Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Padmé Amidala

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Padmé Amidala[edit]

Self-nomination This is an article about a main character from Star Wars. I revised it using the guideline Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). This article was at peer review recently and was copy-edited to tighten the prose. It is comprehensive and well-sourced. I'm sure there are still some wrinkles that need ironing, thanks in advance for your input. Dmoon1 05:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Co-nom and support — I helped Dmoon copyedit the article a bit; the prose is decent, and if it still raises a few objections, I'd be more than willing to give it a more extensive audit. — Deckiller 06:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm... 10 fair use images. You will probably have to negotiate that down to about five. See ROTS and its nomination for an example of this process :) Haukur 08:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Since reduced. Haukur 19:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment May I know why this is a major issue? According to this webpage on Wikipedia, point number four states this: It has images where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status; however, including images is not a prerequisite for a featured article. I personally feel that it is not necessary to negotiate this down to five. --Siva1979Talk to me 10:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The images are not used for decorative purposes and what is depicted in the image is discussed in the article, per fair use rules. The article has the same number of fair use images as Jabba the Hutt, which passed FAC without objection last month. Dmoon1 10:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I went ahead and removed two images from the "Star Wars films" section. Dmoon1 20:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. I noticed a violation of the fair use rules. The fair use criteria state: criterium #3 "The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible. (...) Do not use multiple images or media clips if one will serve the purpose adequately." and #8 states: "The material must contribute significantly to the article (...) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose." I strongly object to the use of the following images (and give the others the benefit of the doubt): 1 image should do for the Star Wars films section. Using multiple images is unnecessary (as 1 will do adequately), violates the "as little as possible" and are mostly decorative (as there is already one Star Wars films picture). Note also that the lead picture is an image from the films, which could be mentioned under this image - this would further weaken the arguments used for using multiple images;--The images of the Characteristics and the Natalie Portman sections are decorative (and thus also violate the "as little as possible") as they don't really add anything. Sijo Ripa 20:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC) (solved. Sijo Ripa 15:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
    • There is only on image per film, this is "as little as possible" which is a subjective expression. The pictures are not decorative, they are illustrative, which is the requirement for fair use. The image from the lead is not a screenshot, but a promotional image. The amount of images used in this article is not excessive and is supported by precedent.Dmoon1 20:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC) I went ahead and removed two images from the Star Wars films section. Dmoon1 20:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, good job, Dmoon1. I still object to the picture in the Characteristics section and to the picture in the Natalie Portman-section, as they don't seem to add anything. Sijo Ripa 13:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've removed the image in the Natalie Portman section as I agree that it appears to be a violation of fair use. The other one, however, does depict a characteristic of Amidala as a character and is thus valid. —Cuiviénen 07:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've added a free image of Natalie to the section, to replace the removed image. -- Zanimum 14:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I still object because there are still two non-significantly-contributing fair use pictures left. Sijo Ripa 14:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • That's fine. You've yet to convince me that these images do not "identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text." The images in the "Characteristics" and "Natalie Portman" section illustrate relevant points in those sections. The consensus of the other editors and commentators are that these images fulfill the fair use requirements, so they are not likely to be removed. Dmoon1 17:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC) Three fair use images have been removed. Dmoon1 02:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It's very nicely referenced and well-written. I wondered what the "Other references" section was, and I also wondered if you could include a References section with the citations listed in alphabetical order. I wouldn't not support because of the lack of it but it would add the finishing touch. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 12:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Other references sub-section is the same thing as a Further readings section. This is third time I've explained this at FAC, so I just went ahead and renamed the section heading. There is no need to have an alphabetized reference section since all the relevant citation info (author's full name, full title, publication data, etc.) is listed in the endnote. Thanks for your input. Dmoon1 14:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Having a references section is actually part of Wikipedia:What is a featured article?: " ... these include a "References" section where the references are set out, complemented where appropriate by inline citations (see Wikipedia:Citing sources)." It can be helpful because with a long list of footnotes in the order in which they were used in the text, it can be hard to see at a glance which sources you've used. The other reason for keeping it is that, if someone deletes the first one in any series of notes, the subsequent notes get broken, and it can then be difficult or impossible for other editors to know what the source was: for example, if it only says Smith 2005, p. 1. If you have a full citation in the References section, then everyone can see what Smith 2005 refers to. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wikipedia:What is a featured article? says, "'factually accurate' includes supporting of facts with specific evidence and external citations," which is what this article does. There is a reference section, it's called Notes because this article uses foot/endnotes rather than Harvard references. Only Harvard references are required to have a complete, alphabetized reference section. The example you list above is the Harvard system and is not used in this article. See Wikipedia:Citing sources#Footnotes and Wikipedia:Footnotes for the referencing system used in this article. Dmoon1 20:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • The relevant guideline is WP:CITE, which the FA page refers to, and it recommends maintaining a separate References section, whether footnotes or Harvard referencing are used. See here. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • It is recommended, but not required. This is also a matter of personal preference and I think it adds unncessary bloat to the end of the article. None of the last 5 featured articles I wrote contain such a section. Dmoon1 20:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • All guidelines are just recommendations, but FAs should probably try to act on them. As I said above, I won't object on the basis of that alone, but I hope you'll consider it for the future. It really does help to have a solid list with full citations in alphabetical order in case any of the footnotes goes missing, and you know how easy that is on Wikipedia with multiple editors. Anyway, it's a very good article. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Ok, but you should note that very few featured articles do this. Those that do use abbreviated footnotes (e.g., Smith, Wealth of Nations, 34) instead of full cites in the notes. Dmoon1 21:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comment — Now that the nomination is back on the nomination page, I'll provide my input. The article is largely well-done, but I think there's a few tweaks that need to be made to its wording, as well as a few other touches:
    • I'm not sure of the necessity of Padmé's film quotes, which lend to more of an in-universe descriptive feel than you guys probably intended (though I must applaud beginning the "Star Wars films" section by detailing mention of her in Return of the Jedi first)
      • WP:WAF suggests to use quotes from the work of fiction. WAF's author BrianSmithson had me include quotes in the Jabba the Hutt article (see here), so I added them here as well. It's supposed to add to the context of the article's subject in her universe. Dmoon1 14:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The introduction to the "Appearances" section is a bit bland because it has three full stops: "Padmé Amidala is a main character in Star Wars fiction. She plays a prominent role in the prequel trilogy of films directed by George Lucas between 1999 and 2005. Besides the Star Wars films, Padmé appears in the Clone Wars miniseries and Expanded Universe literature." Furthermore, the first and second sentences are somewhat redundant of one another. They should be combined or the first one simply lost
    • This part should be reworded: "Padmé Amidala appears in deleted scenes from the prequel films. In Attack of the Clones, Padmé introduces...". Perhaps something like "Padmé Amidala makes additional appearances in deleted scenes from the prequel films. In Attack of the Clones, she..."
    • At least one link for "Expanded Universe", as well as possibly an indication of this material's ranking in canon hierarchy
      • I'm not sure what you mean by "link for 'Expanded Universe'" (wikilink?) and I'm not too concerned about canon; this is just supposed to be an account of her appearances in major Star Wars literature, canon and non-canon (but I think all of these included in the article are considered canon). I've noticed that discussions about canon can lead to frivolous debates and arguments, so I generally avoid trying to rank works based on canon unless its status is pretty much well determined. Dmoon1 14:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The caption "Depiction of Padmé Amidala from Attack of the Clones advertising as an Amazon" is worded awkwardly, and I'm not sure how appropriate it is without explanation of what is meant by "Amazon" here. I'd suggest just losing that part altogether
      • This is something that was supposed to be explained in the article; it now is. It is a reference made by film critics to the depiction of the character as a strong, aggressive woman at the end of Attack of the Clones. Dmoon1 14:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is there an "Other references" section? Why are they not all in-line? It's not a big deal, but I'm just curious as to why they aren't uniform
      • I addressed this under the comment above Ryu's. Dmoon1 14:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These are my only gripes really. Overall, the article is well-referened, well-written, informative and thorough. It's also illustrated superbly with the various costumes (the makeup image is a particularly nice touch). If these matters I've listed above can be touched upon or explained, I'll throw in my support. Ryu Kaze 13:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I attempted to address your concerns, please let me know if you require anything more. Dmoon1 15:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, we're good. You've addressed and explained everything to my satisfaction. Full support. Ryu Kaze 22:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment to full stops Full stops are perfectly fine (wihin reason) in this kind of prose. — Deckiller 17:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, violates fair use criterion #3. Eight "fair use" images in only 41k of text is about six or seven too many. And two of them are in a gallery, which is a definite no-no! User:Angr 06:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article has the average number of fair use images as other featured articles in the media category. All of the images used correspond with commentary in the text. I could find no prohibitions against galleries in the WP:FUC or WP:FU (unless I missed something). The two fair use images in the gallery are being compared with the two PD images that accompany them. The commentary that discusses these four images is in the sub-section which the gallery is located. Dmoon1 08:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • This oppose position will likely be ignored by Raul, as it is not real supported by anything in the featured article critiera (nor has anything similar been supported in the past). — Deckiller 11:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's supported by featured article criterion 4: "It has images where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status". These images are inappopriate (because they are stolen) and do not have acceptable copyright status. User:Angr 15:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • The images are not stolen. "Where appropriate" means that the image is used in a way to enhance the discussion and critical commentary of the article, and the images here do that. "Acceptable copyright status" refers to the correct licensing tags, and all of these images are tagged correctly AND have descriptive fair use rationales. You don't seem to understand what fair use is and should probably familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Fair use. Dmoon1 18:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose - good article but just non-notable --GoOdCoNtEnT 06:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability is not a factor when critiquing FACs. (BTW, your placement of the FAC template on the main page of the article Talmud (as seen here) instead of the talk page leads me to believe that you are not aware of FAC procedure. Please familiarize youself with Wikipedia:What is a featured article?). Dmoon1 08:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC) [Edit conflict with darkliight, the comments below refer to GoOdCoNtEnT.][reply]
  • You've been with Wikipedia for nearly a year now and in that time I'm sure that you've noticed there are various guidelines and criteria throughout the project. Before supporting or objecting to articles listed here for Featured Article status, I think it would be a brilliant idea to familiarise yourself with the particular guidelines for supporting/objecting and the criteria asked of articles to become a Featured Article - the ones you skimmed over to get to this, and every other nomination you've commented on.
Lets face it, it would be just rude to not take the time to do so, when an editor(s) have taken the time to develop an article to meet these criteria. When reading the guidelines and criteria, you'll notice that one of the very few conditions of an objection is that objections must be actionable - clearly your objection is not. You'll also note that notability is not mentioned anywhere in the FA criteria. Finally, this information will also help you to decide whether nominating an article (or several) is really a good idea in the future. Thanks for your time and I'm looking forward to future contributions from your enlightened self. darkliight[πalk] 07:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comment Please re-visit "All URLs last accessed August 5, 2006 unless otherwise stated." Wiki is not static: you could leave the article, other editors could come along and make changes, and that kind of statement doesn't work well in a dynamic environment. It shouldn't be hard just to add it to each footnote. Sandy 13:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC) Looks good. Sandy 20:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, this has been done. Dmoon1 18:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Looks good to me. Another great article from Dmoon1! The Wookieepedian 19:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rama's arrow 02:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your support! Dmoon1 04:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Looks good. I've taken the liberty of removing the one remaining fair use image that could be objectionable. —Cuiviénen 07:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support looks good to me. I couldn't find any issues except some information is stated in 2 sections but I don't really see this as a problems since this information fits good into the point of this sections. Aside from this, I hope Padmé wont deteriorate in quality like the last time dmoon1 rewrote it... or maybe im thinking of something else. - Tutmosis 00:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, I love that infobox image. Clearly shows Padmé impersonator. I was getting tired of this night shot 22 degree 20 inches of the ground shoulder blade view pictures of characters (in other words unclear). - Tutmosis 00:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. It didn't deteriorate, that was what the article looked like when I rewrote it (it was BAD). This was the first article I attempted to rewrite when I joined Wikipedia, not having a clue what I was doing. I finally got around to revising it. Dmoon1 03:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I'm glad I'm not the only person who dislikes bloated notations - I find them an eyesore, so I'm glad this article keeps them brief and to the point. As for using this "URL last accessed" palaver on every citation, I find it rather annoying and am quite saddened commentators have urged DMoon1 to do this. LuciferMorgan 14:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your support. Dmoon1 20:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • object there isnt a fair representation of images. A lot of fans remember the character for her prettier side in the second film, and i remember there used to be at least one image of her by the lake/etc in the article but they have all been removed. i know there is a limit, but maybe one of the other images needs to go in order to fit in an image of her on naboo, which is rather important. what does everyone else think? Im not sure who picked all the images, but there should be an equal representation of her character/story. Reillycnter
    • Your concern is understood, but there are a substantianal amount of fair use images in the article already. Currently, all the images illustrate key topics in the discussion/commentary, so to remove one would be more harmful (IMO) than not having a picture that shows how pretty the character is. Plus, to label a character in an image as "pretty" is sort of POV, and would no doubt lead to an argument among two or more editors as to just which picture is "prettiest"; the character's beauty can be inferred from most of the images used. The images are as representative as they possible can be within reasonable limits. Dmoon1 03:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for replying and i understand that. but i think you misunderstood whta i meant, regardless of whether the character is pretty or not, the article fails to show her lighter side, instead, all the images are battle/senator based. say the limitation for copyright images has been reach, i have done some research, and may have found a resolution, that could add one of the older images back: there is a no. of photos [1](here) which are under a Creative Commons license that i see works with wikipedia. the last image in the comstumes section on the Padme wiki article is copyright, why use a Creative Commons one instead, which gives us breathing space to add one of the older images. Reillycnter
        • The images at this site are blurry and none of them illustrate points in the article. The last picture you refer to is for comparative purposes with the Russian noblewoman's fashion and you're not likely to find a free replacement. The image that was once in the article is here: Image:Padme Naboo lake.jpg, but it is blurry as well. To be honest, the images aren't meant to show any of her sides (except the one in the "Characteristics" section and that's because it details the main focus of the discussion there). The point: it is not feasible to chronicle every aspect of a character through images; that is what the text is for. Dmoon1 07:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Images aren't really a basis for objection anyway, unless they're not properly captioned or of inappropriate copyright status. Please review Wikipedia:What is a featured article?. For that matter, as Dmoon has said, the images currently in the article are being used to illustrate aspects of the character discussed within the text, and — if someone is going to consider her pretty, not that such an issue even matters — they should make that determination from the images already present. It's entirely a POV matter in the first place as to whether or not she's even pretty. Some people might not think so. Some people might think she looks prettier with the face paint for that matter. Even if it was unanimous that she's prettiest without it, that still leaves the issue of which image she is prettiest in and why there's discussion going on over the inclusion of an image for purely decorative purposes based on the POV assumption that she's prettiest without the paint and that people need to see yet another image of her without the paint in order to make them realize that they think so too. This is just a matter of editorial stylistic preference, I think. This objection is likely dismissable on the basis of the rules for objecting in FAC: "Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to "fix" the source of the objection, the objection may be ignored". Ryu Kaze 12:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I agree with most of the current favorable reasoning for FA'ing this article. Technically it is definitely ready. As for the fair use oppositions... well, it's Star Wars. IMHO, there's no way in Hell you're going to come up with fully CC/GDFL imagery for a Star Wars subject. I think subjects like this should allow for a slightly higher proportion of fair use imagery. --Kitch 17:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I think this meets our current standards of what's needed for featured status. Haukur 17:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the support and editorial help. Dmoon1 18:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Pretty good, if it's going to be a FA like Jabba the Hutt I'd be interested to in a section showing the impact the char has had on culture and mass media - how was she received, how has she been portrayed in other media (particularly satire, parody etc). I conceed that she hasn't been around as long as Jabba to have that effect nor has she had quite the effect, but I'm certain I've seen her crop up here and there. (This isn't an objection, I need to read the whole thing properly before I decided how to vote). Sabine's Sunbird talk 17:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a good point and something I discussed on the talk page and at peer review. I don't think she had the impact on pop culture that Jabba the Hutt, Princess Leia, or Darth Vader had. The costumes were put on exhibit at the Fashion Institute of Design & Merchandising, but I think that was more for their artistic value. You don't see people walking around dressed like this because of this character. Her role in mass media is discussed in the "Appearances" section; her name doesn't appear outside of Star Wars regularly as Jabba the Hutt's. There were Queen Amidala action figures, dolls, and Halloween costumes, but I think that's as close as you get to pop culture impact, and I can't see justifying a whole section writing about the Queen Amidala Ultimate Hair fashion doll. If you can think of something else, however, please let me know and I'll see what I can dig up. (Also keep in mind that every character article is going to be unique depending on the character, so it will not be possible to use Jabba the Hutt as THE standard for every article.) Thanks for your input and taking the time to read the article. Dmoon1 18:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, I can see that. I kind of thought she turned up a lot, at least I'm certain I see her ridiculous costumes from the the first film cropping up a lot. At any rate, I have two further comments, first off the comparisons of the costumes to real-world royal costumes is very good but might benefit from the images being slightly larger and closer to the related text (middle of the text rather than at the bottom); and this statement bothers me...The first appearance of Padmé Amidala in Star Wars Expanded Universe literature is Mike Baron's 1998 comic book adaptation of Timothy Zahn's novel The Last Command (1993). Set nine years after the events of A New Hope, the comic features a portrait of Padmé hanging in the Imperial Palace on Coruscant. The image is based on Natalie Portman's likeness. For someone not 100% certain of the timeframes involved is this before or after ROTJ? Does the comic specifically state that this was Padme, or explain who Padme was, or was it snuck in without explnation by an artist who knew that Portman was going to be in the filum as a nod to knowing fans? A little more context might help, even if you just put the explanation in the footnote. Other than this I cannot think of any objections and am pleased to see an impressive section on the evolution of the character in the scrips and concepts Lucas had and critical real world opinions on her (as opposed to just a list of what she did in the films like so many other character FACs). Support. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for your support! I elaborated on the appearance of Padmé's portrait in the comic book, but I couldn't get the images to work in the costume section outside the gallery. They kept making the text look funny. Dmoon1 00:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support nice article, without the problems found in Darth Vader. igordebraga ≠ 20:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't think "Rick McCallum, quoted in 'Alleged inconsistencies in Star Wars' from answers.com is a reliable source. In fact, it seems the quoted article is a Wikipedia mirror. Surely a better citation can be found? Andrew Levine 19:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have contacted the user that added this quote to the Wikipedia article Alleged inconsistencies in Star Wars which the answers.com site is mirroring to see if he can provide me with a specific source. Until I hear back, I have removed the quote and added a remark that official Star Wars sources do not attempt to explain the plot hole and I gave an example from a reliable source. Dmoon1 20:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak Oppose ReverendG 05:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have to give a reason for your opposition so that I can attempt to address it; if you don't then your objection is not actionable. Dmoon1 05:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support you're right, i had no basis for objection that i can see. ReverendG 06:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Wow, I'm impressed... If only we had these standards on wookieepedia... --UVnet 12:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your support (now it would do no one any good if Wikipedia and Wookieepedia were mirrors ;) ). Dmoon1 08:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This article is great and I really don't understand the fair use concerns. There is no policy that says you are only allowed to use x fair use images. At best you can only view two images at same time on my screen, so they are not overused. --Maitch 15:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Sijo Ripa 15:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Padmé_Amidala&oldid=1138468612"