- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Comprehensive article nomination that was successful. Please do not modify it.
Ick'rik
- Nominated by: Panther436 (talk) 23:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Nomination comments: Remember when everyone thought they were Ikrit
- Date Archived: 19:11, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- Final word count: 203 words (0 introduction, 112 body, 91 behind the scenes)
- WookieeProject (optional): WP:THR
(3 ECs/0 Users/3 Total)
(Votes required: No additional votes required to pass, please consider reviewing another article.)
Support
Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 23:00, 4 January 2024 (UTC)- —spookywillowwtalk 19:03, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Lewisr (talk) 19:09, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Object
Lew
The phase should be mentioned in the BTSLewisr (talk) 23:56, 3 January 2024 (UTC)I think you could add the altered dialogue as a quote in the BTSLewisr (talk) 23:56, 3 January 2024 (UTC)- Added both Panther436 (talk) 00:08, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Anil
I'd say there are two redundant references in the body if everything in the audio is also in the script. Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what the other one you're referring to is but I'd rather not merge the "old" sentence one unless you really want me to because I think it helps a lot with clarity about where the information comes from and the script has to be cited elsewhere in the article anyway. Panther436 (talk) 18:33, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, the number of unique references would still be the same. I only suggest the change to use references as sparsely as possible per the sourcing policy. I also agree with clarifying that the "old" bit is only present in the script, but BTS is already pretty clear on that, imo. Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Merged, you're right the Bts is pretty clear. Was there a second one? Panther436 (talk) 19:19, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks! I got the other one. Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 23:00, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks! I got the other one.
- Merged, you're right the Bts is pretty clear. Was there a second one? Panther436 (talk) 19:19, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, the number of unique references would still be the same. I only suggest the change to use references as sparsely as possible per the sourcing policy. I also agree with clarifying that the "old" bit is only present in the script, but BTS is already pretty clear on that, imo.
- I'm not sure what the other one you're referring to is but I'd rather not merge the "old" sentence one unless you really want me to because I think it helps a lot with clarity about where the information comes from and the script has to be cited elsewhere in the article anyway. Panther436 (talk) 18:33, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Comments
Approved as a Comprehensive article by EduCorps 19:09, 8 January 2024 (UTC)