Star Wars episodes

Main page	Articles
Star Wars	Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace - Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones - Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith - Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope - Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back - Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi

See also Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Star Wars episodes/archive1 and Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Star Wars episodes/addition1

I am rebooting this Featured Topic. I can't believe it wasn't done sooner, considering the high concentration of geeks on here :) Just an FYI to everyone, I primarily worked on pushing Star Wars to WP:GA status. Gary King ( talk) 04:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC) reply

• Strong Support - Glad to see it back, and meeting the criteria for once! Judgesurreal777 ( talk) 04:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC) reply
• Support. Well done to Gary in dealing with the prior issue ( this one) and getting it up to criteria. dihydrogen monoxide ( H₂O) 05:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment Why not "Star Wars films"? WesleyDodds ( talk) 11:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC) reply
  • I think that they are making it so that they don't have to include the Ewoks films or the holiday special. -- Arctic Gnome ( talk • contribs) 00:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC) reply
• Support great to have it back! Congrats on making that mess in Star Wars a GA, Gary! And isn't films because it's the old FT title, the category and there are other movies. igordebraga ≠ 15:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC) reply
• Support Two things: the articles's talk pages were never changed to indicate that the topic was demoted and this nomination should have a different name. Zginder ^{( talk) ( Contrib)} 17:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC) reply
• Support – Meets the requirements. Nice to see this finally back, I know that its wikiproject has been putting in a lot of work. -- Arctic Gnome ( talk • contribs) 00:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC) reply
• Strong SupportTotally meets the requirements. Xp54321 ( talk) 02:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC) reply

• Support Not a big Star Wars fan, I'm forced to watch it by my son, but the articles themselves deserve to be part of a FT as they meet all the criteria. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 04:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC) reply
• Strong Support This is a great article and meets the requirements,plus I'm a big fan. 71.118.125.165 ( talk) 15:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC) reply
• Support - looks good, meets the relevant criteria. Sephiroth BCR ^{( Converse)} 18:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment How many supports does it take for the article to become featured? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xp54321 ( talk • contribs) 00:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Consensus much be reached for a nomination to pass. Also, please do not add a Featured Article star to these articles when they have not yet reached that status. Gary King ( talk) 00:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply
    • How quick those edits were reverted demonstrates why quality versions only needs auto confered user an not a new user level. Zginder ^{( talk) ( Contrib)} 01:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply
• Strong Support A great article, we just need to deal with potential vandalism. Pc12345 ( talk) 04:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC) Sock of Xp54321 ( talk · contribs). Jehochman ^Talk 00:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply
• Support. You will promote this topic to featured status. Cirt ( talk) 09:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply
• Strong Support I agree with Cirt,You will promote this topic to featured status. Herowiki101 ( talk) 16:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC) -- — Herowiki101 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Sock of Xp54321 ( talk · contribs) reply
  • Just a word of warning to everyone that the above comment was made by a newly created account, with the only edit (besides their user space) to be this one. Gary King ( talk) 19:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply
• Support. Good work. Rudget ( review) 16:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC) reply
• Close as consensus to promote -- Arctic Gnome ( talk • contribs) 03:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply