This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Vanstrat (talk | contribs) at 15:36, 21 November 2017 (typo). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 15:36, 21 November 2017 by Vanstrat (talk | contribs) (typo)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Star Wars: The Force Awakens article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
This was the most viewed article on Misplaced Pages for the week of December 13 to 19, 2015, according to the Top 25 Report. |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Star Wars: The Force Awakens article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
GA nomination?
MagicatthemovieS, regarding this, will you discuss your nominations before making them, especially when you haven't been substantially involved in building the article? You've already recently nominated the Gone Girl (film) article for GA, and that GA review has yet to begin. When you nominate these articles, you are putting pressure on those who care about them to become involved with the GA review or watch the article fail if the one who nominated it does not stick around to see the reviewer's criticisms through. This is why WP:FAs should only be nominated by those who have been major contributors to the article. I think you should pull the GA nomination for this article until its main contributors are confident with going through with a GA nomination for it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Favre1fan93, Popcornduff, TheOldJacobite, MarnetteD, DonQuixote, Darkwarriorblake, Oknazevad, PrimeHunter and NinjaRobotPirate, opinions on the nomination? Are we ready to go through with it? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:57, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- I personally think major contributors should be the ones to nominate an article. There are a few articles I've been working on off and on that could probably pass a GA review, but they'd need some work. It's a little frustrating to have that work pushed to the forefront when someone else nominates the article before I'm ready. Part of the problem is that the work is sometimes not obvious to someone unfamiliar with the article and the sources. The article certainly looks impressively filled out, though I'd probably copy edit it a bit further. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for the notice, but I'm definitely not one to ask. My work here has consisted almost entirely of reverting vandalism. I can't comment on the article's strengths and weaknesses. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 10:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- I've never really considered myself a major contributor to this article, just vocal on the talk page, so I'm not sure how much help I can be. oknazevad (talk) 13:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for weighing in, guys. I'll leave a note at WP:Film and see if anyone else has an opinion on whether or not we should push through with the GA nomination. MagicatthemovieS, you can also clearly still weigh in; for example, letting us know if you plan to be involved with the review once it begins. Another concern of mine is adhering to any whims of the GA reviewer; those who have been heavily involved with the article and/or watching the article are the ones who are going to be up to the task of countering criticisms from the GA reviewer. It's not a good thing to simply go along with everything the reviewer wants. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Thanks for the ping Flyer22 Reborn. My edits were mostly housekeeping and, like TOJ, I wouldn't know the articles status re GA. I can say that Magic nominated at least one other article and did not do the necessary followup. I don't know whether this is a pattern or even a WP:CIR problem. If they don't respond here - or others don't encourage the GA - in the next few days I would suggest that it be removed. MarnetteD|Talk 19:00, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- Once the review begins, I will definitely help to get this article to a place where we are all satisfied with it and it can reach GA status. - MagicatthemovieS 13:11, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
- I personally do not feel this article is ready to be nominated to GA at this time. And while it appears I am a top contributor to the page, I'm not looking to pursue getting this article to GA. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
- Whoa, I didn't consider myself a major contributor either, but there I am in the top 10. Amazing what a couple of years of drive-by edits does, I suppose. At a glance, the article looks more or less in good shape to me, but I haven't examined it in detail - especially not the sources - and I'm not about to get my hands dirty with a GA either. Popcornduff (talk) 18:15, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
- I personally do not feel this article is ready to be nominated to GA at this time. And while it appears I am a top contributor to the page, I'm not looking to pursue getting this article to GA. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
- Once the review begins, I will definitely help to get this article to a place where we are all satisfied with it and it can reach GA status. - MagicatthemovieS 13:11, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Thanks for the ping Flyer22 Reborn. My edits were mostly housekeeping and, like TOJ, I wouldn't know the articles status re GA. I can say that Magic nominated at least one other article and did not do the necessary followup. I don't know whether this is a pattern or even a WP:CIR problem. If they don't respond here - or others don't encourage the GA - in the next few days I would suggest that it be removed. MarnetteD|Talk 19:00, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- Guys, I wasn't suggesting that everyone I pinged is a top contributor; I focused on pinging active watchers of the article. Given that we all seem to be the main editors of the article now, however, the pings are also relevant in that regard.
- Anyway, per the comments above, I'm going to pull the GA review. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:47, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
- "Guys, I wasn't suggesting that everyone I pinged is a top contributor; I focused on pinging active watchers of the article." Well, now you've hurt my feelings. I've given it some thought and I think I deserve credit for everything. Popcornduff (talk) 01:46, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
- LOL! Sorry about that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:51, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
- "Guys, I wasn't suggesting that everyone I pinged is a top contributor; I focused on pinging active watchers of the article." Well, now you've hurt my feelings. I've given it some thought and I think I deserve credit for everything. Popcornduff (talk) 01:46, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
- Anyway, per the comments above, I'm going to pull the GA review. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:47, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
"Overwhelmingly" for the Critical response section again
Tenebrae, regarding this, we discussed it last year. Remember? The discussion is now at Talk:Star Wars: The Force Awakens/Archive 5#Reception. I stated that " 'overwhelmingly positive' isn't my cup of tea either. It was added by the editor who added the sources to go along with it, and I saw it as a decent compromise for those wanting 'critically acclaimed' wording. I usually prefer 'generally positive,' 'generally negative,' 'mainly positive' or 'mainly negative.' I don't like simply stating 'positive' since the film got negative reviews as well; similar goes for stating 'negative' in the case of a mostly criticized film that got positive reviews as well."
Others weighed in. And you stated, "I was unaware of this discussion; I hadn't realized there had been debate over the word. If other editors believe this is settled consensus, albeit not being an RfC circulated throughout the wider WikiProject Film for discussion, then by all means reinsert 'widely.' I would ask anyone who does so consider that we do not use this term with movies having even higher RT ratings, and that is is, unquestionably, a subjective, unquantifiable term. I find it a classic example of fannish WP:PEACOCK we don't generally use in other film articles. But if we're making an exception here and singling this movie out for special treatment, i won't fight conensus."
The use of "overwhelmingly" there, with the sourcing to support it, has been relatively stable, without much dispute. Of course, an IP recently added "critical acclaim" to the lead, but, as you saw, that IP was reverted on it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
- My bad. I'd forgotten there was a discussion. I'll revert myself, if it hasn't already been reverted. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:37, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
- Maybe, we should try "mostly positive." If editors want sourcing to support that wording, I'm sure there's some reliable sources out there for it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
- I think there's a significant difference between "mostly" and "overwhelmingly", with the former seeming to imply a majority (51% or better) as it does in most grammatical uses, while the latter implies a much higher percentage (like a supermajority). Unless there's a compelling reason to change it, the current form seems just fine. My 2¢ --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- "Mainly positive" or "generally positive" would work too, but we've had editors who feel that's not enough to relay the positive reception of this film. It's one reason that "critically acclaimed" kept getting added. But, yeah, "overwhelmingly positive" has been meant as a compromise. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- I think there's a significant difference between "mostly" and "overwhelmingly", with the former seeming to imply a majority (51% or better) as it does in most grammatical uses, while the latter implies a much higher percentage (like a supermajority). Unless there's a compelling reason to change it, the current form seems just fine. My 2¢ --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- Maybe, we should try "mostly positive." If editors want sourcing to support that wording, I'm sure there's some reliable sources out there for it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Star Wars: The Force Awakens. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added
{{dead link}}
tag to https://indd.adobe.com/view/87976431-f650-4be0-a9c3-392d676b5514 - Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151219071307/http://www.opencastingcall2013.com/ to http://www.opencastingcall2013.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:43, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Star Wars: The Force Awakens. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140715043003/https://celebrity.yahoo.com/news/harrison-fords-star-wars-injury-details-195505600.html to https://celebrity.yahoo.com/news/harrison-fords-star-wars-injury-details-195505600.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:09, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Categories:- All unassessed articles
- B-Class film articles
- B-Class American cinema articles
- American cinema task force articles
- WikiProject Film articles
- B-Class Disney articles
- Mid-importance Disney articles
- B-Class Disney articles of Mid-importance
- WikiProject Disney articles
- B-Class science fiction articles
- High-importance science fiction articles
- WikiProject Science Fiction articles
- B-Class Star Wars articles
- High-importance Star Wars articles
- WikiProject Star Wars articles
- B-Class United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- B-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- Unknown-importance American cinema articles
- WikiProject United States articles