Wookieepedia:Featured article nominations/Armand Isard/Legends

< 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.

Armand Isard

Support

  1. The fruit of an unhealthy and strange obsession. .... 21:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Lord Hydronium 22:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. StarNeptuneTalk to me! 06:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. --Eyrezer 09:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Imp 11:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. --Dooku(Solar Sailer)Huppla Pasa Tisc 11:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. Green Tentacle (Talk) 15:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. Cull Tremayne 07:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  9. With the new main image, I can agree. JorrelWiki-shrinkableFraajic 14:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  10. Fynbos 21:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Objections

  • Wording such as "Whilst not inherently evil" and "Palpatine's maniacal genocide" isn't NPOV (rule 2). Other than that, nice work. --Imp 22:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Nice to see you back, Imp. I've reworded those two, but I'm not really happy with the latter. Suggestions? .... 22:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
      • "Whilst undoubtedly aware of Palpatine's genocidal policy against several non-Human species and the Jedi Order, it is unknown whether he supported this morally."? --Imp 22:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Fixed, hopefully. .... 01:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Approved by Inquisitorius - Wookieepedia:Inq/Armand Isard 02:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Would a pic of Ysanne Isard be appropriate later on in the article? Also I think a mention of the white streak in his hair would be a good addition somewhere although I see it is mentioned in the infobox. --Eyrezer 02:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I dunno...there are no pics with Ysanne and Armand at the same time, methinks....... 02:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Oh and about references in the intro, what's our policy? Personally, when there is an intro paragraph, I don't think it should be referenced as it is only summarising the main text which will reference each point more fully anyway. --Eyrezer 02:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
        • We reference everything. Everything. .... 02:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)