This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Star Wars High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Star Wars, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Star Wars saga on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Star WarsWikipedia:WikiProject Star WarsTemplate:WikiProject Star WarsStar Wars High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Star Wars To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : Tag the talk pages of Star Wars-related articles with the {{WikiProject Star Wars}} banner. Update the classification of articles in Category:Unassessed Star Wars articles and Category:Unknown-importance Star Wars articles. Citing sources : Jedi, Sith Cleanup : Remove any In-universe information at Category:Star Wars articles that need to differentiate between fact and fiction. Copyedit : Under Early Life. Fix grammar of "towns (plural) predominantly Protestant technical college" to "town's (possessive)..." Stubs : Category:Star Wars stubs Other : * See the things to do page Notability: Articles with notability concerns, listed at WikiProject Notability Disney Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disney, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of The Walt Disney Company and its affiliated companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DisneyWikipedia:WikiProject DisneyTemplate:WikiProject DisneyDisney Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Television Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Science Fiction Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Television Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American television task force.

According to a post on Instagram by Andy Lowe, the Film and Television Lighting Gaffer at London’s Pinewood Studios, Star Wars: Andor wrapped filming on Saturday August 21st: https://www.instagram.com/p/CS1nEtyF7BH/?utm_medium=copy_link.

I’m hoping we can use this link as a sign of confirmed proof that Andor is done filming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.162.120 (talk) 21:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not a verified/reliable source, so no we can't. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:57, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know for certain that Elizabeth Dulau plays Kleya and that it is currently wrong so was correcting it and the link I provided proves she is the actress that plays it so I am unsure why it was removed. In the trailer it is clear it is not Adria Arjona who plays Kleya as they look different. Please let me know what I need to do to correct it without it being removed. Oceanfan1 (talk) 20:01, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You need to provide reliable sources that support your claims. You knowing something doesn't mean Wikipedia can take you at your word. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you inform me what was wrong with the link I used as it is a reliable source. It is an actress’s agency website and shows what TV shows she has been in or is going to be in and the role she plays in said TV shows. There is no reliable source out there that the actress that you have down for playing Kleya is playing her so therefore you have contradicted yourself already as you haven’t provided a reliable source proving that Adria Arjona plays Kleya. Surely there should be no character name next to Adria Arjonas name as there is no reliable source that has confirmed it. I will stop editing it and happy for it to get changed to Elizabeth Dulau when the show comes out and you realise I just think it’s funny you say you need a reliable source yet don’t have one for the current person you have down as supposedly playing it. Oceanfan1 (talk) 22:35, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a reliable source in the article that says Arjona is playing Kleya. You changed Arjona to Dulau and provided this source, which may support your argument but it is not the strongest source to contradict a reliable one that we have and it also states that Dulau is a series regular which seems unlikely and does not align with the cast lists that Lucasfilm has released. Even if that was a reliable source, you added it as an external link rather than as a reference which is inappropriate per WP:EL. That is why you were reverted the first few times, and the rest was because you were edit warring and being disruptive. In the future, if you are reverted you should come to the talk page and not re-add your controversial changes without support from other editors. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:35, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I personally wouldn’t call people.com reliable or any news outlet for that matter. An actress agency page is more reliable than people.com as they clearly know what their client is in and who they are playing. Who ever wrote that article on people.com has seen the trailer and assumed who is playing the role. I will just wait for the show to come out and it can get changed then. Oceanfan1 (talk) 10:18, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Considering what is counted as reliable can this be used to at least update who Arjona is playing to the correct character?

https://collider.com/andor-cast-and-character-guide-star-wars-rogue-one-prequel/ Oceanfan1 (talk) 23:16, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we should be able to use that. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:30, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I have changed it hopefully I have done it right. Oceanfan1 (talk) 23:40, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I put the description on another line because this was the way it was in other lines in the piece. Pageturners (talk) 15:00, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The wording on this article and similar ones is not right. Phrasing and terms are used which you won't find anywhere else. We aren't writing a dictionary here.Extraordinary2 (talk) 05:44, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please give a few examples, because I don't understand what you are referring to. Debresser (talk) 23:56, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

he (Iger) clarified that there were several series in development,[20] and one was revealed that November as a prequel to the film Rogue One (2016). It's more correct to say to be a prequel not as.

Gilroy's involvement was revealed that October, when he was set to write the first episode, direct multiple episodes and work alongside Schiff... You will not see anything in print anywhere using the term set, he was set to write, direct, and work. Selected would be the word choice; you do see "set to perform" never set to do a list of things.

Six weeks of pre-production for the series had taken place in the United Kingdom by then, but this was halted. Never will you see "pre-production had taken place". The industry and anyone else would use other words.

with Gilroy expecting it to release in late 2024. Gilroy is not releasing the show, Disney is.Extraordinary2 (talk) 05:14, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Rotten Tomatoes episode score graph is very misleading. It fails badly because it leaves out a big piece of relevant information, the number of reviewers counted and the huge drop-off in their numbers as the series has progressed. Episode 1 was reviewed by 114 critics,[1] compared to episode 8 which at the time of writing has only been reviewed by 9 critics.[2] (Episode 7, only 15 critics.[3]) The picture is not worth a thousand words. The graph is unsuitable for an encyclopedia, it really shouldn't be included at all it so badly misleading. (See also the book The Visual Display of Quantitative Information by Edward Tufte which explains beautifully how to make better use of graphs.) -- 109.79.175.195 (talk) 01:30, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've now removed the addition of a 'Season 2' subsection, as there is no guarantee that the show will get a second go, and there is nothing in the way of content to populate the subsection. Until we know more, it should remain out of the article. Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Umm...the show is already confirmed to have a second season? The second season is already filming now lol 2600:8803:7680:A700:CD4F:E084:3BE7:3C07 (talk) 00:59, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, you know this is an encyclopedia, right? Not a blog. Not a fansite. An encyclopedia, and more importantly, it's Wikipedia. That means that anything you add has to be sourced content. Just slapping up an empty section header isn't enough. Find some information about the filming - even though that might fit better under the 'Production' section. Please do not re-add a subsection without reliably sourced content in it. If you need help understanding what I mean, just ask. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:40, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with the removal of an empty section, but the last paragraph under the "Filming" section appears to be sourced about the second season being filmed. Whether those sources are reliable or not, I haven't checked. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:52, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have zero problem with info about season two being included, but empty sections without text or sources are like gold toilets; they are entirely unnecessary and just glaringly wrong unless you are the mythological King Midas (or the all-too-real trump). - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:18, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Kenam William: due to his insistence on wanting to tout the show's alleged achievements, but without the use of any sources. The lead should be a summary of the article (WP:LEAD), and the existing consensus does not reflect what is mentioned in Critical response. Either find sources to back up these claims, or it is likely they will be removed. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:30, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, the only place where sourcing isn't required is in plot summaries; and those are crafted solely by editorial consensus. Outside of that, no sources mean no inclusion - full stop. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:20, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If content is contested. If it s not contested, it stays. Debresser (talk) 20:47, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Debresser, if something violates guidelines then it still warrants a removal; it doesn't have to be contested first. Note that this user has also been warned for doing the same thing on Puss in Boots: The Last Wish. It's synthesis and original research. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 17:19, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Synthesis is a separate problem, but unsourced information should not be removed unless contested. Debresser (talk) 18:16, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is seeking praise from several different critics about different aspects, and then putting it in one sentence in the lead speaking for all of them. Unless one RS is doing it, that's synthesis. The "in particular" is especially galling. I've seen this trend all over WP film articles lately. 70.163.208.142 (talk) 11:16, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to recap here is a link to the specific diff where Kenam William synthesized all that praise. Kenam added even more praise (diff before eventually adding sources (diff) unfortunately without any edit summaries to explain or any discussion why he believes such limited sources support such wide generalizations. In an effort to make the article body support some of the effusive praise in the lead (and to include a review from a critic who had watched more than just the first three episodes) I added the IGN reference to the Critical response section. I think the Critical response section could be significantly improved if it included a few more reviews of the whole of season 1. -- 109.79.164.67 (talk) 16:18, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The lead section is still WP:SYNTH. The three references provided are a review from IGN, a preview from NPR, and a season 1 summary from Rotten Tomatoes. The lead section should not be making generalizations using very limited sources, instead the Critical response section should be expanded to clearly support all these points and make it clear that any such generalizations are widely supported. -- 109.78.203.12 (talk) 11:47, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since the articles of https://en.wikipedia.org/ (currently) lack of See also section, i put those links here:

• Army of Shadows
• The Stars, Like Dust
• David Klion, The Grown-Up Art of Andor, The New Republic, 2022-12-01

Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 10:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:ALSO A "See also" section is a useful way to organize internal links to related or comparable articles and build the web. However, the section itself is not required; many high-quality and comprehensive articles do not have one. [bold emphasis added]

There is no need for this article to have a See also section. Unfortunately such sections frequently get filled with links where editors see perceive some connection but the relevance is not made clear to readers. If Gilroy mentioned those works as influences then perhaps they would be worth mentioning, but even then that would be better explained as part of the Production section. The reference to The New Republic is a review of the show, and rather than put it in a See also section it would be better be used as a reference in the critical response section or perhaps if someone was to write a section analyzing the themes explored in the series but again I do no think it would serve readers to merely drop it as a link in a See also section. If it isn't clear why a link should be in a See also section then it probably should not be there at all. -- 109.79.164.67 (talk) 16:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

re the accolades section: the primetime emmy creative arts awards are just a subset of the primetime emmy awards; is it simply convention to separate the two when listing awards? Murkssand (talk) 05:42, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because they are two separate awards ceremonies. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:51, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So I know both only appear in a limited amount of episodes, but they receive a singular credit like other members of the main cast. Whittaker also receives the and credit, so I was wondering if they should both be included? InfiniteInjustice (talk) 07:49, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would quality them as recurring cast members, not main. SpiritedMichelle (talk) 01:18, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If they are listed in the main credits then they are main cast members. Recurring only applies to guest cast. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:29, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Season 1 Episode 1. It is written that "Kassa rebuffs his younger sister's efforts to join the search". But it doesn't look like he rebuffed. Rebuff means an unkind refusal of an offer or suggestion. In that scene it looked he just politely said or politely refused or something. Ravi arnie (talk) 18:39, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]