# Talk:Harmy's Despecialized Edition

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)

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


### GA Review on Hold
Thank you very much for your efforts to contribute to Quality improvement on Wikipedia, it's really most appreciated !!!
NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
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 !

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

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)
@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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)