Wookieepedia:Featured article nominations/Antinnis Tremayne

< 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.

Antinnis Tremayne

(6 Inqs/1 Users/7 Total)

Support

  1. Inqvote :D Thefourdotelipsis 15:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. Inqvote "Master torturer," indeed.—Graestan Jedi Order (This party's over) 01:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  3. Inqvote Greyman(Paratus) 03:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  4. Chack Jadson (Talk) 00:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  5. Inqvote Havac 01:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  6. Inqvote Fat Tremayne FTW. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 14:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  7. Inqvote Green Tentacle (Talk) 22:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. "Dark Vendetta featured Tremayne as the central character, and it provided a degree back story for the High Inquisitor" What is a degree backstory? --Eyrezer 03:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
    • It's a mistake. Fixed. Thefourdotelipsis 04:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. As per previous Consensus Track's, cut content is to be included in the main body with the Cutstart and Cutend templates surrounding it. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 06:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Could you please cite which CTs these were? I'm honestly curious. Thefourdotelipsis 06:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
      • The last CT I know of ended in no consensus. Which in that case meant to keep doing what we've been doing. So per precedent, the cut content should be integrated. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 02:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
        It shouldn't have to come to this, but I'll have to formally oppose on rule 9 until the cut content is properly integrated. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 02:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
        • Objection struck by Inquisitorius as it's been rectified and user is away. Green Tentacle (Talk) 22:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  3. Main quote needs a source. Also, the BTS says that elements of Tremayne's backstory contradicted with the prequels. What specific things were contradictory? Otherwise, very nice. Chack Jadson (Talk) 17:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Fixed. Thefourdotelipsis 08:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Good article, but I'd have to say that the EA sections read as too play-by-playish and there should me more detail on just what conflicts between EA and DV. And two-sentence subsections? Really? That's . . . not good formatting. Havac 01:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Approved by Inquisitorius 22:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)