- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a featured article nomination that was successful. Please do not modify it.
Confrontation on Ambria
- Nominated by: Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 03:07, February 16, 2012 (UTC)
- Nomination comments: My first ever GAN—saw it was a bit over 1,000 words, gave it a touch up, and here we are
(4 Inqs/3 Users/7 Total)
Support
- Great stuff, Jugs.—Cal Jedi
(Personal Comm Channel) 03:43, February 16, 2012 (UTC) - Tell ya somethin' really, really funny? I just finished reading "Rule of Two" today!!!!!! :D Plagueis327 07:11, February 18, 2012 (UTC)
IFYLOFD (Floyd's crib) 02:56, February 19, 2012 (UTC)- Toprawa and Ralltiir 00:14, February 28, 2012 (UTC)
1358 (Talk) 23:27, March 10, 2012 (UTC)- Menkooroo 03:52, March 14, 2012 (UTC)
- Very nice. ~Savage 18:20, March 15, 2012 (UTC)
Object
Toprawa
I understand the use of the word "apparent" in the infobox, but the Wookieepedian in me chafes whenever I see that word presented, as it has the tendency to come off as the unintended, speculative meaning. Any way to reword that?- Certainly. I decided to be more specific overall; how's that? Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 17:19, February 27, 2012 (UTC)
- Good. Toprawa and Ralltiir 00:14, February 28, 2012 (UTC)
- Certainly. I decided to be more specific overall; how's that? Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 17:19, February 27, 2012 (UTC)
I think the word "name" in the quote in "The confrontation" section should be "named."- Fixed. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 17:19, February 27, 2012 (UTC)
I don't mind the context that's given at the end of the Aftermath section detailing the Sith's reemergence, but it just seems like it kind of goes into too much detail, mentioning things like the Invasion of Naboo and Separatist Crisis that, while undoubtedly notable, just seem like too much detail for the purpose of this article. I would recommend shortening that up and summarizing it more succinctly by just cutting to the chase of mentioning the advent of the Clone Wars, maybe mention the Jedi Purge if you really feel like you need to, and the transition into the Empire.Toprawa and Ralltiir 23:35, February 23, 2012 (UTC)- Cut it shorter; how's that look? Thanks for the review! Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 17:19, February 27, 2012 (UTC)
- Works for me. Thanks. Toprawa and Ralltiir 00:14, February 28, 2012 (UTC)
- Cut it shorter; how's that look? Thanks for the review! Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 17:19, February 27, 2012 (UTC)
Savaged…
Only one: Tho'natu, Obba, and the Huntress are the only characters for whom you've marked species. I'd either mark it for the Humans too or remove the identification for the non-Humans for consistence. ~Savage 22:57, March 13, 2012 (UTC)- I actually disagree, and here's why: we have multiple different types of context—namely species, gender, occupation, affiliation, rank, and (occasionally) physical characteristics. Now, in some articles you might call Han Solo a "pilot," but in others you might call him a "captain," or a "Rebel general." That doesn't mean that all of the characters in the first article have to be introduced with their occupation, or that everyone in the second article has to be introduced using their rank, or that everyone in the third article must have their affiliation and rank as context; so why should it work that way for species? There is no rule that says that you have to use the same exact form of context for each character introduced in an article. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 04:37, March 15, 2012 (UTC)
I agree with you in general, but with species, there's the specter of speciesism to confront. If you only mark species for the non-Humans, it leaves the impression that "Human" is the default, and that it's not necessary to indicate it since our readers should assume it. Now, we are all humans in the real world, so this is a reasonable assumption. However, we're supposed to be an in-universe, non-biased encyclopedia, so leaving "Human" unmarked accords with speciesist writing in my opinion. Does that make sense? I'd argue the same if only females were marked as females but males left unmarked, but since Basic/English has gendered pronouns, that's not an issue. ~Savage 12:17, March 15, 2012 (UTC)- I still personally disagree that anything really needs to be done in instances such as these; as far as I'm concerned, context is context is context—as long as it's provided, I don't care what specific kind it is—but I understand your argument. I've removed the species from the context for those three. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 14:12, March 15, 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, Jon! ~Savage 18:20, March 15, 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, Jon! ~Savage
- I still personally disagree that anything really needs to be done in instances such as these; as far as I'm concerned, context is context is context—as long as it's provided, I don't care what specific kind it is—but I understand your argument. I've removed the species from the context for those three. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 14:12, March 15, 2012 (UTC)
- I actually disagree, and here's why: we have multiple different types of context—namely species, gender, occupation, affiliation, rank, and (occasionally) physical characteristics. Now, in some articles you might call Han Solo a "pilot," but in others you might call him a "captain," or a "Rebel general." That doesn't mean that all of the characters in the first article have to be introduced with their occupation, or that everyone in the second article has to be introduced using their rank, or that everyone in the third article must have their affiliation and rank as context; so why should it work that way for species? There is no rule that says that you have to use the same exact form of context for each character introduced in an article. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 04:37, March 15, 2012 (UTC)
Comments
Approved as a Featured article by Inquisitorius 20:16, March 15, 2012 (UTC)