Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Jabba the Hutt/archive1: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
FARC section: re to Hog Farm
Line 52: Line 52:
::::::{{ping|Hog Farm}} Alright, I think I have fixed the reception now. Do you think the article should still be delisted, if so please tell me what else needs changing. Thank you. ― [[User:Kaleeb18|<b style="background:#000;color:#f07b3a;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Kaleeb18</b>]][[User talk:Kaleeb18|<sup>Talk</sup>]]<sub style="position:relative;right:20q;margin-right:-15px;">Caleb</sub> 18:48, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
::::::{{ping|Hog Farm}} Alright, I think I have fixed the reception now. Do you think the article should still be delisted, if so please tell me what else needs changing. Thank you. ― [[User:Kaleeb18|<b style="background:#000;color:#f07b3a;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Kaleeb18</b>]][[User talk:Kaleeb18|<sup>Talk</sup>]]<sub style="position:relative;right:20q;margin-right:-15px;">Caleb</sub> 18:48, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
::::::: I suspect that it'll need a bit more work yet, but I'm not familiar at all with potential sourcing or even what is really currently standard for article like this, and I have no idea who to ask. Pinging {{u|George Ho}} as FAR nominator and {{u|David Fuchs}} as the one who left the notice. [[User:Hog Farm|Hog Farm]] <sub> ''[[User talk:Hog Farm|Talk]]''</sub> 16:27, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
::::::: I suspect that it'll need a bit more work yet, but I'm not familiar at all with potential sourcing or even what is really currently standard for article like this, and I have no idea who to ask. Pinging {{u|George Ho}} as FAR nominator and {{u|David Fuchs}} as the one who left the notice. [[User:Hog Farm|Hog Farm]] <sub> ''[[User talk:Hog Farm|Talk]]''</sub> 16:27, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
:{{outdent|:::::::}} The article wasn't nominated GA ever. Rather it was promoted FA in 2006, and I've never reviewed FA nominations before. Nonetheless, I've taken FA-promoted articles to review before. Except [[Quatermass and the Pit]], most articles I've taken to review were delisted. The matter isn't whether the article meets FA's current standards. Rather it's whether the whole article still meets [[WP:FACR]]. <p> Regarding criterion #3 (Media), five non-free images and one free image are used. The lead image is still appropriate, and an image of the comic version of him is appropriately used as a body. Unsure what else to say about rationales. Most of file pages of those images seem to almost copy each other, and the lead image's rationale is almost complete. But those issues may be fixable. Regarding #4 (Length), well... the article has stayed on topic... hopefully, because the article has been about the fictional character. Unsure whether it's exactly "well written" (#1a), but the writing isn't too bad to my eyes. </p> Unsure about #1b (comprehensive) and #1c (well researched), but at least it kinda meets #1d~1f in my eyes. Reading the lead, however, I was unsure how else to say about it. Well, I {{dif|1075096337|changed one of the 'First appearance's in the infobox}} from "Star Wars" to "[[Return of the Jedi]]", which was his first real-world film appearance. Hopefully, no one objects to the change. Unsure about consistent citations (#2c), but I don't mind the reference style(s) used there. [[User:George Ho|George Ho]] ([[User talk:George Ho|talk]]) 22:32, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:32, 3 March 2022

Jabba the Hutt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Notified: Dmoon1, TAnthony, UpdateNerd, David Fuchs, Treybien, WikiProject Film, WikiProject Star Wars, WikiProject Fictional characters, diff for talk page notification 2021-03-03

Review section

The article has gone through changes over the years since its FA promotion in 2006. Issues were raised in March of last year, like large amount of unsourced/unverified info, odd and imbalanced structure/layout (e.g. appearances before design, more in-universe details and less real-world perspectives). There have been edits since, but the issues apparently still persist, i.e. haven't been yet addressed. George Ho (talk) 20:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

George Ho is there an update? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:41, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: I checked over and over just to be sure. All I see are minor cleanups, eliminating alternative name from lead, and reverts. Issues still unaddressed, even with "cn" tags. --George Ho (talk) 17:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and structure. DrKay (talk) 17:07, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I touched it up some how does it look now? ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 14:27, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I see, you removed starwars.com; from what I can tell, it was a primary source (official website) and would be reliable. Why remove it, and how is it unreliable? --George Ho (talk) 15:22, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My bad I thought it was something like Wookipedia. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 17:00, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the touch-up. Aside from layout changes and removal of unverifiable statements, both revisions appear almost no different from each other. I can't tell whether remaining major issues are addressed. George Ho (talk) 19:59, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @George Ho:, if you can give me a list of things that need to be fixed I can easily do them in hopes of keeping this a FA. Maybe give me like around a week and if it still looks bad we can delist it. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 21:12, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. I was just skimming the article; I haven't thoroughly reviewed the whole article yet. Talk:Jabba the Hutt#FA criteria concerns can help if possible. George Ho (talk) 21:19, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 00:48, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
About the sources you added:
  • Uncertain whether Uproxx's article is trustworthy, especially as a limited liability company (past discussions).
  • Per WP:RSP#Screen Rant: Screen Rant is a marginally reliable source but is not considered reliable for info about living persons.
  • Regarding Comic Book Resources, its same company also owns questionable Screen Rant. That shouldn't make CBR less reliable, should it?
  • According to one past discussion, Looper is a clickbait website and unreliable.
  • WP:RSP is a good list of which sources to use or avoid, just in case. --George Ho (talk) 05:11, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m pretty sure the way I used the screen rant, cbr, and Uproxx is fine and I’ll look into replacing looper. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 12:48, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @George Ho: How's it lookin now? ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 15:26, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm... I wonder whether an inline ref for Kevin Michael Richardson as one of voice actors in Star Wars: The Clone Wars (film), the info you removed, is necessary. The film has ending credits and, despite being a primary source, is more reliable than looper. Sometimes, I don't use inline refs for info provided by primary sources themselves, but that's just me.

    The Daily Beast's reliability has been debated for years, and the community couldn't come up an agreement about what to do with it. Yet they have reservations or cautions about using it for controversial statements about living persons, like Andrew Cuomo. I also wonder whether the Cuomo addition is due or undue weight.

    Also, the community hasn't reached an agreement about the reliability of Business Insider, yet they have considered its Culture section reliable. The way you used the opinion piece to verify that person's opinions may be okay for me as long as it's not used to verify factual statements, but someone else may disagree with me.

    The rest are fine to use, but that's just me. George Ho (talk) 22:15, 5 February 2022 (UTC); edited, 02:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @George Ho: I never used a Daily Beast ref tho, I used the Daily Voice. Also I dont see how it is undue weight I think its a good example for the past sentences right before it Outside literature, the character's name has become an insulting term of disparagement. To say that someone "looks like Jabba the Hutt" is commonly understood as a slur to impugn that person's weight or appearance. In another sense of the term, Jabba the Hutt has come to represent greed and anarchy, especially in the business world.Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 02:14, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops. My bad! I got confused and overlooked "Voice". George Ho (talk) 02:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @George Ho: So what is left that I can do? ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 02:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm.... Can't think of anything else to suggest other than.... Well, best to leave the article alone for now if (1) either no major issues remain or (2) other major issues still remain, but you are unable to figure out what to do with them. George Ho (talk) 02:39, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chompy Ace: and @The helper5667: what do you gys think of the article now? Anything that jumps out to you that I can fix? ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 03:22, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further improvements have either slowed down or stopped for at least a week or two. Also, one of editors whom Kaleeb18 pinged hasn't responded yet. George Ho (talk) 02:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delist, sample, five-year-old speculative content, and no one is working on the issues raised. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:06, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
       Done and y’all aren’t telling me what the problems really are. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 13:43, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Hey @SandyGeorgia: I think I might have fixed the issues now. Do you still see things I can fix. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 16:18, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I will catch once others have finished their reviews; sorry to be running behind. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delist - reception section is a mess. A mixture of trivial cultural references, empty placements on listicles, and trivia from various fictional works, rather than actual reception of a major cultural figure. Hog Farm Talk 03:40, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Hog Farm: I’m sorry but can you go more in depth for me on what the trivial info is and what empty placement on listicles means, because I’m willing to fix it. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 14:00, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      The issue is with stuff like "Jabba the Hutt became an icon of not just Star Wars, but American popular culture as a whole" - yet that sweeping statement is supported by 1) a citation to a toy directory; 2) a book review of a graphic novel; 3) Spaceballs; 4) a short-term museum exhibit; and 5) a parade float. That's a broad sweeping statement that should be backed up by a scholarly journal article or at least a higher-quality journalistic piece supported by a collection of trivia. Or "Since the release of Return of the Jedi, the name Jabba the Hutt has become synonymous in American mass media with repulsive obesity. The name is utilized as a literary device—either as a simile or metaphor—to illustrate character flaws" - another broad, sweeping statement, but it's supported by random lines from novels, and excessive detail about a humor/introduction to Buddhism book.

    Again, a broad sweeping statement that should be backed up by scholarly or "higher journalism", rather than fictioncruft. For the listicles bit, that paragraph contains 6 facts - 5 of them are Jabba being ranked in lists of Star Wars characters - including a physical attractiveness one that I'm not convinced is encyclopedic. The first paragraph of Homer Simpson#Analysis is a better (but not perfect) way to do that. Hog Farm Talk 00:41, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Hog Farm: Thank you, I've tried to do some work to the article based on what you've said so what do you think now as it probably still needs help? ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 03:49, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would recommend removing "For example, in Under the Duvet (2001), Marian Keyes references a problem with gluttony when she writes, "wheel out the birthday cake, I feel a Jabba the Hutt moment coming on."[69] Likewise, in the novel Steps and Exes: A Novel of Family (2000), Laura Kalpakian uses Jabba the Hutt to emphasize the weight of a character's father.[70]" unless out-of-plot significance can be established, and then providing a better source for the sentence before it. Ideally, we should have more of the higher-level criticism such as "the name Jabba the Hutt has become synonymous in American mass media with repulsive obesity and a negative term to call someone.". Hopefully we can find some journal articles or a journalistic piece or two that provides some of this higher-education coverage; but I have no idea where to look for such sources. Hog Farm Talk 03:58, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hog Farm: Me either, but I will remove it and try to find something probably tomorrow. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 03:59, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hog Farm: so what do you think about the edits i made to the section mass media? ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 02:39, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it is improved, although I'm not super familiar with handling reception of fictional items. Hog Farm Talk 05:23, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hog Farm: Alright, I think I have fixed the reception now. Do you think the article should still be delisted, if so please tell me what else needs changing. Thank you. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 18:48, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect that it'll need a bit more work yet, but I'm not familiar at all with potential sourcing or even what is really currently standard for article like this, and I have no idea who to ask. Pinging George Ho as FAR nominator and David Fuchs as the one who left the notice. Hog Farm Talk 16:27, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The article wasn't nominated GA ever. Rather it was promoted FA in 2006, and I've never reviewed FA nominations before. Nonetheless, I've taken FA-promoted articles to review before. Except Quatermass and the Pit, most articles I've taken to review were delisted. The matter isn't whether the article meets FA's current standards. Rather it's whether the whole article still meets WP:FACR.

    Regarding criterion #3 (Media), five non-free images and one free image are used. The lead image is still appropriate, and an image of the comic version of him is appropriately used as a body. Unsure what else to say about rationales. Most of file pages of those images seem to almost copy each other, and the lead image's rationale is almost complete. But those issues may be fixable. Regarding #4 (Length), well... the article has stayed on topic... hopefully, because the article has been about the fictional character. Unsure whether it's exactly "well written" (#1a), but the writing isn't too bad to my eyes.

    Unsure about #1b (comprehensive) and #1c (well researched), but at least it kinda meets #1d~1f in my eyes. Reading the lead, however, I was unsure how else to say about it. Well, I changed one of the 'First appearance's in the infobox from "Star Wars" to "Return of the Jedi", which was his first real-world film appearance. Hopefully, no one objects to the change. Unsure about consistent citations (#2c), but I don't mind the reference style(s) used there. George Ho (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]