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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 15:22, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was thrilled to see your improvements to this article while it was at AfD. I'm very happy to review it here, though my review may come in dribs and drabs. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:22, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• First up, citation errors. Fn. 19 is to Pollock 2001, which isn't in the bibliography. And a number of Whitlatch references (fns. 13, 18, 21, 24, 27, 28) are not connecting to anything in the bib, presumably because Whitlatch is only one of the authors of the book in question.
  • Ahh, yeah, the Pollock 2001 source should actually have been Whitlatch; I must have copy-and-pasted the Harvnb template and forgot to replace the name. Fixed that, and fixed the errors in the Whitlach citations, which as you said should have had two author names... — Hunter Kahn 16:51, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Infobox says the homeworld is Tatooine; article body says unknown.
  • I had actually meant for "Homeworld" to represent planets where the bantha can be found, not necessarily the "planet of origin", which is unknown. But I can see that chose of wording wasn't the best one, so I've changed it to "Habitats", and I've actually added other planets that the body of the article establishes contains banthas as well (Kashyyyk and Kilia IV). Does this work for you as a solution? — Hunter Kahn 16:51, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• "by native peoples for transportation and food" Native to where?
  • I changed "native peoples" to "humans". — Hunter Kahn 16:51, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• "though a lone male bantha often acts as sentries for the herds" Singular/plural issue
  • Changed to "often acts as a sentry" — Hunter Kahn 16:51, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• The appearances section might be a bit listy for some readers - it's definitely something that will/should be picked up at GAC. Some of the mentions may also be a little trivial (similar for the end of the culture section - a little listy, some trivial mentions). I'm not going to make a fuss for the purposes of GAC, though.
  • Yeah, I tried to avoid this as much as possible, keeping it biographical and more of a narrative as best I could. Any specific thoughts on changes that should be made to this section? — Hunter Kahn 16:51, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stopping there for now. Great read so far. Please check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:55, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks good so far. Thanks very much for taking on this review J Milburn! — Hunter Kahn 16:51, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "Art director Leon Erickson created the bantha costume,[84][86][87] who led a crew of six total crew members in the work.[5][88][89]" This needs to be reworked.
  • Changed to "Art director Leon Erickson created the bantha costume, leading a crew of six total crew members in the work." — Hunter Kahn 01:24, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• "the back of the bantha's mount in the scene" - The bantha is the mount, surely? I'm not following.
  • I think that was just a stray word. Changed to "the back of the bantha in the scene" — Hunter Kahn 01:24, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• "and the footage was captured without incident" Have you not just described some incidents? Without major incident, perhaps?
  • Good call. Changed. — Hunter Kahn 01:24, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• The filming and production section feels a little out of order. Again, I think I would be overstepping my mark as a GAC reviewer to demand changes here, but it's definitely something to think about before FAC.
  • I will certainly consider this when and if I get to that point, though if there were any specifics you wanted to tackle in here, I'm certainly open to it... — Hunter Kahn 01:24, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• ", and said the framework for the luggabeast was to "redress an elephant again, as they did for the banthas in A New Hope"." I don't understand. What is meant by "framework", here?
  • Yeah, the original wording in the source is a bit odd. Concept designer Christian Alzmann said: "Let's try to redress an elephant again, as they did for the banthas in A New Hope. That was literally the framework: Let’s have some new updated versions of old creatures." I've tried to scale down and simplify this in the article by changing it to this new wording: "Concept designer Christian Alzmann said the crew sought to make updated versions of the creatures from the original films, and banthas from the original Star Wars film helped inspire this approach." — Hunter Kahn 01:24, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• "The Santa Fe New Mexican writer David Rare called banthas one of the most widely appreciated Star Wars creatures and characters by fans.[112]" Repetition. I'd lose the sentence and just add the reference to the first sentence in the section.
  • Done. — Hunter Kahn 01:24, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I wonder if the second paragraph of the critical reception section could be given a section of its own? Or a subsection. "Influence" or "Cultural references" or something? I'm not sure. It doesn't really feel like critical reception. I'd also consider splitting it into three short paragraphs, or else trying to link things together a little more - again, it feels a little listy!
  • I've changed the paragraph to a "Cultural references" section per your suggestion. Didn't break up the paragraphs since I figure that's not necessary now but let me know if you disagree. — Hunter Kahn 01:24, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, stopping there. I need to look at the sources and images, but the text is looking great. Again, please double-check my edits! Josh Milburn (talk) 20:21, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• • Your edits look good. Thanks J Milburn! — Hunter Kahn 01:24, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the rationales on all the non-free images could be improved (if they're definitely all neeeded, that is). The sourcing on File:NYC Halloween Parade - Bantha.jpg, meanwhile, would never pass muster at FAC - though I am inclined to turn a blind eye here. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:38, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, the only non-free images I added myself were the POV binoculars comparisons; the others were already here before. I'll definitely look to improve upon then when and if I reach the FAC point. As for now, to what extent would you like them improved for the GAN? Were there any in particular you'd like me to beef up at this point, or should I take a crack at all of them? — Hunter Kahn 13:39, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • We do need to see complete rationales at GAC - I suspect the rationales of all the non-free images need to be improved (if the images are remaining in the article). I'm happy letting the parade image slide, but I can't look the other way for the non-free images! Josh Milburn (talk) 14:20, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • • I've slightly beefed up the rationales for the non-free images File:Bantha.png, File:Return of the Jedi bantha herd.jpg, File:Star Wars bantha binoculars shot.jpg and File:The Mandalorian bantha binoculars shot.jpg. I think they are sufficient for GA now, but let me know if you think more is needed. — Hunter Kahn 14:44, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, some of the sources aren't great. Again, I think we can manage with some of the borderline ones at GAC for a topic like this, but you might expect some tough questions at FAC. (I'm not making FAC sound attractive, am I? Oh well...) The only one I have to question now is Medium. What source reliable? It's a blogging site, isn't it? Josh Milburn (talk) 16:20, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• You're quite right, and in fact I see now that Medium is listed on WP:RS/P as a source to avoid. Fortunately, there was only one sentence I had to strike altogether as a result (the Ray Harryhausen one), and all other citations using that source were being used along with other citations, so the effect on the article was minimal. Thanks J Milburn! — Hunter Kahn 14:44, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, happy to round things off there - promoting now. Great work on this - it'll be useful to point to as what an article about a fictional species could look like! I do hope you'll consider FAC, but, as I noted, there may be a few bumps along the way. Perhaps seek out some comments from a few people experienced at FAC (I'm sure some of them will be SW fans) and/or submit to PR. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:04, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]