Wookieepedia:Featured article nominations/Convention of Civilized Systems/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.

Convention of Civilized Systems

  • Nominated by: CC7567 (talk) 23:10, June 5, 2010 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: The first of my nominations throughout this summer. Thanks to Toprawa for a pre-nom review.

(3 Inqs/5 Users/8 Total)

Support

  1. Inqvote Chack Jadson (Talk) 23:45, June 5, 2010 (UTC)
  2. Looks great to me.--Jedi Kasra (comlink) 01:22, June 6, 2010 (UTC)
  3. Inqvote IFYLOFD (Floyd's crib) 03:36, June 6, 2010 (UTC)
  4. Nice to see less conventional stuff like this worked on. Thefourdotelipsis 07:18, June 6, 2010 (UTC)
  5. Per Fourdot. Imperialles 19:40, June 7, 2010 (UTC)
  6. I love laws. Darth Trayus(Trayus Academy) 20:13, June 7, 2010 (UTC)
  7. Inqvote Awesome. Xicer9Atgar(Combadge) 04:52, June 8, 2010 (UTC)
  8. Cool. Had no idea the episode guides would add new information. ~ SavageBob 17:11, June 9, 2010 (UTC)

Object

Lord Hydronium
  • The "Controversy" section seems misnamed and rather small to be a section in itself. It's about people violating it, not any sort of controversy with the convention itself. - Lord Hydronium 01:47, June 6, 2010 (UTC)
    • I've made a minor wording adjustment. Is it fine, or should it still be modified and/or removed? I personally don't see an issue with the current wording since it outlines the disagreement with the act. CC7567 (talk) 02:08, June 6, 2010 (UTC)
      • The issue I have is that it doesn't really sound like a controversy over or about it at all. There's no debate or anything about it, it's just some people breaking the law. If you want to call it "Violations" or something, that would be more appropriate, but it still seems redundant with History. I'm also curious if it's actually stated that the violators disagreed; after all, there are reasons to violate a law that don't involve disagreeing with it, and it sounds from History like their only issue was that it made things inconvenient in this situation, not that they had any fundamental problem with the law. - Lord Hydronium 02:55, June 6, 2010 (UTC)
        • Point taken; section removed. CC7567 (talk) 03:10, June 6, 2010 (UTC)
Silly old Dot
  • "Besides these illicit genocides, another example of a failure of the law act's enforcement occurred when Chairman Chi Cho of the Pantoran Assembly declared war on the Talz species of the ice world Orto Plutonia, intent on relinquishing their claim to Orto Plutonia and restoring that of the planet's moon, Pantora." - "Relinquishing" isn't a good choice of words, since it would mean that he intended to surrender their claim, which doesn't quite work.
    • Changed to "discrediting;" hopefully that should work better.
  • "The Convention of Civilized Systems had been ratified by the Republic and put into effect by around the first year of the Clone Wars." - "By around" sounds odd, but I'm not sure that simply removing "by" would be technically correct, so I'll leave it up to you.
    • No source has specifically clarified that it was put into effect specifically during the Clone Wars; with the current way all of the sources are worded, it could have easily been voted in prior to "around 22 BBY," which is why the neutral wording is currently being used.
      • Would you be opposed to "approximately" as opposed to "around"?
        • No, that's fine; I've adjusted it. CC7567 (talk) 07:15, June 6, 2010 (UTC)
  • "Unable to quietly exterminate the Talz—and thereby swiftly end the threat they posed to his leadership—because of the presence of the Jedi, the acting Republic representatives on the world, Cho instead declared war on the Talz, intending to provoke a conflict that he hoped would leave the Talz colonists dead and therefore relinquish their claim to Orto Plutonia in order to reinstate Pantora's control of the world." - Quite the sentence. :P Should be broken up a bit, and the gymnastics dialed down.
    • Should be better now.
  • That's all. Solid work. Thefourdotelipsis 02:43, June 6, 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the review. CC7567 (talk) 03:10, June 6, 2010 (UTC)
L'Imperialles
  • You alternate between the terms "race" and "species" throughout the article. Species is generally the preferable term, per publications such as The New Essential Guide to Alien Species.
    • I don't see an issue with this so long as it doesn't change factual correctness, which it doesn't. If you really feel adamant about it, I can change it, but I don't see why it would be necessary.
      • But it is incorrect. GG4, SE states the following: "Although the term "race" is in common usage, it is inaccurate, the more appropriate term being "species" (although both are acceptable in colloquial discourse). In general, a "race" is a sub-category of a "species," with members of different races within a species having sufficient genetic similarities to allow for sexual reproduction, while members of different species are incapable of producing viable offspring." This, coupled with consistent usage of "species" in the two most comprehensive works on the subject (EGAS and NEGAS), means that species is the appropriate term. --Imperialles 08:09, June 7, 2010 (UTC)
        • I see, then. It's been changed. CC7567 (talk) 19:32, June 7, 2010 (UTC)
  • Intro: "declared war on the Talz species of the ice world Orto Plutonia" Seeing as Talz are native to Alzoc III, this sentence is somewhat misleading. Something along the lines of "the Talz colonists on the ice world…" might be better.
    • Changed.
  • Description: "the ancient Rakata" "ancient" is POV.
    • Modified.
  • History: "the Confederacy of Independent Systems' own base on the world" Seeing as you have not previously mentioned the CIS in the article, "own" seems a bit misplaced.
    • Removed.
  • Refreshingly unconventional. Good work. --Imperialles 07:32, June 6, 2010 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your review. CC7567 (talk) 01:15, June 7, 2010 (UTC)
Trayus Academy of Political Science
  • You may want to add in the Description section that the Conventions had some significance in matters regarding opposing military forces, based on Ozzel's reference.
    • Added.
  • Article or redlink for the Confederate base?
    • Added; the original base article was CSDed a while ago because it was a Beetle transport, not an actual base. Unless you have any objections, I've added a link to the Beetle transport itself.
  • I would argue that you could in fact have a controversy section, provided that you re-add the genocide information and also move a lot of the information regarding the Battle of Orto Plutonia from the History to the Controversy section. Despite it not being specifically about the controversy surrounding the Convention's ratification, both are still controversies stemming from the Convention itself. Other than that, it's good. Darth Trayus(Trayus Academy) 07:41, June 6, 2010 (UTC)
    • Bleh. I'll give this more thought and get back to you on it. CC7567 (talk) 01:15, June 7, 2010 (UTC)
      • After consulting others, I've decided to re-add the section on these concerns. CC7567 (talk) 20:05, June 7, 2010 (UTC)

Comments

Approved as a Featured article by Inquisitorius 08:00, June 13, 2010 (UTC)

  • Guest nom for WP:AS, maybe? You decide. :P CC7567 (talk) 23:10, June 5, 2010 (UTC)
  • I see that for some reason you have chosen not to include the image of the Talz for the infobox, however I would suggest that if you won't be using that, you could reasonably replace it with an image of the meeting between either Cho and Thi-Sen or Chuchi and Thi-Sen. Both are, in a way, depicting the Convention of Civilized Systems in action. Darth Trayus(Trayus Academy) 07:44, June 6, 2010 (UTC)
    • Taken into account, and a relevant image has been added. CC7567 (talk) 01:15, June 7, 2010 (UTC)
      • Oh, I was speaking in reference to the main picture for the infobox, but if you prefer not to have one, that's up to your discretion. Darth Trayus(Trayus Academy) 07:38, June 7, 2010 (UTC)
        • The reason I removed it was because others expressed a concern that it was a picture of the law's effects, but not necessarily of the law itself or anything relevant to do with its ratification. CC7567 (talk) 19:32, June 7, 2010 (UTC)
  • There were a few places where the terms used seemed to imply that the law was an accurate assessment of sentience, saying that if a species was "found to be" sentient, etc. I changed it to "deemed" so as to not imply that the law as infallible. Just FYI. ~ SavageBob 17:13, June 9, 2010 (UTC)