Talk:Star Wars (film)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jennie--x (talk · contribs) 22:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Completed, 24 Aug 2012

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The Star Wars universe is known for its complexity and detail; this article's editors have done well to ensure that the prose remains concise and simple throughout. Both spelling and grammar raise no concerns.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The article's lead is well-structured and is the appropriate length in terms of the overall article length. It uses correct headings, titles and paragraphing, following a logical structure - the article excels particularly in its precise referencing structure. There are no concerns with the article lapsing into an in-universe perspective and a good balance is achieved between the use of primary and secondary sources. Unsupported attributions feature slightly within the article; the Critical reception section states that the film was received "very positively" yet gives only 3 sources - this could be expanded significantly to support this. Furthermore, claims under the Releases section are often unsupported; "at the height of the film's popularity" and "Within three weeks of the film's release, 20th Century Fox's stock price doubled to a record high." need removing or sourcing. No concerns in terms of list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	The References section is excellently organised into Annotations, Footnotes, Bibliography and Further Reading headings. Readers can navigate this with ease and simplicity. References are used in all sections of the article and are generally well annotated.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	The article does this generally well at critical points, e.g. counter-intuitive/opinion/statistical information. It does fall down on some points in the History section - specifically Writing and Post-production. Editors need to go through these sections and ensure that claims made about the writing process are supported by reliable sources.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Editors have at times lapsed into making unsupported assumptions about sources, for example, "During the chaos of production and post-production" (Post-production) and "Lucas grew distracted by other projects, but he would return to complete a second draft of The Star Wars" (Writing). Editors need to go through these sections and ensure that information can be verified.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The article covers all relevant aspects of the topic in considerable depth and the editors have included a broad range of information, including the various releases and novelization.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The article uses summary-style well and information is organised into simple and effective prose. The Soundtrack, Novelization, Radio drama sections have been summarised to include the most signficant and relevant facts/opinions, with links to other articles that expand on the issues raised.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	The editors have created an overall factual article which uses secondary sources well. The article does not give undue weight to any particular viewpoint, nor does it seek to encourage or discourage a viewpoint on anything in connection with the article, allowing any reader to form their own conclusions about information presented.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	The article has no current protection status of any kind. Looking over the recent page history, statistics and talk page, it seems that there has been no indication of edit-warring or any contentious issue raised. When deciding to sort the Star Wars film series chronologically, in-Universe or to comply with Wikipedia guidelines, the editors did well to reach a judgment fairly and respectfully. There are no stability concerns.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All images have valid fair use rationales from their respective Flickr owners.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images are of good quality, informative and are captioned well. For example, locations used in the production of the film have been used in the Production section of the article.
	7. Overall assessment.	Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope is an informative and factual article that, as I expected before beginning the review, would contain references to a variety of detailed sources. The editors excelled in making a simple, concise article from a complex and detailed universe and have refrained from lapsing into an in-Universe perspective or adding confusing/irrelevant content into the article. The article does well in terms of style, images, order and neutrality and its editors should be proud of their efforts. There are some issues with original research, verifiability and use of reliable sources, specifically in (3) History, the editors have gone to lengths to make this section and its sub-sections incredibly detailed (probably the most detailed and informative of all), but have provided no sources for often factual information, description or narrative - almost as if the statements are common sense. I have had to fail the article because of these issues and editors need to make sure (as said above) that all of the history of this article is supported and can be verified. Improvements need to be made in the followng criteria, 1(b), 2(b) and 2(c).