Wookieepedia:Comprehensive article nominations/Unidentified WED-15 Treadwell (Lars homestead)

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

Unidentified WED-15 Treadwell (Lars homestead)

  • Nominated by: Darth Morrt 17:45, November 21, 2010 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: Very minor movie character.

(0 ECs/3 Users/3 Total)

Support

  1. OLIOSTER (talk) 04:15, December 3, 2010 (UTC)
  2. Menkooroo 13:09, December 4, 2010 (UTC)
  3. Hanzo Hasashi 19:28, December 9, 2010 (UTC)

Object

  • "misidentifying their noise as a malfunctioning equipment" doesn't sound right. "malfunctioning piece of equipment." would be a good alternative.
  • "the Cybot Galactica" - context needed.
  • "The droid one of the two" - add was between droid and one.
  • Add context to Owen Laws (e.g. " the moisture farmer Owen Lars's family") Holocron Greatholocron (Complain) 07:59, November 22, 2010 (UTC)
    • All fixed. Thanks for the quick review. Darth Morrt 09:46, November 22, 2010 (UTC)
  • "A WED-15 Treadwell repair droid was produced by..." can't be sourced to the NEGTD if the book doesn't mention this droid specifically. Sticking a [1] after "was produced by" would fix 'er.
  • "one of the two largest droid manufacturing companies..." in the galaxy?
  • Can you mention when it was working on the Lars farm (what year)?
  • "which also holded its arms." Is 'holded' a word?
    • Another bad grammar. Darth Morrt 02:03, December 4, 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm very confused by the bulk of the bts. I don't understand at all what it's trying to say. Why is so much info on the other Treadwell droid's meltdown necessary, and why does it suggest that this droid was supposed to be that droid?
    • Ah, wait, I think I see what you're trying to say. It's really confusing as it currently is, though. The inconsistencies about the meltdown/stopping moving are a bit confusing and seem kinda irrelevant; I think if you replaced "The droid broke down, and Skywalker left it in the desert. In the radio drama, WED-15-77 didn't melt down, just stopped moving," with something very short like "where it melted down" then it would be clearer and more focused. Aaaand if Owen confirms in the radio drama that he has two Treadwells, how does that suggest that the two droids are the same? Wouldn't it suggest the opposite? Menkooroo 16:49, December 3, 2010 (UTC)
      • Actually, nothing says directly that Owen had two Treadwells. 15-77 melted down in the desert a day before the Jawa auction. The unidentified one appeared on the day of the auction. Owen mentioned at the auction that he "already got a Treadwell... don't need another." If he had two and lost one a day before, it is strange to say this. In the cut-scene and in the novel, the melted-down droid seems to be dead. In the radio drama, the droid just stopped moving, and Luke said it to stay and wait for his return. IMO Daley, the author of the drama, wanted 15-77 to be repaired and to appear on the Lars farm. The problem is that the Databank mentions "final meltdown". I think a final meltdown cannot be repaired. Darth Morrt 02:03, December 4, 2010 (UTC)
        • Ah, OK. Hm... I think the most clear way to get this information across would be something like...

          "A cut scene from A New Hope features another Treadwell droid, WED-15-77, that melts down at a time earlier than when the unidentified treadwell droid appears. In the Star Wars radio drama, WED-15-77 stops moving instead of melting down, and Owen Lars later claims that he has only one Treadwell droid. However, the starwars.com databank confirms that WED-15-77's meltdown was final, and that the droid lurking in the background of the Lars homestead is a different droid of the same model."

          Does that make sense? I think that something roughly in that chronological order and limited to that amount of information might be the best way to chronologically present the information to keep it as clear as possible. But not worded like my hastily-thrown-together bit. :P Whaddya think? The current way that the info is presented leaves a bit of ambiguity as to precisely what the bts is trying to assert.           Menkooroo 04:22, December 4, 2010 (UTC)
          • I've tried my best. Darth Morrt 11:53, December 4, 2010 (UTC)
            • You did great! I like your wording better than mine. :D Menkooroo 13:09, December 4, 2010 (UTC)
  • I think it would be better to jettison the "in the databank" from the bts, and to just source the statement to the databank instead. Menkooroo 16:42, December 3, 2010 (UTC)


Comments