once you think it's ready. Recognizance (talk) 23:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. igordebraga ≠ 01:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: As requested I have read the article and here are some suggestions for improvement.

I agree with the points above - FAs should have as many reliable indepedent third-party sources as possible, the book sounds like a good source and should be used here.
The lead is only two paragraphs and should be expanded per WP:LEAD. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way but the video release, novelization and soundtrack (for example) are not in the lead. I would write the lead last to make sure you get everything in thaqt is needed.
- Expanded a bit.
Problem sentence from the lead: Despite mixed reviews by critics, it grossed US$924.3 million at the worldwide box office, being the highest-grossing Star Wars film and the 9th highest-grossing film of all time, a credit to Lucasfilm mega-budget advertising campaign. Not sure US$ is needed here. "at the" seems odd, how about just "in"? It should give the year for which it is the 9th highest grossing film, and finally I think it makes it sound like the success of the film was entirely due to the ad campaign, but the article doesn't really say this.
- That part was added in bad faith. Removed, rewrote.
The first sentence in the Production section starts In the early 1990s, Star Wars saw a ressurgance in popularity, ... I think more has to be done here to provide context to the reader. This is the fourth movie in the series, and Lucas was quoted back when the original three films came out as saying that he already had the plots for all six (or nine) films. I think some of this should be mentioned here. Some of it is mentioned later, but I think it owuld help to have it here at the start of the section.
- Expanded a bit.
It is not clear to me if the 9 R2-D2s made for the film also include the ones later described as being built by ILM and the British special effects co.
- Rewrote the paragraph.
The Bible does not describe the devil as looking like Darth Maul, nor does it say Jesus had a secret wife (nor if I recall, does Anakin have a secret wife in this film). This seems like WP:OR in places.
- It appeared in that article, and the interview it referenced.
Make sure the sources meet the criteria for reliable sources - what makes this a RS, for example?
- Replaced that one. Will search for more later. igordebraga ≠ 01:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recognizance comments:

I changed "at the worldwide box office" to just "worldwide" since it's understood. Only mentioning it here because of its relevance to one of User:Ruhrfisch's comments.
The second paragraph would benefit from more context with regard to how the film came about. Similar to Ruhrfisch's comment about the production section.
The production section still needs to rewind a little. Pretend you know nothing about Star Wars other than having seen the original trilogy like everyone else on Earth - start with the question of why the "first" movie was "Episode IV". You're almost there. Just need a sentence, maybe two and you'll be at the right level of detail.
- Added some further background.
When you say "Up until the production of Star Wars" I think you mean "Prior to The Phantom Menace.
- Reworded.
Describing the studios who released films the same week as "the more courageous" might raise objections at FAC, however true it is. How about "the only major studios to release films that week"?
- Reworded.
Where you talk about the release of the trailer, I think you should elaborate on how it "caused even more notable media hype" in the Salon article about bootleggers.
Again going back to the unfamiliar reader, the "nod toward his future with digital technology" should be explained as foreshadowing the switch to all-digital.
- Reworded.
Big Brother/Sister Assn. sounded like a bad joke from a vandal when I first read it. Maybe it's the way the local chapter styles their name; I spelt out Association at least.
I added "among fans" to the controversy about midi-chlorians. Not crying fancruft - I've lurked on Wikipedia long enough to know how that goes - but the source cited does say "Star Wars fanatics".
What does "pre-planned" mean when you talk about the Razzies?
- Removed.
Chosen One or chosen one: choose one!
- put the Capped in the plot, but the latter in the themes section. Will work on the rest later. igordebraga ≠ 23:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The prose looks good overall. Recognizance (talk) 20:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]