Wookieepedia:Featured article nominations/Anti-Sith bill

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

Anti-Sith bill

(3 Inqs/8 Users/11 Total)

Support

  1. Interesting stuff! Thefourdotelipsis 09:11, June 6, 2010 (UTC)
  2. Good stuff! Clone Commander Lee Talk 10:19, June 6, 2010 (UTC)
  3. Inqvote Stuff! Xicer9Atgar(Combadge) 18:41, June 6, 2010 (UTC)
  4. Very impressive work, Trayus!--Jedi Kasra (comlink) 18:54, June 7, 2010 (UTC)
  5. Great article, and something I didn't know about before. Nice! Bella'Mia 05:03, June 8, 2010 (UTC)
  6. Never trust a Bill. Skippy Farlstendoiro 09:32, June 10, 2010 (UTC)
  7. Inqvote ! — Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 00:49, June 11, 2010 (UTC)
  8. Looks good. --DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 13:14, June 11, 2010 (UTC)
  9. Excellent. --Imperialles 23:40, June 11, 2010 (UTC)
  10. Great job, but EIGHT user votes now? O_o NAYAYEN:TALK 12:04, June 15, 2010 (UTC)
  11. Inqvote Green Tentacle (Talk) 15:08, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

Object

Xicer likes short FANs
  • Just one: "Although the bill was in effect for at least three thousand years, it was repeatedly disregarded, which led to several galactic conflicts between the Republic and the Sith." Can you clarify this sentence a bit? By whom was the bill disregarded and how did it lead to galactic conflicts? I know this is detailed in the previous section, but I think the connections in this sentence could be made a bit clearer. Great work otherwise, and an awesome choice for an FA. Xicer9Atgar(Combadge) 17:26, June 6, 2010 (UTC)
    • Addressed. Let me know if that works for you, or if anything else needs be done. Thanks for the review! Darth Trayus(Trayus Academy) 18:39, June 6, 2010 (UTC)
Farl
  • Is "Darths" the canon plural form of "Darth"?
  • "The anti-Sith bill may have been overturned". Speculation, not to mention that it blatantly contradicts a further paragraph.
  • Skippy Farlstendoiro 08:36, June 10, 2010 (UTC)
    • Hm, good question. I swear I've seen it, but it's been changed for now. And as far as the may goes, it's been removed. Another user added that and several other similar phrases repeatedly. Darth Trayus(Trayus Academy) 09:13, June 10, 2010 (UTC)
L'Imperialles
  • Controversy: "During the Republic Classic era, the bill was overturned" Is this actually stated in the RotS novel? If not, you need to find a new way to phrase it. --Imperialles 11:37, June 11, 2010 (UTC)
    • It was stated that the constitution now outlaws such discrimination, meaning that it had to have been overturned or nullified at some point between then and PoD, which is the Republic Classic era. Would you like me to add nullified? Darth Trayus(Trayus Academy) 22:44, June 11, 2010 (UTC)
      • No, that would still be OR. You need to find a less definitive way of stating it. --Imperialles 22:50, June 11, 2010 (UTC)
        • Seems more like a common sense deduction to me. If the mandates of a law are outlawed, that means that the bill either had to have been overturned or nullified. There really aren't any other options. Darth Trayus(Trayus Academy) 22:52, June 11, 2010 (UTC)
          • How about something along the (rough) lines of "However, by X BBY, legislation protecting individuals against religious persecution had been introduced…" This way you avoid the definitive statement that it was overturned (which we don't know), and skirt the issue by keeping strictly to the facts. Basically mention the legislation protecting religious rights, without drawing any conclusions about the Anti-Sith bill. If that makes sense. --Imperialles 23:05, June 11, 2010 (UTC)
  • Would "During the Republic Classic era, the bill's mandates were in someway nullified etc. etc." work for you? Because saying that new legislation protected religious rights is also an assumption, as we can't be certain if it was new legislation, or if the bill was overturned and the constitution already held mandates against religious prosecution, if you see what I'm getting at. Darth Trayus(Trayus Academy) 23:10, June 11, 2010 (UTC)
    • I still feel like "overturned or otherwise nullified" is enough of a catch-all term to avoid OR and make it into more of a common sense deduction. Darth Trayus(Trayus Academy) 23:12, June 11, 2010 (UTC)
      • But you're making a definitive statement based on inconclusive sources. We know that X happened and Y happened, but we don't know why or how—and to imply that we do is neither accurate nor fair to our readers. You need to avoid connecting the dots between the two, leave that job to the reader instead. --Imperialles 23:18, June 11, 2010 (UTC)
        • I'll reword it as you requested, but out of personal curiosity, can you tell me how "nullified" isn't a common sense deduction, which is allowed in articles? If a law is in place at one point, and that law is not longer in place at another point, it would have to have been in some way nullified between those points. Nullified is a very broad term that doesn't indicate how it was done or even connect any dots—its just a statement of fact. I don't see how that draws any unsubstantiated conclusions or how that is anyway unfair to anyone. At least as I see it. Darth Trayus(Trayus Academy) 23:23, June 11, 2010 (UTC)
          • I don't want you to re-word it in my exact words, as you correctly pointed out, it's not really better on the speculation front. I disagree with your thoughts on "nullify," though. I suppose if you use it very broadly you could use it to mean "no longer of consequence" or something like that. It's far from perfect, but I guess it's better than the current statement. Go for it. --Imperialles 23:27, June 11, 2010 (UTC)
            • Thanks, it's been changed. Admittedly, the original "overturned" was also OR, but if you have any further suggestions on improved, more vague wording, let me know and I'll adopt that instead/as well. Thanks for the review and discussion! Darth Trayus(Trayus Academy) 23:33, June 11, 2010 (UTC)
              • Nullified seems fine for now. I didn't mean to come off as difficult, but I think we were able to reach a better solution in the end. I do hope you'll continue writing articles on politics. --Imperialles 23:40, June 11, 2010 (UTC)

Comments

Approved as a Featured article by Inquisitorius 15:08, June 16, 2010 (UTC)