Finally experiencing it, but I admittedly didn't get to spend a ton of time. Still, wasn't super enthused; I'm not the biggest fan of these "mini-lands" that are centered around IPs to begin with, but I think my lack of feelings for the sequel trilogy leave me feeling kind of cold with it. It's not like it's bad, but I don't really feel like spending a ton of time there to do two rides I found mostly OK to pretty good, and then otherwise shopping or having a cantina drink.
Said it in the Rise thread, but to echo it here: it's that feeling that Disney wanted to "beat Potter", but they never realized what made that whole thing work so well for Universal. I've spent a couple years saying that what makes Potter tick is being based off a property that has aspects fans like that can appeal to all five senses, since it stems from a book series where descriptions of sights/sounds/smells/tastes/etc. are so vital, and it's based around a few very recognizable and fleshed-out physical locations that a theme park can really go wild with, since if you really nail those locations fans will go nuts.
Star Wars...just isn't that. It's not about specific locations (unless you want to count "swamp planet" or "cloud planet" as locations), it doesn't try to appeal to every sense with distinctive scents and foods people will want to experience for themselves, it's a purely cinematic and thus visuals-based series yet Disney built a land that doesn't even try to capitalize on what few distinctive locations the series *does* have (e.g. the Mos Eisley cantina), so, well...it had a lot of work put into it, but it just doesn't click beyond being "ok" for me.