Wookieepedia:Comprehensive article nominations/Daniel M. Lavery

< Wookieepedia:Comprehensive article nominations
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Comprehensive article nomination that was successful. Please do not modify it.

Daniel M. Lavery

  • Nominated by: Immi Thrax RainbowRebellion2 (talk) 11:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: I only listed his single Star Wars work in keeping with the current movement towards no longer listing non-Star Wars work in the Published works.

(2 ECs/3 Users/5 Total)

(Votes required: No additional votes required to pass, please consider reviewing another article.)

Support

  1. ECvote OOM 224 ༼༽talk༼༽ 13:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  2. JediMasterMacaroniAdmiral Ackbar RH(Talk) 03:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  3. Commander Code-8 Hello There! 10:58, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
  4. DFaceG (talk) 22:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  5. ECvote Imperators II(Talk) 12:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Object

UberSoldat
  • Reviewing note: Table rows should be sourced. Examples in Fraser Kelly and Eben Figueiredo. UberSoldat93 ClanMudhornSignet-Redemption (talk) 11:58, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Looks like you took care of it? Thanks for catching the bibliography item I forgot to include. Immi Thrax RainbowRebellion2 (talk) 12:05, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
      • No problem. That's why I made a "reviewing note" instead of an objection for a minute issue. UberSoldat93 ClanMudhornSignet-Redemption (talk) 12:07, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
OOM
  • I'd like to see some more information from the SW.com interview included in the article. Specifically, how Lavery chose to write about Motti and his intentions in writing the short story (third and fourth questions) They're pretty relevant to the author and his contribution to Star Wars. OOM 224 ༼༽talk༼༽ 12:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Macaroni
  • I'd like to see the intro expanded beyond one sentence. (Don't worry, you'll probably stay below 250 :P). JediMasterMacaroniAdmiral Ackbar RH(Talk) 17:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments

I'm going to leave this in Comments rather than in opposition, as the article seems fine. This is addressed to the reviewers:

  • The website= parameter on the infobox was changed to a title, as it was explained to me that it was following the precedent set by David Maxwell and Lawrence Holland. Note that I had to remove the links from their infoboxes, since they were deadlinks (thanks Shay for retroacting those change to the External links, I missed that). Those were old status articles, from before 2010, I think it should be better to follow how we proceed now on most OOU pages, meaning: [http(s)://domain.com domain.com], instead of [http(s)://domain.com Title]. It's way neater that way IMO, and not every website are titled in an explicit manner. -- NanoLuukeCloning facility 14:42, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Precedent aside, I think we should default to a title when provided, and use the former example as a last resort. UberSoldat93 ClanMudhornSignet-Redemption (talk) 14:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Regarding archivedate, I'm really not understanding the issue here regarding using archive.org timestamp instead of ISO 8601 YYYY-MM-DD. Both will result in the same wikilinked display of the date, "Month Day, Year". Yes, the documentation tells us to do it in ISO formatting, but this documentation is a mess. It's a copy of an old Wikipedia documentation, that should have been rewritten year ago, if only to add proper Star Wars-related examples. Since then, archivedate was used on numerous citation template, always using the timestamp. Sure, Cite_web can't use archivedate on it's on like others template, but the point is that it could in the future be used for that very purpose with some modification, as it's something we might want to do, as already discussed with ecks. I would like for you to reconsider, as 1) it's not erroneus, and is working as intended, 2) it can confuse editors in regards to the general use of archivedate= parameter, 3) it would hinder work on a possible future rework of Cite_web, 4) a majority of Cite_web instances uses timestamp, and it would be counter-productive to have status articles tell us it's not a proper use. -- NanoLuukeCloning facility 14:42, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Just noting that I'm watching Plume Tray's Senate Hall Cite_web template update with great interest, and will update accordingly should that result in... well, updates. Immi Thrax RainbowRebellion2 (talk) 18:12, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Verified that the Cite_web update went well on this article. Immi Thrax RainbowRebellion2 (talk) 02:13, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Approved as a Comprehensive article by EduCorps 12:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC)