Wikipedia:Featured article review/Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope/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 removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 00:19, 11 October 2010 [1].

Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Featured article review/Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope/archive1

Notified: The Filmaker, WikiProject Star Wars WikiProject Films

I am nominating this featured article for review because the article has never been reviewed since becoming an FA nearly 4 years ago, there are expansion and additional ref tags, and the references could use some cleanup, as well. The Taerkasten (talk) 18:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removing-- pls see FAR instructions, and give your first nom a bit of time before putting up another. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had already left this user a note about the multiple noms, asking that they not do it again in the future but saying I would leave the nom. However, I will not reverse your removal. I have let the editor know they can re-transcribe this page when the first article moves to FARC. Dana boomer (talk) 23:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable-- sorry, Dana, just catching up from travel, and it popped on my watchlist. Two on one topic back to back will really strain the editors working in that area. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have now retranscluded the review. As a note to myself (or YM if he works on this), the timestamp of my signature should be used to determine review timing, not the timestamp of the original nom statement. Dana boomer (talk) 14:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Way too many references to IMDb.
This is not a RS; it's a fansite. Same with this.
This is not a RS; it's a personal website hosted on a college domain.

There should be no reason to use a straight-up jpeg as a source.

Other sources that I'm not sure are reliable:

Is Filmbug — appears to be a mirror of an older version of William Katt
Hollywoodnorthreport.com should be removed, as it triggers a spam filter.
Starwarz.com
Harrison Ford Web
TV Party
Mindjack Film
Telnet.org

Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your complaints on the Blue Harvest fansite references as well as the college domain's personal website have been addressed. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Star Wars Origins reference link [2], which is referenced quite a lot, appears to be nothing more than a marketing website. And what made it reliable in the first place?. --The Taerkasten (talk) 13:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the reference dates need consistency, e.g. some refs use September 12, 2006 others use 2006-02-04.--The Taerkasten (talk) 13:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like another user has helped fix this page by removing unarchivable sources and date formatting among several edits that he has made. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The state of the article is not clear so moving it down. There are inconsistencies in the ref formatting though, and I have seen previous refs to DVDs cite the time clock of the snippets, along the lines of page numbers, rather than just the title as well (the making of doco might be an hour or two?) YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Featured article criterion of concern comprehensiveness, sourcing YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - This article is not up to current FA standard. --The Taerkasten (talk) 12:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delist as per TaerkastUA - This article is better as a GA class because it is not up to quality standards. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 12:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a note, when/if this article is delisted from FA status, it becomes unassessed - it is not moved to GA status. If the editors wish it to be of GA status, they need to go through a new GA nomination and review. Dana boomer (talk) 12:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. Agree with the concerns above per TaerkastUA and Sjones23. Apparently, nobody hasn't addressed those issues lately. JJ98 (Talk) 18:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per others; does not meet FA criteria. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per sourcing concerns. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not to open up a whole further can of worms, but given our guidelines about article titles, why is this page not named "Star Wars (film)" or "Star Wars (1977 film)"? WesleyDodds (talk) 10:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - According to the latest requested move, it was felt that, even though it was the original title of the film, the current title is best for consistency, it illustrates the fourth chapter in the series, and that the current name is just as well known.--The Taerkasten (talk) 12:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency of naming between the page titles of installments in a series isn't a concern according to the naming guidelines, though. Not that I want to raise a big fuss about it, it's just something to consider, along with the more pressing FARC issues. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this isn't really the place to discuss the title of the article. Make another request on the talkpage after this review, if you wish.--The Taerkasten (talk) 12:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. As much as it hurts me to say it. It's not featured article quality. Good article maybe. I am going to try my best to watch these Star Wars movie articles to make sure they always cited and cited properly when edited. − Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 23:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.