Talk:Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi

El directorio enciclopédico desde la Wikipedia.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
Good article Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
Featured topic star Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi is part of the "Star Wars episodes" series, a featured topic identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
 
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
To-do list for Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi: edit · history · watch · refresh

See below
Priority 1 (top) 
Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] Improvements?

I was considering cleaning up and editing this article to match up with the other SW articles. Any ideas on improving this article should be great. Thanks. Sjones23 21:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I just got some ideas, from Darthgriz98 (a Wikipedia administrator), that this article needs copyediting and sources need to be cited in the reception section as well. Any other things you want to throw in? Sjones23 20:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

How about updating/changing the cast? Allen649 13:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Unless you can specify something that is currently wrong with the Cast section. I see no reason too. The Filmaker 13:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Star Wars Episode VII: The Dark Arrival?

What is this broken link (in the film infobox) supposed to refer to? -- Pennyforth 07:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Just vandalism I would imagine. MarcK 13:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review

I was wondering if this article to go for another peer review. This article needs a lot of copyediting and improvements to go up to FA status if anyone is up to it. Thanks. Sjones23 20:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. Sjones23 18:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Automated PR Response

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
  • See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • correctly
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • Avoid using contractions like (outside of quotations): didn't.
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, APR t 23:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Anything of the above will be a great appreciation of this article to become a Featured Article status. Thanks Sjones23 14:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FAC

I have placed this article under FAC in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi. I am going for an FA push. Sjones23 21:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I've temporarily halted the FAC until these issues are resolved:

    • Reaction - needs to be expanded
    • Citations - article needs additional sources especially to the Production section
    • Copyedit - entire article needs thorough copyediting
      • YesY Done. Greg Jones II 01:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
        • The article should be copyedited again before the FAC. Partially because it couldn't hurt, but also because of the new information added. The Filmaker 04:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
          • It could be. The five films (ANH, ESB, TPM, ROTS and AOTC) are at FA just to clarify. Greg Jones II 17:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

If those issues are resolved, I will continue this FAC. Thanks. Sjones23 21:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Those issues are discussed here. Sjones23 21:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Alright, what I was getting was that I've been the prime editor in all of the FACs for all of the other Star Wars articles up to here. And I can tell you that it's not ready. It's close, but it's not ready. The reaction section needs to be made a little more neutral by adding a negative review(s), additional citations are needed to appease the citation crowd, and at least one copyedit by a trustworthy copyeditor is needed. The copyedit is desperately needed and has been the hardest to secure. At this point the FAC shouldn't even be considered until the above issues are resolved. The Filmaker 21:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I would copyedit this article myself if I can. Sjones23 21:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
My additional concerns are that there is also redundant wordings in some parts. Sjones23 21:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I copyedited some parts of the article. I need some help in sources, however. Sjones23 21:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
The Filmaker, I really need your help in getting this article featured. I've made some edits, but are there any other reliable sources for any section (especially in the Production section)? If there are links to some, let me know here. Since I am Being Bold, I am trying to contributing it significantly. If I had done any wrongdoing, I apologize. Sjones23 22:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
See the above section for further details. Thanks. Sjones23 22:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I've placed a copyedit request here. Sjones23 22:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I will perform searches for additional references. The Filmaker 22:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Good idea. Sjones23 00:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Just to let you know, additional sources can be found in various places, such as the official Star Wars website, the IGN website and so on. Sjones23 19:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I am aware of how to find sources, Sjones. ;) It's just something I need to find the time to do. The Filmaker 22:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I will also find a trustworthy copyeditor or I will copyedit this myself if I can. :D Sjones23 01:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I have copyedited some parts of the article myself. Sjones23 01:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I have also added the {{copyedit}} tag. Sjones23 02:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Erm... The Filmaker, are there any other issues left? Sjones23 15:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're asking. Is it alright to proceed with the FAC? Or if I simply have more issues with the article? Well, I still would not proceed with the FAC considering that only one of my issues has been addressed. Even that I have my doubts about. I mean no disrespect to Beverson, but very little was changed in his copyedit. Either this means that the article was not that bad to begin with, or another copyeditor needs to be brought into play. I don't know, I've never been great with prose. However, the Reaction still needs to be expanded and the citations need to be varied. The Filmaker 02:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I am great with prose and I can copyedit this myself. I mean no disrespect to anyone, including yourself. Thanks for the helpful info. Greg Jones II 00:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Also, Filmaker, I do not mean any disrespect, but I will let you do most of the FA push yourself. That would be appreciated. Greg Jones II 00:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I will continue nomination of this featured article whenever I get the chance. Sjones23 01:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I've also added a verify tag on the top and an expand tag in the reaction section. Sjones23 01:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

This article still needs a huge copyedit, I did the production section and am willing to look over the rest as time permits this week, but it definitely needs a second opinion. Perhaps the league of copyeditors? DarthGriz98 18:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, Lauren. The League of Copyeditors are a good source. I've added a copyedit request at Wikipedia:WikiProject_League_of_Copyeditors/proofreading#Copy-edit_requests_for_other_articles. I am part of the league of copyeditors. Sjones23 11:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I will also work on this large copyedit myself. Greg Jones II (Sjones23) 16:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Also, wikilinking needs to be fixed. Greg Jones II 20:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I just completed a pretty lengthy LoCE copy edit, which included extensive cleanup of wiklinks, some style standardization, lots of edits for clarity, and a few factual corrections. I think it needs to be gone over again before being given a final proofread by the LoCE. —beverson 07:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Sjones, thanks for reviewing my work (and especially for catching that goof in the plot summary — it was late when I was working on this). The Filmaker, I saw that you reverted a few of my larger reorganizational edits. I'm not trying to be confrontational at all, just trying to understand so I can better perform these copyediting tasks. The changes in the "Releases" section seem like they could go either way, though I did put some thought into the way I had done it — trying to group theatrical releases and home video releases separately (and yes, there are variations between the theatrical SE and the DVD release of the SE, re: the actor playing ghost Anakin, as already noted in that section). I'd like to hear your rationale for keeping it the way it was. I feel a little more strongly about the placement of the "Production" paragraph beginning: "Return of the Jedi was filmed on a budget of $32,500,000. The film was originally titled Revenge of the Jedi...." I think it works really well as an overall lead to that section. I can see that maybe a discussion of keeping the film within budget can lead into a discussion of what the budget was, but that seems like very important information to be buried at the bottom of the section. Additionally, one of the most interesting pieces of production trivia seems to be the name change, especially now in light of the naming of Episode III. Having that paragraph first in that section really just seems more encyclopedic to me. But let's discuss that section before anyone changes it again. —beverson 20:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • You're welcome, User:Beverson. The copyedit is much appreciated. I placed the final proofread request at Wikipedia:WikiProject_League_of_Copyeditors/proofreading#Ready_for_final_proofread. Greg Jones II 22:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
    • The majority of the reverts (if you want to call them that) were done simply for symmetry between the other five FAs. In addition to symmetry, to title the section "Theatrical Special Edition" implies that it was only released theatrically, when it was in fact it was released on VHS. I am also aware that the were changes between the Special Edition and the DVD release. However, the DVD release was not a release of the Special Edition films with additional changes, it was the release of the Star Wars films with changes that included those previously featured in the Special Edition. It is typically referred to as the "DVD edition". The Filmaker 02:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Hey man, no need to get upset. I do call them reverts because that's what they were. While I stand by my original editing decisions in the context of copyediting this article and being bold, I appreciate your broader knowledge of these other articles and a desire to keep them consistent. At the risk of question other Star Wars FAs, maybe their Production sections could be similarly improved, with the most important info up top. That being said, in the future, when attempting to provide copyediting assistance, I'll try to do a better job in researching and following stylistic and organizational choices in other, better, and related articles. I'm hoping you don't resent me, an outsider, coming in and making a lot of mistakes you have to go back and fix. But taking the extra two minutes here to explain your perspective (or engage in some debate) can help make that process go more smoothly. I appreciate that as well. —beverson 04:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
      • But please don't misunderstand, I appreciate your copyediting the article. I was not upset by your edits, nor was I upset that I had to explain why I reverted them. I apologize if I came off resentful, please know that I did not mean too. The Filmaker 04:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyedit

This article, or a portion of it, was copyedited by the League of Copyeditors in June 2007. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
  • Copyeditor(s): beverson 07:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC), Greg Jones II 14:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Proofreader: Dalobuca 19:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quotes Section - Yay or nay?

I haven't seen this film in a long time, but surely a Quotes section is a good idea?

No. Save quotes for wikiquote. Any list here would just be an arbitrary and unencyclopedic WP:ILIKEIT list. If there are particular quotes that you can place in context to clarify plot, themes, etc. go for it, but a quotes-only section would be inappropriate. --EEMeltonIV 12:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article issues?

This article is coming together. I think there are still a couple of issues - i.e. verifying sources. If anyone can address these issues, let me know here. Thanks. Greg Jones II 20:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

No issues. Just needed something called how many casualties during a battle like above Endor.(TougHHead 22:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Archive

Comments from 2003 to April 2007 are now archived. Greg Jones II 20:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Need some help

Hey. I need some help on this article. It is almost ready for FA status and I just need some helpful information. Thanks. Greg Jones II 03:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC) What do u need help on? Shaun k7 (talk) 09:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Psst

Citation #13 is blank.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Solved. Girolamo Savonarola 01:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

I have commented on Episode V here, but I think some of these comments apply to this article too. This article has a weak lead and plot section, a lack of reliable sources where they are needed, and a tendancy to approach the subject from an in-universe point of view. I think that fixing these issues would be an important step towards FA status. Geometry guy 23:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article degrading

Why was the cast photo removed? Why are there now no plot images, and now there is that ghastly comparison shot of the replacement of the old Anakin? And why has half the prose in the article been replace? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Metal Bikini

Why was there no discussion or illustration of Leia's famous gold bikini? I'm putting it in. 76.200.219.185 (talk) 23:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

As you already know, it's rather irrelevant to the overall plot, and the associated pic would be inappropriate anyway. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 03:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Is Leia attractive? Sure. Does she look good in the costume? Of course. Carrie Fisher was twenty-six at the time, so it benefited her to let her hair down and show off her figure, as I'm sure the modest, butter-wouldn't-melt-in-her-mouth attitude of her character would eventually get tired. But is that metal bikini the real point of the sequence? Well, maybe. . . if you're Jabba the Hutt. . . IMO, though, the real shocker is that Leia was the one who managed to kill Jabba, not Luke or Chewie. She also improvised it skillfully, what with the chain and all (it brings to mind something from a 1970's gangster movie, although I can't remember which). That was the real shocker to me, when I first saw it, but most fanboys merely remember the bikini and nothing else, including what Jabba did to the princess while she was wearing it. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 02:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Spirits.jpg

Image:Spirits.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image status: asap

Hello all. As the original uploader of the image Spiritsjedi.jpg, I have now been notified, for what is probably the third time since I uploaded the image, that there is impending deletion regarding it due to the image being orphanated (that is, not being used on any articles). The image is supposed to be used on this article, for comparison regarding the digital replacement of actor Sebastian Shaw with Hayden Christensen in the "spirit scene" at the end of the movie. I don't know what happened this time, I haven't checked yet, but all of the previous times the image had been arbitrarily removed by a user who decided, by himself, that it shouldn't be there. Obviously, the image ended up being reinstated (along with an image showing Christensen in the scene, for the aforementioned comparison).
Now, we can't keep having this back-and-forth with this (and possibly others) image. I have suspended the deletion of the image pending this discussion, but depending on the outcome I will delete the image myself, immediately. So the question is: do we want this image (and possibly the Christensen image) for comparison effect in the article, or do we think that it is not necessary? We need to decide, and if that decision should be in favor of having the image in the article, the image will not be removed from the article again without previous discussion and consensus, otherwise the edit removing the image(s) will usually be rolled back on by an administrator. So, what say you? Regards, Redux (talk) 15:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Página espejo de la Wikipedia
Directorio de Enlaces Directorio dmoz Directorio espejo dmoz Pedro Bernardo