Talk:Star Wars (film)

References to use

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.

• Grimes, Caleb; Winship, George (2006). "Episode IV: A New Hope". Star Wars Jesus: A spiritual commentary on the reality of the Force. WinePress Publishing. ISBN 1579218849.

James Earl Jones

I see David Prowse as the cast member for Vader but no major mentions of James Earl Jones as the voice for Vader. I don't really want to get into a discussion of whether or not the voice or the physical presence of the actor were primary but I think both should be mentioned. Thoughts? I'll go ahead and make changes if no one has an objection. Protonk (talk) 22:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Obi-Wan Kenobi

Changed his rank in the summary text, from Jedi Knight to the correct one, which is Jedi Master. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.69.207.51 (talk) 16:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Critical Response

The Critical Response section contains excerpts of two positive reviews. It then states "However, there were a few negative responses." and proceeds to list four excerpts of negative reviews. Finally it states "94% of 66 reviews assessed are favorable". As a neutral reader, I find it unbalanced that the article quotes twice as many negative reviews as it does positive reviews. That grossly misrepresents the true ratio of positive to negative reviews the film received. I am removing one of the negative reviews (the most generic), and I suggest that either a few more positive reviews be added, or additional negative reviews be removed. --Dan East (talk) 05:31, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Casting order in infobox

According to the official film posters, the starring credits are listed in this order: Mark Hamill, Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher, Peter Cushing and Alec Guiness. However, the posters do not include David Prowse, the actor who played Darth Vader (a major character from the series). Should we just remove him from the infobox starring credits or keep it? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

You're right, both him and James Earl Jones(Uncredited I think) should be mentioned. But I don't know the criteria for the infobox so i am unsure whether they should be mentioned.--212.12.183.130 (talk) 12:17, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Michael Kaminski and WP:RS

I have issues with this particular source being used as evidence regards to Star Wars' conception. According to its website[1], it's apparently a self publisher book by a Star Wars fan which has not underwent peer review. I have no problem with it's usage as a source, but I think there should be more due weight.--220.245.207.26 (talk) 13:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Why isn't this sci-fi?

This film is very sci-fi, from laser beams in the form of swords to spaceships that use protons as weapons. And yet it is credited as "epic space opera". I would call this a science fiction action film. Can anybody support me with this? The Shadow-Fighter (talk) 23:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Space Opera is a sub-genre of sci-fi so it's implied at the same time. Dancindazed (talk) 04:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Star Wars' genre isn't actually straightforward. IMDB categorize it as "Action/Adventure/Fantasy/Sci-Fi", the AFI have it down as "Adventure/Science Fiction", whereas the New York Times list it as "Action/Adventure/Fantasy" and Allmovie as "science fiction". Basically the sources are saying genre-wise it is a blend of science-fiction and adventure, so space opera does seem to best capture this distinction. Betty Logan (talk) 13:58, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Minor suggestion...

"Upon the Falcon's arrival at Alderaan, they find that it has been destroyed..."

it's not clear what was destroyed. "it" should probably be changed to "the planet" ... Hope it helps! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.148.39.94 (talk) 12:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Well it can only be the Falcon or Alderaan since under the rules of English grammar "it" operates on one of the nouns in the sentence, and it is obvious from the preceding sentence that the Falcon is what they're travelling on so logic dictates the ship wasn't destroyed if they arrived on it, so that only leaves Alderaan. I have no objections to the alteration as suggested, but at the same time I think we need to have a bit of faith that the readership doesn't have sub-moronic comprehension levels. Betty Logan (talk) 12:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Modified it to read "Upon the Falcon's arrival at Alderaan, they find that the planet has been destroyed...".Hope no one has any issues.--212.12.183.130 (talk) 12:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

allusions to Casablanca

Regarding "Cinematic and literary allusions" it surpises me that Casablanca is not mentioned: Han is the copy of Nick: Charming loner, thinking only of his own good, avoiding politics, but finally doing "the right thing", for the greater cause, and this is also inspired by a woman which is central for "the good guys". Also scenes from the bar in "a new hope" resemble scenes from Ricks bar, esecially the "wierd charachters" glance. Omri — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.118.27.253 (talk) 06:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

If you can find an independent reliable source with such an analysis, it may be worth mentioning. As-is, it appears to be original research. - Sangrolu (talk) 18:45, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Lars Homestead restored

I'm not sure if this belongs in the article or if it's just a fun thing for fans to know, but in May 2012 a group of Star Wars fans restored the Tunisian house that served as the Lars Homestead. You can see the project at the Save the Lars Homestead website. I'd think this kind of story could be added to a section on Star Wars fans and fandom on either this page or the main Star Wars page, but I'm not sure where the best place to put it would be. Thanks, Aristophanes68 (talk) 00:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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).

GA Review

Hello Editors

I am Jennie and I have been reviewing this article (Star Wars IV: A New Hope) you can find my review here. The article is On hold at the moment, but will be passed on the basis that some changes have been made (see below).

Thanks. Jennie | ☎ 22:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Summary of Article Issues

• Critical reception section states that the film was received "very positively" yet gives only 3 sources - this could be expanded significantly to support this.
  • This looks like something I could do. I will probably see if I can work on that tomorrow. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 22:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Doing my research on Rotten Tomatoes etc. It seems that the problem is that the majority of initial reviews are old and are probably archived since there is quite a few dead links. That's probably why there is a lack of reviews on here. Some people are good at finding archived links so there could be hope for them to be added in the near future. I also helped out at adding a Variety review. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 15:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• 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.
• 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.
• Editors need to go over the History section completely and either remove or source information, as it needs citing.

I updated the plot synposis

Instead of Obi Wan losing in a light saber battle, it points out he sacrificed himself. Also I removed the word weaponized, and updated Han's description to include the fact he is a murderer.