Wookieepedia:Comprehensive article nominations/Shagrad Loset

< 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.

Shagrad Loset

  • Nominated by: Menkooroo 07:03, October 22, 2010 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: Gotal week is anything but weak!

(2 ECs/1 Users/3 Total)

Support

  1. ECvote SoresuMakashi(Everything I tell you is a lie) 07:58, October 22, 2010 (UTC)
  2. I gave the BTS another look. If you prefer, I won't get upset or oppose if you want to change it back. ~ SavageBob 17:10, October 24, 2010 (UTC)
  3. ECvote --Eyrezer 09:32, October 31, 2010 (UTC)

Object

  • Prepare to be savaged...
    • From the lead quote: "We specifically asked the Jedi stay out of this." Is there a missing "to" here? If not, I suggest adding a [sic], since the quote reads oddly. ~ SavageBob 21:13, October 23, 2010 (UTC)
      • Is that what [sic] is for? I actually had no idea. Let me know if I did it right. :^)
        • Yup! For fixing errors in the OS. ~ SavageBob 03:56, October 24, 2010 (UTC)
      • Also, I changed the bts back to past tense, as present tense read a little awkward with the "published in 2002" at the end. I hope that's OK. Menkooroo 03:51, October 24, 2010 (UTC)
        • I think it's better in present tense in this case. The subject of the verb is Loset, not the author or creator of the source, and Loset appears in that source to this date (you can even click the link and check!)
          • Just checking to see if you want to keep discussing this. Menkooroo 13:15, October 24, 2010 (UTC)
    • Also, I'm not sure why it's necessary to include lines that give no real information, such as, "It is Loset's only appearance to date." This type of sentence (along with "He has not appeared in any other sources", etc. seem superfluous to me. I admit this last objection may be something that needs CTing, but I thought I'd mention it. ~ SavageBob 03:56, October 24, 2010 (UTC)
      • I don't think it really needs CT'ing --- I've always seen it as a harmless sentence that an article-writer can add to the end of a bts if they want in order to avoid one-sentence paragraphs (which is something I always try to avoid). I've always thought that it was the choice of the writer, and I would hate to see a rule implemented that said "You MUST add it!" or "You CAN'T add it!" :^P Ditto with past vs. present tense --- if there's only been one source/appearance, I always gathered that past or present tense were equally OK? Menkooroo 04:07, October 24, 2010 (UTC)
      • Not to butt in, but such a line does give information—it's just letting the reader know when, where, and how often the subject has appeared, so it's no different than listing off what sources the subject has appeared in. This fits fine in the BTS. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 04:24, October 24, 2010 (UTC)
        • It still rankles (what does it add that can't be gleaned from glancing at the list right below it?), but I won't object over it. ~ SavageBob 05:18, October 24, 2010 (UTC)
          • If there's any way you think it can be reworded and improved, definitely let me know. The problem with comprehensive article bts's is that most of them are just a rehash of the source list that can be viewed below. "So and so appeared in blah blah blah novel" is an example of that, too. I just like to make every paragraph more than one sentence, ya know? Menkooroo 13:15, October 24, 2010 (UTC)

Comments