Jump to content

Talk:Harmy's Despecialized Edition

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Harmy's Despecialized Edition/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 03:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 01:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review on Hold

[edit]
  1. Thank you very much for your efforts to contribute to Quality improvement on Wikipedia, it's really most appreciated !!!
  2. NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
  3. Suggestion: This suggestion is optional only, but I ask you to please at least read over the Good Article review instructions, and consider reviewing two to three (2-3) GA candidates from good articles nominations, for each one (1) that you nominate. Again, this is optional and a suggestion only, but please do familiarize yourself at least with how to review, and then think about it. This is a way to help out the Wikipedia community by reducing our GA Review WP:BACKLOGS, and a form of paying it forward. Thank you !
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. Prose quality is pretty good, but structural layout for article could use some improvements to increase ease of flow for reader. Suggest adding sub-subsections to sect Production, and moving "Legality" to be a sub sect in that parent sect. Example sub sects of Production can be Inspiration, Creation, and Assistants, or something like that.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Lede intro sect uses citations in some places and not in others. Per WP:LEADCITE, cites not needed if material is not contentious AND if it is cited later in article body text, as it should be. Also, if you ARE going to use cites in the lede, should be consistent, to increase both uniformity and also standardization, throughout.
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. Background sect, "as of 2016, the films are only widely available in their altered versions." needs citation.
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). Sources check out alright.
2c. it contains no original research. Article appears to be duly sourced to secondary sources, throughout article body text.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. Quotations are used with quotes, and attributed with in-line citations as such, in appropriate manner.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Suggest re-organization with increased sub subsection structural format, as recommended, above, and that will help to assess the scope of article a bit better.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Article does have a good tight focus.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Any additional Reception info? I bet there are some more sources out there with some discussion. Any negative reception? Criticism? Constructive criticism from the generally positive sources?
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Upon my inspection of article edit history and article talk page and its history, article is indeed stable.
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. Two images used in article, one fair use and one free use. Both are appropriately explained on their image pages. Both images check out okay.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Yes, images are both relevant to the topic.
7. Overall assessment. GA on Hold for seven days.

NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks! — Cirt (talk) 01:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All done except for the additional reception info. I've had a look for extra reviews, but there just don't seem to be any – all the reviews either speak positively about the project, or else don't give an opinion at all. I can keep looking, if you'd prefer. Thanks for the review, Cirt! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:36, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@A Thousand Doors:Have you had a chance to look over my suggestion from the very top point number 3, above? — Cirt (talk) 22:13, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Review some GA nominees? Sure, I can do that when I have some more free time, although that may not be until the weekend. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:37, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay no worries, just a suggestion, thank you. I'll try to find some time to have another read through of the article again. — Cirt (talk) 22:45, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cirt has disappeared, and on a look myself didn't see anything of note, so I'll step in and pass this. Wizardman 23:53, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. You've also reminded me that I said that I've review a couple of other GA nominees, so I'll get on that as soon as I can. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 00:23, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GOUT

[edit]

Sorry for this revert, but I think the best solution to my original edit was not to restore the content, but rather to reword it or add it back in a way that did not mislead the reader. If GOUT really needs to be mentioned here (I don't think it really adds anything, but whatever), as it's not an official term, it should read something more like 'released as the "original theatrical version", also known as "George's Original Unaltered Trilogy"'. The former is the terminology on the packaging. Otherwise, it's pretty misleading. --Fru1tbat (talk) 12:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How about this? A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That works perfectly well for me - thanks! --Fru1tbat (talk) 13:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Team Negative 1, Project 4K77 and other projects referenced here.

[edit]

These projects similarly deserve independent articles covering their impact on the online Star Wars community. These other projects have received similar news coverage. Any objections over separate (complimentary) articles for these projects? Internet Informant (talk) 13:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although I'd support this measure, part of the issue is that the forum website for the TN1/4KXX restorations have a private invite code to join, in order to protect access to the projects behind enough of a wall to prevent piracy or copyright infringement. Since most of the information about these projects is also located on this site (again, not public/couldn't easily be linked) it'd make it very hard to source information in that article. MrDrFactChecker (talk) 03:01, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest this article be renamed to something like Star Wars film preservation efforts, with articles like Harmy's Despecialized Edition and 4K77 redirecting there. IMO most of current the Background, Legality, Reception, etc. sections will apply equally to Harmy's as to the other restorations such as Project 4k, which were today written up in the New York Times. Give a section within the article to each of the individual efforts. PK-WIKI (talk) 04:09, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although I'd support that, and think it could be a good idea, there are MANY other restorations that aren't as well known as Team Negative 1's 4K77/80/83 Projects and Despecialized.
The Skywalker Edition, the Silver Screen Edition, D+77/80/83, 4K97, D+97, the '97-77/80/83 Theatrical Hybrids, DreGraded, the ANH/ESB/ROTJ Technicolor/LaserDisc reconstructions, the 4K77/80/83 AI-Upscale projects, the 4K77/80/83 4K UHD 2160p BD-50 ISO projects, and many many many more projects and preservations exist (not to mention audio preservations, which could fill up a whole article by itself). None of these have any linkable public articles on them, with the only information available being on thestarwarstrilogy.com forums (again, hidden behind an invite code and can't be linked elsewhere) MrDrFactChecker (talk) 01:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, projects that haven't been covered by WP:RELIABLE third-party sources have no place on Wikipedia. So that shouldn't be a problem. PK-WIKI (talk) 09:02, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Totally respect that policy, just many of them are pretty adjacent to the other two; specifically in that either the people behind the 4KXX restorations/Despecialized Editions have worked on them, or vice versa the people who worked on them went on to work on the 4KXX restorations (or have their projects, like audio restorations or fan translated subtitles, included as part of the 4KXX restorations).
There's probably a lot in the way of third-party VIDEO sources, but not articles. Not sure the former is generally considered as reliable to link here. MrDrFactChecker (talk) 21:02, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Harmy%27s_Despecialized_Edition&oldid=1222776669"