The article was removed 10:04, 28 October 2007.
I am nominating this featured article for review for the following criteria violations:
REACTION SECTION:
1a:
"After the release of the film, there was controversy over whether several alien characters reflected racial stereotypes"
This does not sound professional.
REACTION SECTION & MAIN ARTICLE:
1b 1c, and 1d:
Not only are major facts and details missing, there is a general bias toward the negativity the film received. The neutrality is definitely a question here.
The introduction of midi-chlorians (microscopic organisms that allow communication with the Force) in the film has been controversial. Those against it have seen it as a concept that negates the spiritual quality of the Force.
These two lines are the only lines in the article that mention this major plot point. It's only mentioned here as a negative aspect of the film in the reaction section. Hardly neutral and is clearly fan opinion rather than FACT. The original source was an internet forum. The source has been removed, however the lines still remain.
Some aspects of the scripting were criticized. Much criticism was directed at the character of Jar Jar Binks, who was regarded by many members of the older fan community as a purely merchandising opportunity rather than a serious character in the film.
None of these lines are supported by their cited sources. At least one of the sources (CNN) actually refers to the character, however none of them actually represent "many members of the older fan community" and in general when you make a bold statement such as that without an air-tight source, you lose credibility. I question whether you could find a source to give credibility to that statement at all.
Even if the sources were valid, it doesn't sound professional. "Much criticism was directed"
In 2002, with the release of Attack of the Clones, actor Ewan McGregor admitted the film was "kind of flat".[33] Comedians and former Mystery Science Theater 3000 alumni Mike Nelson (who in a recent interview claimed he considered The Phantom Menace "the worst movie ever made"[34]) and Kevin Murphy have provided an audio commentary track for Nelson's RiffTrax service, mocking the film.[35] In a February 17, 2002 poll on the Internet Movie Database, The Phantom Menace finished first in response to the question, "Which film, that you were really keyed up and effusive about just a few years ago, embarrasses you now the most?
This entire paragraph is ripe with trivia. None of it is important to the article or the reaction of the film.
Overall there are many references throughout the article to websites such as imdb or rottentomatoes that are used more as a source to give false credibility to fan opinion such as "the film received mixed reviews" or "Many people thought this or that" rather than to cite actual sources.
I have attempted to make changes but an edit war always ensues.
Movieguy999 00:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC) reply
Here is the line you have about midi-chlorians in the CAST section (it's misspelled):
a nine-year-old slave boy from Tatooine. He is discovered to have a higher midi-cholorian count than any Jedi, and is therefore exceptionally gifted in the Force.
It's not mentioned at all in the plot synopsis and then it's described in the reaction section as it's being smeared.
I had also tried to reword those lines. I even expanded greatly on the topic and YOU yourself quickly reverted them...
The article does need to sound professional as per criteria 1a. I'm not trying to get the article deleted. I am having it reviewed because I have hit a brick wall. You refuse to make changes to this article.
I have no problem with the CNN source. I actually used it when I expanded on the topic. But, you can't use that and those other sources just to backup a bold statement like "Many members of the older fan community thought, blah, blah, blah." By wording it that way, you are clearly saying "Many fans of the original trilogy, didn't like Jar Jar." and then you go onto give reasons which are also not sourced.
The whole thing just sounds like a fan would have written it.
The star of the film saying the movie was flat, was from an article promoting the second film, Attack of The Clones. If it's going to be in these articles at all, it should be in THAT article. He is comparing the second film to The Phantom Menace. It's being put in the reaction section of this article that makes it look like it's being used soley to amplify the negativity.
As with Mike Nelson, you are giving all this credibility to a comedian who makes his living off of mocking well known films. By him saying he thought it was the worst movie ever made, he reveals himself as more of a fan than an unbiased critic (which he isn't a film critic to begin with).
If you really wanted to have a neutral point of view, then you wouldn't single out a statement like this from a comedian like Mike Nelson, who has no reason to be neutral.
When I had expanded on Roger Ebert's review, he had a perfectly neutral POV...
"Star Wars: Episode I--The Phantom Menace," to cite its full title, is an astonishing achievement in imaginative filmmaking. If some of the characters are less than compelling, perhaps that's inevitable: This is the first story in the chronology and has to set up characters who (we already know) will become more interesting with the passage of time.
He sums up everything that you have been trying to put in that section, except without bias as a fan would. Instead, you chose to revert back to your version where you are speaking directly for the majority of fans, as if what you were saying were FACT...
Movieguy999 01:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC) reply
So far in the course of your last post, you refuse to answer outright questions, you speculate and assume bad faith, you fall back on your original statement while ignoring my replies, and once again simply throw around accusations of fanboy logic and opinion. If we are going to continue with accusations, I personally believe that you don't like the fact that film has received such a negative response by the general public or have been living under a rock for the last 8 years. In either case you dislike that the article reflects the mixed to negative response and wish to change it to reflect your own views on the film. In the course of your time here, you have pretty much argued against any information in the article that reflects the film in a negative light (or what you call "smearing the film") The Filmaker 02:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC) reply
How is it a major plot point? Gee, I don't know...
Maybe because it tells the origin of how the jedi get their power? Maybe because it tells us how Anakin would become powerful enough to destroy all of the jedi? Maybe it's because it's the main reason why Quigon would risk everything on a podrace just to free him and bring him all the way to the Jedi counsel to beg for him to be trained?
::Any edits you made did not (or at least appeared not to) cite any sources. Thus your information was original research.
This is a weak argument. Not only did I have sources cited, I used the same sources that you already had on the page :)
If you think you can get out of this one, please tell everyone what information I added to the article that wasn't backed up by a source... Movieguy999 04:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC) reply
I've made some comments on the film's talk page. Girolamo Savonarola 22:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC) reply
This nomination stays put. There are currently several discussions on the talk page of the article. Movieguy999 01:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC) reply
Or at least citations appear to be the last thing being debated. We should be careful with IMDb, to be sure. Marskell 15:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply
Not happy with the prose of the first few paras. Copy-edit needed throughout.
Closing: Nothing has happened with citations and I agree that the near total reliance on IMDB for much of this raises a serious 1c concern. Marskell 10:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC) reply
The article was removed 10:04, 28 October 2007.
I am nominating this featured article for review for the following criteria violations:
REACTION SECTION:
1a:
"After the release of the film, there was controversy over whether several alien characters reflected racial stereotypes"
This does not sound professional.
REACTION SECTION & MAIN ARTICLE:
1b 1c, and 1d:
Not only are major facts and details missing, there is a general bias toward the negativity the film received. The neutrality is definitely a question here.
The introduction of midi-chlorians (microscopic organisms that allow communication with the Force) in the film has been controversial. Those against it have seen it as a concept that negates the spiritual quality of the Force.
These two lines are the only lines in the article that mention this major plot point. It's only mentioned here as a negative aspect of the film in the reaction section. Hardly neutral and is clearly fan opinion rather than FACT. The original source was an internet forum. The source has been removed, however the lines still remain.
Some aspects of the scripting were criticized. Much criticism was directed at the character of Jar Jar Binks, who was regarded by many members of the older fan community as a purely merchandising opportunity rather than a serious character in the film.
None of these lines are supported by their cited sources. At least one of the sources (CNN) actually refers to the character, however none of them actually represent "many members of the older fan community" and in general when you make a bold statement such as that without an air-tight source, you lose credibility. I question whether you could find a source to give credibility to that statement at all.
Even if the sources were valid, it doesn't sound professional. "Much criticism was directed"
In 2002, with the release of Attack of the Clones, actor Ewan McGregor admitted the film was "kind of flat".[33] Comedians and former Mystery Science Theater 3000 alumni Mike Nelson (who in a recent interview claimed he considered The Phantom Menace "the worst movie ever made"[34]) and Kevin Murphy have provided an audio commentary track for Nelson's RiffTrax service, mocking the film.[35] In a February 17, 2002 poll on the Internet Movie Database, The Phantom Menace finished first in response to the question, "Which film, that you were really keyed up and effusive about just a few years ago, embarrasses you now the most?
This entire paragraph is ripe with trivia. None of it is important to the article or the reaction of the film.
Overall there are many references throughout the article to websites such as imdb or rottentomatoes that are used more as a source to give false credibility to fan opinion such as "the film received mixed reviews" or "Many people thought this or that" rather than to cite actual sources.
I have attempted to make changes but an edit war always ensues.
Movieguy999 00:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC) reply
Here is the line you have about midi-chlorians in the CAST section (it's misspelled):
a nine-year-old slave boy from Tatooine. He is discovered to have a higher midi-cholorian count than any Jedi, and is therefore exceptionally gifted in the Force.
It's not mentioned at all in the plot synopsis and then it's described in the reaction section as it's being smeared.
I had also tried to reword those lines. I even expanded greatly on the topic and YOU yourself quickly reverted them...
The article does need to sound professional as per criteria 1a. I'm not trying to get the article deleted. I am having it reviewed because I have hit a brick wall. You refuse to make changes to this article.
I have no problem with the CNN source. I actually used it when I expanded on the topic. But, you can't use that and those other sources just to backup a bold statement like "Many members of the older fan community thought, blah, blah, blah." By wording it that way, you are clearly saying "Many fans of the original trilogy, didn't like Jar Jar." and then you go onto give reasons which are also not sourced.
The whole thing just sounds like a fan would have written it.
The star of the film saying the movie was flat, was from an article promoting the second film, Attack of The Clones. If it's going to be in these articles at all, it should be in THAT article. He is comparing the second film to The Phantom Menace. It's being put in the reaction section of this article that makes it look like it's being used soley to amplify the negativity.
As with Mike Nelson, you are giving all this credibility to a comedian who makes his living off of mocking well known films. By him saying he thought it was the worst movie ever made, he reveals himself as more of a fan than an unbiased critic (which he isn't a film critic to begin with).
If you really wanted to have a neutral point of view, then you wouldn't single out a statement like this from a comedian like Mike Nelson, who has no reason to be neutral.
When I had expanded on Roger Ebert's review, he had a perfectly neutral POV...
"Star Wars: Episode I--The Phantom Menace," to cite its full title, is an astonishing achievement in imaginative filmmaking. If some of the characters are less than compelling, perhaps that's inevitable: This is the first story in the chronology and has to set up characters who (we already know) will become more interesting with the passage of time.
He sums up everything that you have been trying to put in that section, except without bias as a fan would. Instead, you chose to revert back to your version where you are speaking directly for the majority of fans, as if what you were saying were FACT...
Movieguy999 01:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC) reply
So far in the course of your last post, you refuse to answer outright questions, you speculate and assume bad faith, you fall back on your original statement while ignoring my replies, and once again simply throw around accusations of fanboy logic and opinion. If we are going to continue with accusations, I personally believe that you don't like the fact that film has received such a negative response by the general public or have been living under a rock for the last 8 years. In either case you dislike that the article reflects the mixed to negative response and wish to change it to reflect your own views on the film. In the course of your time here, you have pretty much argued against any information in the article that reflects the film in a negative light (or what you call "smearing the film") The Filmaker 02:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC) reply
How is it a major plot point? Gee, I don't know...
Maybe because it tells the origin of how the jedi get their power? Maybe because it tells us how Anakin would become powerful enough to destroy all of the jedi? Maybe it's because it's the main reason why Quigon would risk everything on a podrace just to free him and bring him all the way to the Jedi counsel to beg for him to be trained?
::Any edits you made did not (or at least appeared not to) cite any sources. Thus your information was original research.
This is a weak argument. Not only did I have sources cited, I used the same sources that you already had on the page :)
If you think you can get out of this one, please tell everyone what information I added to the article that wasn't backed up by a source... Movieguy999 04:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC) reply
I've made some comments on the film's talk page. Girolamo Savonarola 22:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC) reply
This nomination stays put. There are currently several discussions on the talk page of the article. Movieguy999 01:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC) reply
Or at least citations appear to be the last thing being debated. We should be careful with IMDb, to be sure. Marskell 15:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply
Not happy with the prose of the first few paras. Copy-edit needed throughout.
Closing: Nothing has happened with citations and I agree that the near total reliance on IMDB for much of this raises a serious 1c concern. Marskell 10:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC) reply