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 User:Joelr31 03:03, 3 June 2008 [1].

---

Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

previous FAR

Notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Science Fiction, Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Wars and Wikipedia:WikiProject Films.

Criteria not met

• 1a, 1 b, 1c.

Concerns

• Article is incomplete and this is its biggest problem. Lots of books are available about literary criticism and cinematic style of Star Wars but this article contains nothing from them. Film scholars and historians have much info about the film that is missing from the article I found some in a two-minute book search:
  • Visions of the Apocalypse: Spectacles of Destruction in American Cinema by Wheeler Winston Dixon
  • Star Wars and Philosophy: More Powerful Than You Can Possibly Imagine by Kevin S. Decker, Jason T. Eberl
  • From Alien To The Matrix: Reading Science Fiction Film by Roz Kaveney
  • Technophobia!: Science Fiction Visions of Posthuman Technology by Daniel Dinello
  • Movies That Matter: Reading Film Through the Lens of Faith by Richard Leonard
  • Film as Religion: Myths, Morals, and Rituals by John Lyden
  • New Hollywood Violence by Steven Jay Schneider
• Novel and music are just half sourced
• DVD has no source
• Overuse of IMDb which fails RS
• Redundancies in cast like "Ewan McGregor as Obi-Wan Kenobi. Obi-Wan is", "Hayden Christensen as Anakin Skywalker. Anakin is"
• Too many external links, repeated links to them, flagcruft etc.
• References to the original trilogy section has some pointless trivia. Ultra! 21:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - You need to list specifically you have notified.
• I cut the excess external links, the flag, and the unreferenced trivial paragraph in the references to the original trilogy section.
• The "redundancies" are fine. You need to say who is being referred to, do you not? If we put a generic "he", then it would be unclear.
• I cut all the IMDB citations, as it is no longer thought to be reliable. I have also added more specific fair use rationales.
• So now the question is expansion and referencing. Did you find those books on Google scholar or the library? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been corrected by a user who has, I believe correctly pointed out, that the IMDB links used in the article are not user contributed trivia, which was the questionable IMDB content, but rather their news section, which is, I believe, reliable and sourced. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the "news" site with "The Internet Movie Database takes no responsibility for the content or accuracy of the articles...nor can we guarantee that reporting is completely factual." at the bottom? It is not reliable, and such links should be removed. DrKiernan (talk) 12:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This article, like other FA-film articles I've just skimmed through are structured Plot-Production-Reception. Why don't they address themes or style? I saw a mentioning of this here-and-there in the FA-articles, mostly in the Production or Reception section, but there doesn't seem to a lack of critical commentary that could support these aspects as full sections. -maclean 00:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some films are to recent to have any themes or style penned down. Ultra! 18:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find it extremely difficult to believe that a film this widely seen and known has had absolutely no journalistic essays or critical writing whatsoever. Even amongst the review critics there are a sizable number who have written at length about the larger motifs of the series in the context of the particular film being discussed. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond that, there has to be some authoritative textual (book) resources that can be utilized. Having only electronic references seems like that is the only place that the editor has looked at for information. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 06:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

After reading some of the reviews on this particular film, I can see the major themes concern rebellion, independence, and commitment. To what degree they are isolated to this film and what degree they augment the film series is another aspect. --maclean 19:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there needs to be a lot more research done on the influences on this film. To not mention The Searchers is almost criminal! :) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please complete the nomination by following the instructions at the top of WP:FAR to notify significant contributors and relevant WikiProjects, and post the notifications back to the top of this FAR. Thanks!--RegentsPark (talk) 17:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose (1a), comprehensiveness (1b), and referencing (1c). Marskell (talk) 18:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove. The lack responses from anyone interested in fixing the article is really disappointing. Unfortunately, this is one of many "web researched" pop culture articles that ignores any authoritative sources. A quick search in the International Index to Film Periodicals reveals dozens of serious, scholarly works that could be used to research and write this properly. As it stands, it does not meet 1b or 1c at all. --Laser brain (talk) 22:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove per Laser brain. Even the web sources have not been updated; at best, the article is simply a snapshot of initial press reactions. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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