- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a comprehensive article nomination that was successful. Please do not modify it.
Unidentified butterfly-like creature
- Nominated by: —Axinal Convocation Chamber 21:36, April 6, 2011 (UTC)
- Nomination comments: The image quality kind of stinks, but it's a good article, I think.
(2 ECs/2 Users/4 Total)
Support
- Is that...Ben Skywalker? NaruHina Talk
22:23, April 7, 2011 (UTC) 
~Savage
03:11, April 10, 2011 (UTC)- Darth Morrt 09:40, April 11, 2011 (UTC)
Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 00:41, April 12, 2011 (UTC)
Object
You may want to mention that they were not the only species of butterfly on Endor. Pink butterfly. NaruHina Talk 21:43, April 6, 2011 (UTC)- Added. That may mean I now have to source the article, but we'll see.—Axinal Convocation Chamber 21:56, April 6, 2011 (UTC)
The revision I made fixed a double "and" in that sentence. Fix it your own way if you don't like mine.NaruHina Talk 22:26, April 7, 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, the way you had it written didn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Is there a rule I'm missing about having two "and"s in the same sentence? The sentence is not grammatically incorrect from what I can see.—Axinal Convocation Chamber 22:30, April 7, 2011 (UTC)
- Having two ands in a sentence makes it a run-on sentence, which is grammatically incorrect. NaruHina Talk 22:35, April 7, 2011 (UTC)
- Not if they're referring to two different things. Saying "the creature was strong and powerful and fast" is incorrect because they're all separating adjectives. On the other hand, saying "the creature was strong and powerful, and could move quickly" is fine. I personally think the sentence was fine the way it was, but I rewrote it anyway.—Axinal Convocation Chamber 22:46, April 7, 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, "the creature was strong, powerful, and could move quickly" would be correct. Exceptions to this rule include only situations where there is an extremely long list of closely related traits and it would be impractical to split it up or if two duos are being referenced ("Bill and Ted ran away from Tom and Huck"). These should still be avoided like the plague whenever possible, with the absolute maximum number of "and"s being three, for three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Regardless, your fix is fine. NaruHina Talk 20:47, April 9, 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, "the creature was strong, powerful, and could move quickly" would be correct. Exceptions to this rule include only situations where there is an extremely long list of closely related traits and it would be impractical to split it up or if two duos are being referenced ("Bill and Ted ran away from Tom and Huck"). These should still be avoided like the plague whenever possible, with the absolute maximum number of "and"s being three, for three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Regardless, your fix is fine. NaruHina Talk
- Not if they're referring to two different things. Saying "the creature was strong and powerful and fast" is incorrect because they're all separating adjectives. On the other hand, saying "the creature was strong and powerful, and could move quickly" is fine. I personally think the sentence was fine the way it was, but I rewrote it anyway.—Axinal Convocation Chamber 22:46, April 7, 2011 (UTC)
- Having two ands in a sentence makes it a run-on sentence, which is grammatically incorrect. NaruHina Talk
- I'm sorry, the way you had it written didn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Is there a rule I'm missing about having two "and"s in the same sentence? The sentence is not grammatically incorrect from what I can see.—Axinal Convocation Chamber 22:30, April 7, 2011 (UTC)
- Bob
I'm not sure it's OK to link Unidentified frog-like creature as "frog" since we have frogs in Star Wars that may be different. I'd change it to "frog-like creature" or something.- I've changed the original link from "frog" to "frog-like creature", but left the rest as just frog. Think that's okay?
Again, can you source the BTS to "A Star War CELibration"? ~Savage 00:33, April 10, 2011 (UTC)- I was hoping to avoid sourcing the article altogether, but if you think it's necessary, I can. I'll let you respond again before I go ahead with it. Thanks!—Axinal Convocation Chamber 00:46, April 10, 2011 (UTC)
Ah, sorry. I do think it would be best practice to cite something for the air dates. Unlike with modern stuff, we don't have episode guides online to provide this information easily to readers, so it's probably best to cite the Insider article to be safe. Sorry if this makes a bunch of extra work for you... ~Savage 02:39, April 10, 2011 (UTC)- Nah, no problem. I've brought other articles like this to GA without sourcing the BTS, but it doesn't really matter. Added.—Axinal Convocation Chamber 02:48, April 10, 2011 (UTC)
- I was hoping to avoid sourcing the article altogether, but if you think it's necessary, I can. I'll let you respond again before I go ahead with it. Thanks!—Axinal Convocation Chamber 00:46, April 10, 2011 (UTC)
Comments