Talk:The Empire Strikes Back/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
GA nomination successful after adequately prompt improvements

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 03:28, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]


No way am I missing the opportunity to review this! My initial comments should be up within a week. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:28, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning with infobox and lead assessments.

Infobox

Lead

  • "Following the success of Star Wars, Lucas hired Brackett to write the sequel; after her death in 1978, he outlined the Star Wars saga as a whole and wrote the next draft himself, before hiring Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) writer Kasdan." is quite a long sentence! Separate that by turning the semi-colon into a period.

More to follow later. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:39, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:02, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SNUGGUMS? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 15:46, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Getting to "plot" shortly, also I forgot to mention that "cited" from "cited as one of the greatest plot twists" reads awkwardly. Try something like "ranked", "deemed", "listed", "named", or "perceived" instead. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 15:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

  • Avoid having super-short paragraphs containing just one or two sentences. They make the flow of text feel choppy.
  • Are starships supposed to be italicized? Either way, don't use them for emphasis like you currently have with "he is Luke's father".
  • Perhaps you should specify how Obi-Wan lied to Luke about Vader killing Anakin (which was why he refused to join forces before the famous "No, I am your father" line)
  • I recommend identifying "the Emperor" by name (Palpatine)

Thankfully there aren't many problems here. "Cast" will follow in my next batch of comments after you get through these. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 15:55, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, starships are meant to be italicized like regular ships. I've done the rest of these. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:43, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cast

The rest of the article probably will be assessed section by section. In the meantime, there's more to work on. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:47, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SNUGGUMS, I've added the references. Gizmodo is trustworthy, it's owned by Gawker Media who also own Kotaku. Jason Wingreen is mentioned in the "special edition changes" section to prevent things getting confusing. Fixed this, I misunderstood and thought you were talking about the person who replaced Wingreen. I've sorted the ref for Bossk. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:23, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Production

Development

  • We've got a problem with File:George Lucas cropped 2009.jpg in that its source URL doesn't have the driods we're looking for. I recommend getting another pic of Lucas that can be traced to a working link.
  • Let's elaborate on "Star Wars' success also focused more attention on him": what did people say about him in regards to that?
  • While I understand the use of "Star Wars II" to refer to this when (at the time of release) it was the second chronological installment, that feels misleading with the prequel trilogy coming along and "Episode II" generally pertaining to Attack of the Clones ever since.
  • When ref#46 and ref#47 both appear to be from the same book from J. W. Rinzler like ref#48, I'm pretty sure you can consolidate those three into one citation
  • I'm skeptical about the tone of "efficient" from "wanted an efficient director who supported the material", and regarless, just using "wanted a director who supported the material" helps get the point across in fewer words

Up next will be the "Writing" subsection. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:38, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think I've addressed these. I didn't merge 46/47 with 48 just because 48 cites quite a few pages already and it'd be difficult to fact check if I add even more in. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:54, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could simply merge #46 and #47 so the prose doesn't feel as cluttered with in-text refs. Not a big concern, just an idea. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:45, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I DID merge 46/47. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 08:40, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Writing

Overall, the best subsection yet with only one bit to change! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:45, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 08:40, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re-write

  • I assume "The process was more enjoyable than on Star Wars" means Lucas enjoyed it more, in which case you should add "for him" to that tidbit
  • "Yoda's eccentric speech pattern"..... I think unusual or unconventional would work better, maybe even scattered (in order, the words are not :P)
  • Even though I know what you're trying to say with "a slimy, repulsive creature", the word "repulsive" is a blatant personal opinion and should be scrapped
  • Not sure whether "consistent was the character's long life and wisdom" was meant to be a reference to Yoda's scrambled speech tendencies. Either way, it doesn't read very naturally.

Before I go into "Casting", there's some tweaks you can make. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:31, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

XD That last one was a good catch. No it wasn't a deliberate reference. I've altered these. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Casting

  • "Hamill, Fisher, Ford, Mayhew, and Baker, all reprised their roles" feels like an incomplete sentence, and there's a stray comma after "Baker". Also, while we both know these respectively refer to playing Luke, Leia, Han, Chewbacca, and R2-D2 in A New Hope, you should list these characters by name for any readers who aren't as familiar with them and their actors. We can't just presume they'll all know these tidbits.
  • "Prowse hesitated to return"..... same as before
  • Why the fuck did Jones decline a credit for Vader O_O!? I find that shocking, and it would be nice to explain this to audiences.
  • "his previous performance because the filmmakers portrayed C-3PO as a real being" → "his previous performance as C-3PO because the filmmakers portrayed him as a real being"
  • "The footage proved unsatisfactory"..... to who, George?

The rest of this section doesn't look too bad, but I'll first let you address these. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:15, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've done all of these but the "unsatisfactory" part. The book literally just says "her test didn't prove satisfactory; she was replaced by Elaine Baker in makeup."Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:42, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, just go with something like "was perceived as unsastisfactory" or "did not provide desired results". SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:22, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-production

  • "A Fox employee" is rather vague, and I'd prefer seeing some name attributed (unless of course it can't be found)
  • In the second paragraph, there's a stray space between ref#96 (Rinzler) and ref#57 (Wired). Also, you don't need to use it right after "the timeline had to be rescheduled" when the same page is used later in the very next sentence per WP:REPCITE.
I've expanded the first a little bit, it's a bit confusing. Kershner says a fox distribution employee in Norway, but then Kurtz follows up with "we were at a fox distribution m meeting in Paris and Norman said Finse". On context I would say that means Norman Reynolds, but he wouldn't be a Fox distribution employee. It seems likely based on this that either one or both are misremembering or the Fox distribution employee brought it up at one stage and Reynolds reiterated it later, so I've just presented both options. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:45, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Music

  • Flawless!

That officially concludes a huge section. I was initially surprised to not see "Filming" included here as it often is found under "Production" for movie pages, but from a glance at what follows, the sheer size of it definitely isn't something that could comfortably fit here. No wonder you split this off. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:22, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's like 8 months of filming where everything is going wrong, it's pretty dense, and that's after cutting a lot of non essential stuff. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:45, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Filming

Commencement in Norway

  • I see no good reason to doubt that File:Jokolen.jpg is in fact the uploader's own work
  • All but two sentences from this subsection's last paragraph begin with "The", which feels monotonous, especially when four of them are in a row

Filming at Elstree Studios

  • File:Elstree Studios - geograph.org.uk - 1184042 (cropped).jpg is A-OK to use
  • Can you find something more definitive than "ostensibly"?
  • It looks like you forgot italics for "Star Wars" in "The Star Wars stage"
  • When "several" is an ambiguous term, I recommend using replacing its use in "it took several weeks to film" with a more specific count

These first two subsections were quite good overall :). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:55, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:49, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The duel, Dagobah, and conclusion

  • The own work claim for File:David Prowse at Mountain-Con III in 2007 (cropped).png seems legitimate, and I have no licensing concerns whatsoever with File:James Earl Jones (8516667383).jpg
  • When ref#148, ref#149, and ref#150 are all individual pages of one book (namely the one Rinzler wrote), I recommend just merging them into one citation and placing it at the end of "growing frustrated and refusing to continue". Same idea goes for ref#156 and ref#157 (except you should use that right after "against a blue screen the same day").
  • Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see any support in this for the "inadvertently" bit on Prowse leaking details, just that he was among the actors who gave those out ahead of release
  • I found a HARVRef Error with ref#162 (Marcus Hearn's book), probably caused by an issue with the page parameter

Post production Post-production

  • This subsection's title should be hyphenated
  • You can probably guess what I'd do with some of the first paragraph's refs

That was one hell of a section to go through, and thankfully it's done. "Special effects and design" will be up next. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:48, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've done most of these, I merged one of the refs in post-production but I'm wary of containing too many page numbers in a single ref because a) I don't know if stuff will be moved around during a copy edit, and b) the pages in this book are big, and reading through them to check info is a pain in the butt. For verifiability, I just think it is easier to know it's on one page instead of on potentially one of five.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:11, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Special effects and design

  • No problems!

Release

Context

  • File:Theempirestrikesback-logo2.svg is appropriately licensed
  • Try to focus more on Empire and its predecessor. To be honest, details on other films/genres feel like filler above all else.
I took out the bit about comedies, the rest I think is relevant to the genre. The BO section does a lot of comparisons between Empire and Star Wars, so I think adding it in context would be repetitive.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:37, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Credits

  • How come George wasn't allowed to crew credits at the end of Empire when that was allowed for A New Hope?
  • Does "Lucas paid his fine, but was so frustrated that he left the WGA, DGA, and Motion Picture Association, restricting his ability to write and direct future films" mean his departure caused the restrictions, or that he left due to frustrations over these institutions restricting him? I would revise that sentence for clarity.

Since "Box Office" is much longer, I decided to save that for later. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:55, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is explained in the section as being because Lucas directed and wrote it, so it starting with the Lucasfilm logo was a sufficient credit, whereas he is only technically a producer on Empire, so he is meant to credit Kershner, Brackett, and Kasdan at the start of the film. Do you mean it needs further elaboration? I added a "which" to the last part. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:37, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your changes definitely helped :) SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:07, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Box office

  • With no evidence to suggest otherwise, I'm willing to believe File:Kennedy Center seen from the Potomac River, June 2010.jpg is indeed the uploader's own work
  • All four sentences in the first paragraph begin with "The", which feels monotonous
  • More HARVref errors with the Groves and Woods citations
  • I'm not so sure about $292 million for North America given the numbers here since $181,379,640 + $26,758,774 + $14,535,852 + $67,597,694 = $290,271,960 (and yes this total is also given even when The Numbers says $291,738,960 and Box Office Mojo gives $292,753,960), so what other figures could I be missing?

Before I delve into "Reception", one thing I'd like to say from a glance is that you should probably specify how the "Critical response" refers to this film's initial reception when it seems like the retrospective commentary (or at least those left after the 1980's) is saved for "Legacy". SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:07, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done most of these, Chompy did the ref issues. The box office figure I've averaged from the four sources which are between 200 and 203 mill. I can put the range in if its better. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:13, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A range would be preferable in this case. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:52, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:59, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

Critical response

  • You say "generally well-received by critics" here upon release, yet "mixed" in the lead. I'm not sure which to go with since both are sourced, but please be consistent.
  • "the latters relationship with Vader" is missing an apostrophe for "latter's", also I'm not convinced fan opinions are worth including when they're not professional reviewers (and thus what they think is nowhere near as important as what film critics said)
  • Arriving at a conclusion of "Critics generally agreed that Empire was a good film but not as enjoyable as Star Wars" solely based on three reviews feels like WP:SYNTH, especially when none of them mention overall reception/consensus
  • Gary Arnold said "astonishing plot twist", not just "astonishing twist"
  • "wait several years for a resolution"..... see my previous comments on "several"
  • I only see "not very satisfying" instead of "unsatisfying"; don't fabricate quotes
  • You should use Dave Kehr's name in full when first mentioning him
  • The Wall Street Journal uses "finesse", not "finessing"
  • There's a stray space between a quotation mark and "exaggeratedly" from " exaggeratedly unctuous, untrustworthy and loaded with jive."
  • I believe "Although Arnold praised Kershner's direction" is missing a citation
  • "its visual impressiveness" → "its visuals"

Unsurprisingly, that was quite a lot of reviews listed! It definitely needs revision. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:40, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've done all of these except the first one. I was wondering if you had a suggestion how to tackle it? The general consensus is that Empire wasn't as well liked as Star Wars on release because of the more mature tone, but the reviews generally seem to say it's because it's different from Star Wars and not necessarily a bad film in its own right. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:05, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You should use whichever assessment has stronger evidence, whether that means using "mixed" or "generally positive/favorable", as long as the lead goes with the same as the body. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:33, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:46, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accolades

  • File:Johnwilliams2006.JPG is A-OK to use
  • Just curious, are these all the award wins/nominations (from trusted institutions of course) that can be found? If not, then this subsection is fine as it is. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:42, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These are all the major contemporary awards, there are some minor ones like a Jupiter Award I've never heard of but I can't source it beyond IMDb. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:46, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Post-release

Special Edition and other changes

  • Per WP:REPCITE, the first paragraph only needs to use ref#253 (Wired) at the end of "closer to his original vision with modern technology" while just having after "coupled with the inability to obtain the untouched originals officially" in the second paragraph is sufficient
  • "Minor changes" for 2011 Blu-Ray should be elaborated on

Pretty good subsection for the most part :). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 15:38, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:57, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SNUGGUMS Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 07:44, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay, I got sidetracked, but should have more up within 24 hours (busy right now). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:28, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Home media

  • "leading to a poor quality image" → "creating problems with the image display"
  • Change the comma after "discs" from "receiving three discs, a Blu-ray version, a 4K Ultra HD Blu-ray, and special features found on the 2011 release" into a semi-colon so readers can more clearly tell that these descriptions refer to what each disc is for.

Not much to do in this subsection. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:33, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SNUGGUMS:  Done at Special:Diff/1049817895. Chompy Ace 01:09, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other media

Next will be the start of "Thematic analysis". SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:02, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:25, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thematic analysis

Mythology and inspirations

  • "This, he believed, represented" → "He believed this represented"
  • Not sure we need "crude" from "beyond just crude flesh and matter"

All in all, that's a pretty good subsection. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:50, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SNUGGUMS:  Done at Special:Diff/1050829990. Chompy Ace 04:32, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Religion

  • Per WP:REPCITE, you don't need to cite the same page twice in a row within the first paragraph
  • Be more specific on who "Others" from "Others described Luke's journey as based purely on Christianity" refers to

Getting closer to the end now. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:47, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:13, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Duality and evil

  • It looks like "Lancashire contrasted Star Wars message of idealism" is missing an apostrophe for Star Wars
  • I'm not going to sugarcoat this; the way you've phrased "coming to understand that people are neither entirely good or evil" treats an opinion on people like a fact. You'd be better off with something like "coming to perceive people as not entirely good or evil".
  • On a similar note, scratch the "naive" part from "his naive belief that he is completely on the light side"
  • There is nothing neutral about "the greater good" or "evil does sometimes win"
  • "denouement" reads awkwardly, so I'd replace it with a more commonly recognized synonym like "finale" or "conclusion" or "ending"

I'll get to "Legacy" later on. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:49, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I changed evil to villain, is that ok? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:36, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You'd probably be better off using "antagonist". SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:43, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy

Modern reception

  • "remains recognized as one of the greatest plot twists" → "continues to be seen as"
  • Buzzfeed is a place full of user-generated content, and therefore isn't something I recommend using
  • "citing" from "citing the bold unresolved ending and willingness to not follow" doesn't feel like the vest verb to use, I'd go with "praising" or "lauding"
  • When you have "listed it" in three consecutive sentences for the third paragraph, try to tweak one or two of those for more diversity.

Get through these before I assess the "Cultural impact" subsection. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:04, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:39, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural impact

  • By "cheaper sequels", do you mean these had less expensive budgets than their predecessors?
  • How reliable is Nerdist? I'm not very familiar with the publication.
  • Saying something has "a sad ending" is an obvious WP:NPOV violation
  • "Examples series cited include" feels like an incomplete attribution with no authors/publication names mentioned
  • See my above comment on "several"

I expect my next batch of comments to be the last one. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:11, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@
Nerdist Industries is reliable per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 346#Some reliable sources and is also used on Baby Driver, a featured article. Chompy Ace 08:08, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
I reworded a little bit of this Chompy re: the "sad" ending, Chompy's version is here and mine is here, let me know what works Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:58, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Defeat" for protagonists definitely works better. I should get the rest of this article assessed within the next 24 hours. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 11:53, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sequels, prequels, and adaptations

  • As far as I can tell, niether of these links mention anything about the money Return of the Jedi made or what critics thought of it
The Den of Geek reference's third paragraph is what I was using. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:51, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The use of "Though" from "Though financially successful" gives a false impression that these earnings defied some connection/correlation to whether critics or even fans liked a movie (people can pay to see something in theaters and end up not liking it). In reality, these are separate matters.

References

  • The "Notes" belong in their own section, not as a subsection of this, and it feels redundant to have a subheading here also named "References".
  • Ref#12 is for Deadline Hollywood (you've erroneously marked it as "Decider")
  • Remove italics from "Syfy Wire" (which should just read "Syfy"), "StarWars.com", "Space.com", "Filmsite.org", MovieWeb, The Ringer, Collider, Comic Book Resources, Vulture, and Film School Rejects
  • "ARNnet" → International Data Group
  • "Observer.com" → The New York Observer

Works cited

  • Perhaps these could be listed under "References"

Further reading

  • If not used anywhere within the article, then I see no point in listing these entries here

External links

  • Wookiepedia is a fansite and therefore not something I recommend including

Overall

  • Prose: Needs some adjusting
  • Referencing: Not everything seems to be properly sourced, plus there's some formatting issues
  • Coverage: Looks good
  • Neutrality: As far as I can tell, it's now neutral
  • Stability: Perfectly fine
  • Media: Licensing for all used images is appropriate
  • Verdict: Placing this on hold for seven days effective immediately. I believe the rest of my concerns can be adequately addressed within that time. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:19, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@
MOS:ITALICWEBCITE and its respective footnote. Chompy Ace 08:16, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
In regards to prose, the article is pending a copy edit from the Guild so that will be rectified hopefully in the next few days. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:03, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My bad on ROTJ. The force is strong with this article, and after some fixes here, it's ready to become GA! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:10, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Empire_Strikes_Back/GA1&oldid=1067423796"