Wookieepedia:Featured article nominations/Atrisia/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.

Atrisia/Legends

(3 Inqs/4 Users/7 Total)

(Votes required: No additional votes required to pass, please consider reviewing another article.)

Support

  1. Excellent work. UberSoldat93 ClanMudhornSignet-Redemption (talk) 15:01, September 22, 2020 (UTC)
  2. Braha'tok enthusiast (Hello there) 23:11, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
  3. Looks great. ImpacticForce Jedi Order (Talk) 23:28, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  4. Inqvote MasterFredCommerce Guild(talk) 05:27, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
  5. CIS roundel Erebus Chronus (talk) 01:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  6. Inqvote Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 19:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
  7. Inqvote Supreme Emperor (talk) 20:47, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Object

Toprawa
  • For starters, I kind of don't like how the intro suddenly changes over to referring to the planet as Kitel Phard halfway through the intro. The article body doesn't seem to do this as much. I think you should keep it consistent by calling it Atrisia throughout. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 02:48, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I find the usage of "Continents" in the infobox terrain field strange because that's not a terrain type (see here). If there's nothing else put there, I think you should just leave it blank.
    • Yeah, that makes absolute sense to me; I was just going by the example set by Douglas III. Removed now. Imperators II(Talk) 07:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Going back to my first objection, the article body still has a few spare instances where you refer to the planet as Kitel Phard rather than Atrisia. I think it would be best to keep this consistent.
  • What is the advantage of adding this otherwise unrelated bit of info? "...who were generally thought to have evolved on the Core Worlds planet Coruscant."
    • With any other colonizing species, I'd always note their homeworld, but I guess that can be skipped with the most widespread species that is the Humans. Removed. Imperators II(Talk) 08:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Who thought this? "The actions of that dynasty were thought to have ushered in a golden age"
    • I suppose it's not really evident from the article's lead quote whether it was Hextrophon who thought this or the inhabitants of the Atrisi system. Changed the wording. Imperators II(Talk) 08:06, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
  • If you're adapting this statement from page 34 of the Atlas, the book doesn't say that it was known as Kitel Phard "in honor of those rulers"; it only says it was known as such "after the dynasty that united the planet." I would suggest sticking closer to the wording of the source here: "...and Atrisia was later occasionally referred to as 'Kitel Phard' in honor of those rulers."
    • Sorry, but I'm not exactly sure what is the problem here, exactly. The Atlas says Atrisia was known as Kitel Phard "after the dynasty that united the planet". In the first sentence of the second paragraph of "The Kitel Phard Dynasty" subsection I note that the Kitel Phard Dynasty unified the planet. In the sentence you quote, I am also discussing the Kitel Phard Dynasty. So why is it wrong to say that Atrisia was named Kitel Phard "in honor of those rulers", i.e., the Kitel Phard Dynasty? Imperators II(Talk) 08:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
  • The intro says that ancient Atrisia became "a classical field of galactic history studies," but the body only says "the Atrisian Empire had become a classical field of historical studies." The inclusion or absence of "galactic" has a particular meaning, I think, so these should be consistent in their wording.
    • "Galactic" definitely applies, so I've added it to the body, as well. Imperators II(Talk) 08:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I think it's safe to say that Rom Mohc is known much more (both IU and OOU) for his Imperial career than his Republic one. I think you should change his description in the Inhabitants section to reflect this. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 22:59, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Added, but I've also elected to keep the mention of his Republic career, as it gives a rough timeframe for his leaving of Atrisia. Imperators II(Talk) 08:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Fred strikes back
  • "Tens of thousands of years later" sounds like a much longer period of time than just under 24,000 years. Maybe reword with "nearly twenty-four millennia later" or something similar.
    • Well, technically, 24,000 years is still two tens of thousands of years, but whatever, changed.
  • The {{CSWECite}} template in the 24,500 BBY date ref has roman numerals for the page number, or at least that what I assume is happening there.
    • Yeah, the timeline before the first alphabetical entries uses Roman numerals for page numbers.
      • Ah, wasn't aware of that. Makes sense. MasterFredCommerce Guild(talk) 05:27, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Directly following that date ref, the sentence makes it sound like this was the development of the first ever dueling swords anywhere. If this is simply the first appearance of this specific type of sword, it should be reworded to more clearly reflect that. MasterFredCommerce Guild(talk) 00:42, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments

Approved as a Featured article by Inquisitorius 20:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Something I should've noticed before. Have you checked the The New Jedi Order: Force Heretic I: Remnant audiobooks (here and here) for mentions? UberSoldat93 ClanMudhornSignet-Redemption (talk) 16:47, October 12, 2020 (UTC)
    • Thanks; the unabridged version does mention it. Imperators II(Talk) 22:02, October 12, 2020 (UTC)