Wookieepedia:Featured article nominations/Darth Phobos

< 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.

Darth Phobos

  • Nominated by: QuiGonJinn Senate seal(Talk) 19:38, February 9, 2011 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: More Krome-exclusive TFU for ya.

(5 Inqs/0 Users/5 Total)

Support

  1. Inqvote Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 19:58, February 18, 2011 (UTC)
  2. Inqvote --Eyrezer 19:52, March 2, 2011 (UTC)
  3. Inqvote - Cavalier OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 23:57, March 2, 2011 (UTC)
  4. Inqvote Couple'o errant straws, but mostly gold. I ran the rest through ;) —Tommy 9281 Friday, March 11, 2011, 22:45 UTC
  5. Inqvote Toprawa and Ralltiir 01:49, March 17, 2011 (UTC)

Object

Jujiggum
  • Just one question about the P&A: do we know that Phobos was capable of all those powers (i.e. teleportation), or was that just the simulation of her? Great work. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 19:25, February 12, 2011 (UTC)
Eyrezer
  • I've added a redlink to the intro. Once that is killed, I will support. --Eyrezer 07:22, February 26, 2011 (UTC)
    • I actually don't think that link is warranted. The databank only says that she was killed "in battle" against the Jedi and Sith. We don't know if it was a mission aimed to kill her, some accidental skirmish, or if Phobos attacked some Jedi/Sith forces and they killed her in self-defense. QuiGonJinn Senate seal(Talk) 21:15, February 27, 2011 (UTC)
      • There seems sufficient material for a short article to me. We know some info on the time, location, combatant sides, and the outcome. What more could we need? I made up the conjectural title, so it can easily be changed since we don't know that is was a mission to kill her. --Eyrezer 06:27, March 1, 2011 (UTC)
        • Addressed. I've tried to keep the article as ambiguous as possible. QuiGonJinn Senate seal(Talk) 17:57, March 2, 2011 (UTC)
Toprawa
  • Wallace's Blogspot notes should be treated as an External link, not an official Source list item, per LG. Toprawa and Ralltiir 07:06, March 12, 2011 (UTC)
    • Addressed.
  • I think it would be best if you pipelinked each game console version mention in the Appearances, Sources, and References for reader clarification.
    • Addressed.
      • FWIW, I would recommend linking in similar fashion in each of your TFU-related articles that this applies to as well. Toprawa and Ralltiir 21:49, March 15, 2011 (UTC)
  • Judging by traditional real-world use and definition of the word, I don't quite interpret "eons" to necessarily be synonymous with the "thousands of years" the character is described to have lived before the Clone Wars in the intro. Depending on which description, intro or bio, is closest to the original source, I would recommend tweaking the other one to more closely reflect the more accurate wording.
    • The original sources does use "eons," but it also establishes that her cult disappeared around the Fourth Great Schism in 2,000 BBY and that she died long before that. I believe both descriptions are accurate, then.
      • Well, real-life scientific standards usually treat an "eon" as being millions or even billions of years in length, which was the thought process behind my objection. If the OS treats it this way, very well, though I suspect a developer didn't know the definition of the word here. Toprawa and Ralltiir 21:49, March 15, 2011 (UTC)
  • "Millenia" is spelled incorrectly in the P/T quote. If that's how the original source spells, that's fine, but in that case we should note the error with a [sic], per the MOS.
    • Nah, the error was mine. Fixed.
  • As far as I can see, the authorship of CSWE is equally attributed to four individuals. Unless you can actually verify that the Phobos entry was compiled by these two, I would recommend just nixing mention of their names: "Phobos also received a brief entry in The Complete Star Wars Encyclopedia by Stephen J. Sansweet and Pablo Hidalgo." Toprawa and Ralltiir 23:20, March 12, 2011 (UTC)
    • Seeing as our CSWE article lists seven authors, I believe the term "et al." is appropriate here. QuiGonJinn Senate seal(Talk) 16:51, March 15, 2011 (UTC)
      • I'm afraid I'm still not fully satisfied with this change. It still seemingly gives more credit to these two specific authors over everyone else, when we don't know for certain that these two guys necessarily even had anything to do with the book's Phobos information. I think it would be best to just remove any author mention. Toprawa and Ralltiir 21:49, March 15, 2011 (UTC)
        • Well, I've been told that it's always better to establish the authors of the source, and those two are usually credited as the book's primary authors. I did not try to say that they had written the Phobos entry specifically; I actually meant to say that they were the authors of the CSWE as a whole. I've never even thought that it can be interpreted otherwise until now. I see your point, though I still don't see any harm in mentioning their names. However, I'm not going to argue over something that minor—especially seeing as the entire CSWE entry is six words long :P —so I've removed the mention. QuiGonJinn Senate seal(Talk) 18:12, March 16, 2011 (UTC)

Comments

Approved as a Featured article by Inquisitorius 01:49, March 17, 2011 (UTC)

  • See your talk page. JangFett (Talk) 19:38, February 9, 2011 (UTC)
  • There's been some disagreement between me and Purpilia regarding the nature of the Jedi Temple simulations. In order to avoid an edit war I welcome others to weigh in. QuiGonJinn Senate seal(Talk) 10:25, February 26, 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm not going to object to it because it's minor, but I think that a stub can be created for Phobos' lightsaber, given that unique fact you include about it. —Tommy 9281 Friday, March 11, 2011, 22:45 UTC
    • Done. SWG actually calls it Double-Bladed Darth Phobos Lightsaber, but I decapitalized it for consistency's sake. QuiGonJinn Senate seal(Talk) 22:43, March 12, 2011 (UTC)