- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a featured article nomination that was successful. Please do not modify it.
Darth Zannah
- Nominated by: —Tommy 9281 and Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 00:35, July 22, 2010 (UTC)
- Nomination comments: A Jedi Master and a Sith Lord working toward a common goal? Surely you jest.
(3 Inqs/7 Users/9 Total)
Support
- Excellent work, Tommy and Jon.--—Jedi Kasra (comlink) 04:53, July 24, 2010 (UTC)
- The P&T image isn't the most relevant one but there isn't much freedom of choice so I'm not bothered. Good work. NAYAYEN:TALK 22:42, July 25, 2010 (UTC)
- Great job. Lots of good detail. DarthRageLeave a message after the beep 00:52, August 2, 2010 (UTC)
- Outstanding. By the way, have you noticed the beautiful she appears on DoE cover?--Lord David 17:27, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
CC7567 (talk) 07:35, September 15, 2010 (UTC)
- Good. You will become a powerful Sith Lord one day, Jedi Master...--ID-21 Dolphin
(Talk) 02:20, September 20, 2010 (UTC) - She's one of my favorite characters in the Star Wars universe. Glad to see her up for voting! Nice job Tommy and Jon! --Gmalek (The ability to edit does not make you intelligent) 19:46, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
Cylka-talk- 22:15, October 10, 2010 (UTC)
Fantastically detailed, good work. Master Tzaik 01:15, November 4, 2010 (UTC)(Vote struck, reason: Per policy: Fewer than 50 mainspace edits -- Toprawa and Ralltiir 03:07, November 4, 2010 (UTC))
- Spectacularly well done, you two. Bella'Mia 02:50, November 4, 2010 (UTC)
- --Eyrezer 23:20, December 22, 2010 (UTC)
Object
Attack of the Clone
Only one so far: can her birth date be mentioned in the Bio somewhere, possibly along with the general time period that it falls into?- I have to stop there to make sure that I can properly read through the rest of this comprehensive and quite well-written article when I'm more awake. I'll continue with "Saving Darth Bane" once the above objection has been addressed or when I'm a bit more awake—whichever happens to come first. :P CC7567 (talk) 05:39, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
"Zannah defeated Harth with ease, using her Sith sorcery to incapacitate him; deciding that if he was strong enough to recover, then she would take him as her apprentice." Something's wrong with that last clause; it's dangling and doesn't seem to have anything to link to because of the semi-colon. Please try to reword for clarity.- How's that? Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 20:23, September 4, 2010 (UTC)
Could you check the semi-colon modifications I did to the second paragraph of the Bts? I just want to make sure that that's what you meant; the clauses were a little unclear to me when I was organizing them with semi-colons.- The changes look fine to me. Tommy? Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 20:26, September 4, 2010 (UTC)
- Cool breeze.—Tommy 9281 21:36, September 4, 2010 (UTC)
- A quick question here: when you refer to "the online supplement for Insider 88," are you talking about Evil Never Dies: The Sith Dynasties, which you then mention after that? I have a feeling that Evil Never Dies is the supplement you're trying to cite, yet the connection isn't clear. If Evil Never Dies isn't the online supplement for Insider 88 that you're mentioning, then the actual one needs to be properly linked and mentioned. Please clarify in any case. CC7567 (talk) 22:54, September 4, 2010 (UTC)
I think some punctuation or something else is missing from this succession box entry: "Kaan the Brotherhood of Darkness".Other than that, everything's looking good—great work, guys. CC7567 (talk) 20:19, September 4, 2010 (UTC)- Tweaked. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 20:26, September 4, 2010 (UTC)
- And thanks very much for the review and kind words. :) Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 20:27, September 4, 2010 (UTC)
Last one: can you fill in the "before-years" and the "after-years" fields for both succession boxes where possible? They're required per the layout guide.CC7567 (talk) 22:54, September 4, 2010 (UTC)- Mostly done; but I'm not sure what Kaan's tenure as Dark Lord beginning in circa 1,006 BBY can be attributed to. Tommy? Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 15:05, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
- Whoever added that did so in error. It has since been corrected. Thank you very much for the review, CC. Please advise if anything further is required.—Tommy 9281 19:02, September 14, 2010 (UTC)
Cylka
It's not immediately clear why "Zannah was immediately conflicted by her commitment to Darth Bane" when taken aboard the Star-Wake.Is there enough information to create an article for An Examination and Exploration of a Most Dangerous and Resilient Organism?- Addressed.
When Zannah confronts Caleb, you talk about Bane's previous visit as if the reader had known about it. I think that if the wording is changed a bit, no additional context will be needed.- I thought about removing it, but decided that the context was necessary for background on Serra, particularly since she plays such a large role later in the article's events; so instead I've tried adding a little more context. If you'd still rather me just remove the info, though, then I well. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 21:15, September 30, 2010 (UTC)
- No, it's good. I was just looking for a bit of clarification, not removing it. You're right in that it's important to leave in.
- I thought about removing it, but decided that the context was necessary for background on Serra, particularly since she plays such a large role later in the article's events; so instead I've tried adding a little more context. If you'd still rather me just remove the info, though, then I well. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 21:15, September 30, 2010 (UTC)
There isn't any context to the Huntress and her psychometric abilities at Caleb's shack. This is rather confusing to the reader.- How's that? Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 21:15, September 30, 2010 (UTC)
- Fantastic article, you two! Cylka-talk- 10:57, September 30, 2010 (UTC)
- Many thanks for the review, Cylka! I don't have access to Rule of Two right now so I've left the remaining objections in the hands of Tommy. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 21:15, September 30, 2010 (UTC)
- I echo the sentiments of my colleague. Thank you again, milady, and please advise if anything further is required.—Tommy 9281 01:34, October 7, 2010 (UTC)
Xicer
Final test: Duplicate ref in the first paragraph. Was there meant to be another one in-between?- Addressed.
Her Master's will: Seems unnecessary to give this short paragraph its own subsection. Even the quote is longer than the paragraph.- Lol, addressed.
Legacy: "Centuries after her own death..." A bit nitpicky, but...unless the source actually says Zannah did die at some point, this should be reworded.- Addressed.
Nothing to glean from Abel's blog article on Zannah's name?Lastly...the intro is huge. I'd like to see it condensed quite a bit, at the very least 3/4 of what it is right now, but preferably more. Don't get me wrong, it's very well-written, but it sort of defeats the purpose giving readers a quick yet informative overview of the article. There's a lot of detail that could be removed, particularly from the RoT and DoE segments, to make it less of an intimidating wall of text. Three medium-sized paragraphs, each covering JvS, RoT, and DoE respectively, should be reasonable. Otherwise, awesome work you two. You blazed through these remaining pre-TPM Banite Sith Lords pretty quickly.Xicer9(Combadge) 21:19, October 19, 2010 (UTC)- Objection(s) overridden by Inquisitorius 02:27, December 12, 2010 (UTC)
- And it is here that I must disagree, my friend. After reading it several times over, I strongly feel that everything in the intro is necessary and sufficiently gives a quick and informative overeview of the information included in the article body. I feel that to shorten it is to detract from the article's overall quality, and based on that, I respectfully ask that you reconsider your position. Aside from that, I thank you wholeheartedly for the review. Please advise if anything further is required.—Tommy 9281 00:53, October 20, 2010 (UTC)
- Just my quick two cents here—while writing the DoE portion of the intro, I must have gone back over it tens of times, trying to weed out as much as possible, because I, too, felt that it was very long. But I feel that the intro has been cut down as far as it can go; particularly the DoE and RoT bits have truly minimal context as is, and I think that any further chipping away at them would lead to insufficient information to adequately summarize clearly for the reader what's going on. Anyway, thank you very much for the review and the link to Abel's blog, Xicer, much appreciated. :) Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 02:06, October 20, 2010 (UTC)
- I still have to disagree. I feel very strongly that an intro of this length is not suitable for the main page. Much can be condensed while still providing a thorough overview of the article. To show you very roughly what I'm looking for, here's a revision I made earlier where I shorted it by about 180 words. It's still quite long and needs to be condensed further, but I think this intro works just as well as the current one. Xicer9(Combadge) 04:45, October 21, 2010 (UTC)
- I still disagree, my friend. In the edit, the prose was altered so much that there would be several instances of shifting tense, timeline backtracking, among other things. With that intro (or one similar), the story is no longer told in the manner in which Jon and I deemed appropriate and sufficient for the passing reader. I again respectfully ask that you reconsider your position. Thanks,—Tommy 9281 22:59, October 25, 2010 (UTC)
- FWIW, I completely agree with Xicer, this intro is far too long for an article of this length. The intro is currently longer than Darth Caedus's article. There are multiple times when you could summarize far more efficiently. If you just go through cutting out unnecessary detail from the intro and leave the detail to the body where it belongs, the intro would be cut down considerably. Grunny (talk) 00:33, October 26, 2010 (UTC)
- The intro of an article of this size (or any size for that matter) should not be exceeding 600 or so words, let alone reaching the 870 words this article's intro currently is. I know we have no intro length limit, but this is pushing it IMO. There is much extraneous detail that I believe can be cut out. My own go at it was just an example of something that I'm looking for, and I'm sure a shortened intro would flow much better if either you or Jujiggum wrote it instead of me. This intro should be short and sweet, something that gives a reader glancing at the main page a good idea of who Zannah is without going into so much detail that they might as well be reading the body of the article. I cannot consciously let this article pass until the intro gets a thorough rewrite. Xicer9(Combadge) 02:12, October 26, 2010 (UTC)
- I would refrain from citing restrictions where none exist, ie. Intro word limits. And we appear to be at an impasse, since two Inqs take issue while another two have already supported the effort and are satisfied with its current state. I know it is rather large, believe me I do. But I honestly feel that a thorough rewrite is a bit preposterous and unfair those who have already read and supported the article. I'm not one by any means to normally disagree with a reviewer, but I have to stick to my guns in the face of a stalemate. Perhaps several other members of our august body care to weigh in? I have no qualms whatsoever with honoring the final decision.—Tommy 9281 03:14, October 26, 2010 (UTC)
- Aight, so here's the deal. After conferring with several individuals (thanks to all of them), it was determined that while the intro is just on the brink of being too long but still acceptable given the article's overall length, some things could be lanced and rearranged. That said, I made some changes. The wordcount is now at 859. Not much, but I feel that the slight changes I made to the prose compensated for that through the removal some of the extraneous detail without sacrificing necessary parts. Please advise if this has now been satisfactorily addressed.—Tommy 9281 21:02, October 28, 2010 (UTC)
- It is still much too detailed, and you only cut it down by eleven words. Some suggestions: I think the two sentences about Hetton and the ARLF can be taken out, as they don't affect the rest of the intro. The previous sentence, which mentions that she "executed a variety of missions...including the manipulation of the terrorist Anti-Republic Liberation Front" is all the information we need. Additionally, the last two sentences of that paragraph are identical and basically say the same thing. The first three sentences of the next paragraph also seem like they can be shortened, and the the part about Zannah's first duel with Bane could also be stripped of some detail. Xicer9(Combadge) 02:19, October 29, 2010 (UTC)
- FAN rules stipulate the inclusion of information from the intro in the body, and vice-versa. The information about Hetton will not be removed because the two sentences describe the acquisition of info vital to Bane. Nor will the first three sentences of the next paragraph be changed, because the reader will be thrust into the events of DoE without sufficient prior context. I removed some of the redundancy regarding Darovit's death, and also shortened the bit about Zannah's and Bane's first duel. Please advise if anything further is required.—Tommy 9281 03:14, October 29, 2010 (UTC)
- I can understand the DoE sentences, but I disagree about Hetton. Removing those two sentences would not compromise the coherence of the intro, and scanning though the article again, I don't even believe it to be important enough to mention in the intro. At this point I'm not sure the current intro can be salvaged; it hasn't changed much from when I first put this objection up. I honestly think a complete rewrite is in order, as that's the only way we're going to get a satisfying intro of reasonable length. Cutting down the current one doesn't seem to be doing much (and that has nothing to do with how you're handling the objection, my own crack at shortening the intro wasn't great). Xicer9(Combadge) 03:44, October 30, 2010 (UTC)
- To say now that it can't be "salvaged" is just being ridiculous. I attempted to reach you in IRC so that we can attempt to work this out but it seems as though you were unavailable. Let me know when you are and I will make another attempt to meet you.—Tommy 9281 10:33, October 30, 2010 (UTC)
- I'm going to interject here, as I decided to try my hand at parsing it down while reviewing the article. Frankly, there is very little information that could be reduced, but if someone thinks there is, please provide something concrete to suggest. Xicer, stating an arbitrary limit of 600 words is unsightly absurd. All the facts need to be at least addressed, as that is the rule at hand. There is no limit other than an aesthetic view, and I personally have little issue with the length as it stands now. Tommy, I very strongly encourage you to go back through what I've widdled down and try to take out a couple other details to shorten it. — Fiolli 01:22, November 4, 2010 (UTC)
- I made a few insignificant tweaks, but everything looks good after you and Jon took a crack at it. I appreciate your effort as well; I can now see how some of the details were a bit extraneous, and have no problems with their removal. Xicer9, please advise if this is satisfactory and if anything further is required. Thank you all,—Tommy 9281 21:31, November 4, 2010 (UTC)
- I still think it's too long. It's not just extraneous wording that needs to be removed, it's also details, like what I've mentioned before, that are just not needed in an introduction. Leave them for the body. The intro IMO only needs to give a summary of Zannah's life in the broadest sense, and this one goes too in-depth. Xicer9(Combadge) 06:13, November 8, 2010 (UTC)
- I am not rewriting the intro no matter how you try to dress the words up.—Tommy 9281 13:37, November 8, 2010 (UTC)
- Several edits have been made since the exchange above. I ask that the objector please review and advise if anything further is required. Thank you,—Tommy 9281 21:04, November 10, 2010 (UTC)
- I'm still uncomfortable with the length and would prefer a rewrite, but I know that's not going to happen so I'm willing to make a compromise. I have one remaining concern: As I said below, I'd like the first sentence to be altered, as I have a strong dislike for the way it is set up right now. The reader should be able to tell immediately who "Darth Zannah" was in a nutshell. Saying she was a Dark Lord of the Banite Order is much more informative than simply saying she was "a Human female from the planet Somov Rit." I believe lead sentences should be written this way especially in articles like Zannah's, where the intro is huge and the reader is less likely to read the whole thing. The reader has to go through the entire first paragraph before they are told that she was a Dark Lord, and this is something I consider a detriment to the article. Once this is settled, I will strike the objection and give my vote. Xicer9(Combadge) 00:16, November 11, 2010 (UTC)
- That's not happening, because it is as much my stylistic preference to do it that way as it is yours to not. There is no rule against it and I defy anyone to go through all the character FAs/GAs that are started this way and suggest their removal. Sorry, but to want it changed just because you don't like it holds no weight whatsoever. And I'll explain my reasons just this once: it is written in that manner because I believe that an intro should be chronological in order, rather than stating one thing and then backtracking later to explain what has already been said. And furthermore, you can't hold up one objection because I disagreed with a point you made on the nomination page's "Comments" section; that to me smacks of a last-ditch powerplay.—Tommy 9281 00:47, November 11, 2010 (UTC)
- Though I was the first person to suggest the rewording of the intro, holding up the FAN process for something so trivial is really ridiculous. I mean, it's so trivial and makes a little difference. From what I've seen, there are some major character FAs like Caedus that have a summary and then backtrack while others are purely in chronological order. Regardless of my personal opinion on the matter, ultimately, it's up to the discretion of the article writers, and in my opinion, holding up the FAN process in order to get the nominators to give in seem slike foul play to me.--ID-21 Dolphin (Talk) 02:44, December 9, 2010 (UTC)
- Though I was the first person to suggest the rewording of the intro, holding up the FAN process for something so trivial is really ridiculous. I mean, it's so trivial and makes a little difference. From what I've seen, there are some major character FAs like Caedus that have a summary and then backtrack while others are purely in chronological order. Regardless of my personal opinion on the matter, ultimately, it's up to the discretion of the article writers, and in my opinion, holding up the FAN process in order to get the nominators to give in seem slike foul play to me.--ID-21 Dolphin
- That's not happening, because it is as much my stylistic preference to do it that way as it is yours to not. There is no rule against it and I defy anyone to go through all the character FAs/GAs that are started this way and suggest their removal. Sorry, but to want it changed just because you don't like it holds no weight whatsoever. And I'll explain my reasons just this once: it is written in that manner because I believe that an intro should be chronological in order, rather than stating one thing and then backtracking later to explain what has already been said. And furthermore, you can't hold up one objection because I disagreed with a point you made on the nomination page's "Comments" section; that to me smacks of a last-ditch powerplay.—Tommy 9281 00:47, November 11, 2010 (UTC)
- I'm still uncomfortable with the length and would prefer a rewrite, but I know that's not going to happen so I'm willing to make a compromise. I have one remaining concern: As I said below, I'd like the first sentence to be altered, as I have a strong dislike for the way it is set up right now. The reader should be able to tell immediately who "Darth Zannah" was in a nutshell. Saying she was a Dark Lord of the Banite Order is much more informative than simply saying she was "a Human female from the planet Somov Rit." I believe lead sentences should be written this way especially in articles like Zannah's, where the intro is huge and the reader is less likely to read the whole thing. The reader has to go through the entire first paragraph before they are told that she was a Dark Lord, and this is something I consider a detriment to the article. Once this is settled, I will strike the objection and give my vote. Xicer9
- I still think it's too long. It's not just extraneous wording that needs to be removed, it's also details, like what I've mentioned before, that are just not needed in an introduction. Leave them for the body. The intro IMO only needs to give a summary of Zannah's life in the broadest sense, and this one goes too in-depth. Xicer9
- I made a few insignificant tweaks, but everything looks good after you and Jon took a crack at it. I appreciate your effort as well; I can now see how some of the details were a bit extraneous, and have no problems with their removal. Xicer9, please advise if this is satisfactory and if anything further is required. Thank you all,—Tommy 9281 21:31, November 4, 2010 (UTC)
- I'm going to interject here, as I decided to try my hand at parsing it down while reviewing the article. Frankly, there is very little information that could be reduced, but if someone thinks there is, please provide something concrete to suggest. Xicer, stating an arbitrary limit of 600 words is unsightly absurd. All the facts need to be at least addressed, as that is the rule at hand. There is no limit other than an aesthetic view, and I personally have little issue with the length as it stands now. Tommy, I very strongly encourage you to go back through what I've widdled down and try to take out a couple other details to shorten it. — Fiolli 01:22, November 4, 2010 (UTC)
- To say now that it can't be "salvaged" is just being ridiculous. I attempted to reach you in IRC so that we can attempt to work this out but it seems as though you were unavailable. Let me know when you are and I will make another attempt to meet you.—Tommy 9281 10:33, October 30, 2010 (UTC)
- I can understand the DoE sentences, but I disagree about Hetton. Removing those two sentences would not compromise the coherence of the intro, and scanning though the article again, I don't even believe it to be important enough to mention in the intro. At this point I'm not sure the current intro can be salvaged; it hasn't changed much from when I first put this objection up. I honestly think a complete rewrite is in order, as that's the only way we're going to get a satisfying intro of reasonable length. Cutting down the current one doesn't seem to be doing much (and that has nothing to do with how you're handling the objection, my own crack at shortening the intro wasn't great). Xicer9
- FAN rules stipulate the inclusion of information from the intro in the body, and vice-versa. The information about Hetton will not be removed because the two sentences describe the acquisition of info vital to Bane. Nor will the first three sentences of the next paragraph be changed, because the reader will be thrust into the events of DoE without sufficient prior context. I removed some of the redundancy regarding Darovit's death, and also shortened the bit about Zannah's and Bane's first duel. Please advise if anything further is required.—Tommy 9281 03:14, October 29, 2010 (UTC)
- It is still much too detailed, and you only cut it down by eleven words. Some suggestions: I think the two sentences about Hetton and the ARLF can be taken out, as they don't affect the rest of the intro. The previous sentence, which mentions that she "executed a variety of missions...including the manipulation of the terrorist Anti-Republic Liberation Front" is all the information we need. Additionally, the last two sentences of that paragraph are identical and basically say the same thing. The first three sentences of the next paragraph also seem like they can be shortened, and the the part about Zannah's first duel with Bane could also be stripped of some detail. Xicer9
- I still disagree, my friend. In the edit, the prose was altered so much that there would be several instances of shifting tense, timeline backtracking, among other things. With that intro (or one similar), the story is no longer told in the manner in which Jon and I deemed appropriate and sufficient for the passing reader. I again respectfully ask that you reconsider your position. Thanks,—Tommy 9281 22:59, October 25, 2010 (UTC)
- I still have to disagree. I feel very strongly that an intro of this length is not suitable for the main page. Much can be condensed while still providing a thorough overview of the article. To show you very roughly what I'm looking for, here's a revision I made earlier where I shorted it by about 180 words. It's still quite long and needs to be condensed further, but I think this intro works just as well as the current one. Xicer9
Another objection - Jedi recruit: "Zannah was a Human girl from the planet Somov Rit. Born in 1,010 BBY, her youth was spent with her cousins..." All of this appears to be sourced to ref number 6, which only explains the cousin discrepancy. Some of the info here seems to be from JvS, while the date, according to the infobox, is from PoD. This statement should be properly referenced with these sources. Xicer9(Combadge) 04:45, October 21, 2010 (UTC)
Jinzler
It might be worth mentioning something about how the Huntress had many visions of Bane and Zannah's final duel, sometimes seeing Bane winning and sometimes seeing Zannah winning. --Jinzler 21:57, October 20, 2010 (UTC)- Such mention would be more appropriate in the Darth Cognus article (where it has already been included) as it directly describes the actions of the Huntress, not Zannah. Thank you otherwise for your review, Jinzler. Please advise if anything further is required.—Tommy 9281 22:07, October 20, 2010 (UTC)
- I've struck my objection, because you clearly know more about these things than I do. However, I still disagree, because the information does concern Zannah, as it was a vision involving her. I do see your point, because it was not a direct biographical experience that related to her directly. However, I personally believe that articles should contain all information regarding their subject matter, so I would prefer it if the visons were mentioned here, as well as in Cognus' article. But it's your call, as it's not a major issue. --Jinzler 22:05, October 21, 2010 (UTC)
- Such mention would be more appropriate in the Darth Cognus article (where it has already been included) as it directly describes the actions of the Huntress, not Zannah. Thank you otherwise for your review, Jinzler. Please advise if anything further is required.—Tommy 9281 22:07, October 20, 2010 (UTC)
Eyrezer
Her Master's Will: "To further their covert Sith agenda, the adolescent woman was sent on a variety of secret missions that were designed to destabilize the sanctity and stability guaranteed to the member states of the Galactic Republic". Having read the quote that leads this section, my understanding is that Bane wanted to eliminate groups that threatened the Republic, so that the Republic would retain its integrity until he was ready to take it over. In other words, Bane wanted the enemies of the Republic to be defeated before they could truly rupture the Republic. As such, I think your explanation here is incorrect. Bane specifically did not want to destabilize the Republic at this time. Unless my interpretation of the lead quote for this section is wrong, can you please reword this part to better reflect Bane's intention?- Good point. Addressed.
"and truculently slew Caleb". Truculent is not a word I am familiar with, but having looked up its meaning, I am not convinced that it actually works in this instance. Can you reword it? --Eyrezer 02:27, December 22, 2010 (UTC)- Addressed.
You mention the Huntress in the Force mastery section without elsewhere identifying who the Huntress is. Please correct this.- Addressed.
Have you got Jedi vs Sith and Path of Destruction the wrong order in the Appearances list? IIRC, POD starts prior to JvS. --Eyrezer 21:21, December 22, 2010 (UTC)
Comments
Approved as a Featured article by Inquisitorius 23:20, December 22, 2010 (UTC)
- I replaced the dialogue templates with quote ones, feel free to revert if you find this unecessary.--Jedi Kasra (comlink) 00:50, July 22, 2010 (UTC)
- I just changed back one, since it had three speakers. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 00:51, July 22, 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, OK. Didn't realize three or more needed a dialogue template. Thanks!--Jedi Kasra (comlink) 00:56, July 22, 2010 (UTC)
- I just changed back one, since it had three speakers. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 00:51, July 22, 2010 (UTC)
Maybe you could change some of the images, like the one of the Jeid Temple. I'm sure you could find more comic images to replace it.--ID-21 Dolphin(Talk) 23:46, September 19, 2010 (UTC)- The part with the Jedi Temple is not from a comic, it is from a novel. So no, a comic image would not be appropriate there. I don't see any other images that need to be changed; they're all appropriate for their positioning as far as I can tell. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 02:09, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
- I would like to request that a traditional Inqreview be performed, meaning that the article does not pass without receipt of five full Inqreviews. While my colleague and I definitely appreciate all the reviews our article has received thus far, I am slightly concerned that several of the supporting votes are based more on the favorable opinions several users share for the character in question, and not so much on the quality of content. If I am wrong, then I apologize sincerely, but if my fellow Inqs are willing to oblige my request, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you,—Tommy 9281 00:59, October 13, 2010 (UTC)
Just a quick question: Having read the Bane trilogy it ends with the possibility that he had taken over Darth Zannahs body. Although He/She proclaims themselves to have been Bane they retained the hand twitch that Bane had. Can you clarify if you have a new source for the notion that she defeated him or are you guys just reading the source differently from me? (tahl6) —Unsigned comment by 94.5.224.100 (talk • contribs)
- If you actually read the article, you will find that that information is already appropriately sourced. See here. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 02:13, October 25, 2010 (UTC)
- I think Karpyshyn already announced Darth Zannah was victorious. Don't know the official source but it certainly was that way.--Lord David 23:18, October 27, 2010 (UTC)
- Eh, Lord David, see the response and the link I just provided in my post above yours. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 00:21, October 28, 2010 (UTC)
- I think Karpyshyn already announced Darth Zannah was victorious. Don't know the official source but it certainly was that way.--Lord David 23:18, October 27, 2010 (UTC)
- Uh-huh, saw it already. My comment was just favoring your response, Jonjedigrandmaster.--Lord David 13:58, October 29, 2010 (UTC)
*Two very minor comments about the intro: number one, I didn't see a mention to the Rule of Two, and it should probably be mentioned, just because it was the most important thing about Zannah's apprenticeship under Bane. Also, just a matter of stylistic opinion, but I think you could begin the article by saying, "Darth Zannah, known as Rain or Zannah during her childhood..." simply because it makes more sense to mention the character's most famous name in the first sentence than at the end of the first paragraph. Again, these are just very minor comments about the intro, and I can very easily take them down if you disagree.--ID-21 Dolphin
(Talk) 02:32, October 30, 2010 (UTC)
- Hmmm, I think you're right, Dolphin. Zannah's persona is much more characteristic as a Sith than a common being. And about the Rule of Two... well, pretty odd its not in there.--Lord David 03:40, October 30, 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with the second point. I think it's more beneficial for the reader to begin the opening sentence with the name the article is actually located at, and I also feel it's best within the first sentence to give the reader a general idea of who she is in a nutshell, like in the edit I made earlier (Darth Zannah, born Zannah and known as "Rain" in her childhood, was a Human female Dark Lord of the Sith in the decades following the end of the New Sith Wars.), instead of just beginning the intro with her childhood. Xicer9(Combadge) 03:44, October 30, 2010 (UTC)
- Heh, thanks for supporting my idea. But if the nominators disagree, it's nt something I'm going to fight about.--ID-21 Dolphin (Talk) 13:12, October 30, 2010 (UTC)
- The Rule of Two thing is mentioned indirectly—it's linked under "first and only apprentice." I don't think it's necessary to give any more detail on the rule than that for a couple of reasons: for one, we're already trying to cut down information in the intro, and secondly, that's more important to Bane's article than Zannah's. It was Bane's idea and Bane's decision; Zannah just happened to be the one upon whom he enacted it. I have no problem with opening the intro with "Darth Zannah," though. Tommy? Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 14:25, October 30, 2010 (UTC)
- Good idea, if you make the opening sentence something like, "Darth Zannah, known as Rain or Zannah during her childhood, was the Sith apprentice of Darth Bane in the years following the New Sith Wars," this would imply the Rule of Two, I agree.--ID-21 Dolphin (Talk) 16:54, October 30, 2010 (UTC)
- Uh, that's not what I said at all. Allow me to clarify: I said that we already imply the Rule of Two thing, and I quoted where it is already linked in the intro and gave you the reason why it would be a bad idea to add any more detail on it than is already there. And then I said that I have no problem starting the intro with something like, "Darth Zannah, born Zannah and nicknamed Rain during her childhood…" or something similar, but I would like to hear my colleague's feedback on the matter first. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 17:42, October 30, 2010 (UTC)
- I meant that it would imply that, but it just wasn't clear. Sorry. --ID-21 Dolphin (Talk) 19:08, October 30, 2010 (UTC)
- Nope, that part is staying as is. Sorry,—Tommy 9281 21:31, November 4, 2010 (UTC)
- Any particular reason why? I think a lead sentence briefly explaining who she is would be more beneficial to the reader than simply starting the intro with her childhood. Xicer9(Combadge) 06:13, November 8, 2010 (UTC)
- Because that is the style of my prose, and it takes nothing away from the quality of the article as it currently stands. There are other instances of FAs done in this manner, and there is no reason why this one can't be done the same way. And the first sentence states quite clearly who Zannah was. I appreciate everyone sharing their thoughts and opinions, but as I said above, the intro is not being rewritten, no matter how many different ways the suggestion is spun.—Tommy 9281 01:22, November 10, 2010 (UTC)
- Any particular reason why? I think a lead sentence briefly explaining who she is would be more beneficial to the reader than simply starting the intro with her childhood. Xicer9
- Nope, that part is staying as is. Sorry,—Tommy 9281 21:31, November 4, 2010 (UTC)
- I meant that it would imply that, but it just wasn't clear. Sorry. --ID-21 Dolphin
- Uh, that's not what I said at all. Allow me to clarify: I said that we already imply the Rule of Two thing, and I quoted where it is already linked in the intro and gave you the reason why it would be a bad idea to add any more detail on it than is already there. And then I said that I have no problem starting the intro with something like, "Darth Zannah, born Zannah and nicknamed Rain during her childhood…" or something similar, but I would like to hear my colleague's feedback on the matter first. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 17:42, October 30, 2010 (UTC)
- Good idea, if you make the opening sentence something like, "Darth Zannah, known as Rain or Zannah during her childhood, was the Sith apprentice of Darth Bane in the years following the New Sith Wars," this would imply the Rule of Two, I agree.--ID-21 Dolphin
- The Rule of Two thing is mentioned indirectly—it's linked under "first and only apprentice." I don't think it's necessary to give any more detail on the rule than that for a couple of reasons: for one, we're already trying to cut down information in the intro, and secondly, that's more important to Bane's article than Zannah's. It was Bane's idea and Bane's decision; Zannah just happened to be the one upon whom he enacted it. I have no problem with opening the intro with "Darth Zannah," though. Tommy? Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 14:25, October 30, 2010 (UTC)
This quote from Jedi vs. Sith: The Essential Guide to the Force would probably work for the "Legacy" section, where there currently is no quote:
- "A date of death for Bane and Zannah has yet to be determined, but it is known that they were succeeded by Darth Cognus and her apprentice Darth Millennial."
- ―Report by Gannod Chant
--ID-21 Dolphin
(Talk) 22:06, October 30, 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you very much, Dolphin.—Tommy 9281 21:31, November 4, 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with the proposal of changing the intro sentence... Actually it would be a much better way. Who she was is really a Sith Lady, and so the intro must begin explaining the fact, or at least stating it.--Lord David 01:10, November 10, 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you very much, Dolphin.—Tommy 9281 21:31, November 4, 2010 (UTC)
- Hey, since I have JvS in my collection, I just added a quick reference to it in the very short "Legacy" section by saying that Gannod Chant wrote a report about her and that she was mysterious to the time of the GA (exactly the same as with Plagueis). Since this will soon be an FA, it's important that all available source materials be used. Please check it out before reverting it, and then feel free to comment on this.--ID-21 Dolphin (Talk) 02:18, December 9, 2010 (UTC)
Request to have objection stricken
- This is my formal request to have Xicer9's objection stricken by the Inquisitorius. His final point was addressed as of November 11th, and while he has been quite obviously active sitewise since that date, it appears that he intends to neglect resolving the objection for whatever reason. The nomination has been idle for three weeks to the day which is the Inquisitorius timeframe for the initiation of a removal vote, and the objector has has since announced a vacation of unknown length, because he has "too much stuff going on." Furthermore, the neglect is not on part of the nominator, but rather the objector. I ask now that the Inquisitorius formally intervene so that this nomination can get off the FAN properly, instead of what seems IMO to be an attempt to have the nomination fail by forcing a technicality.—Tommy 9281 13:19, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
- I have no say in this as a relatively new user, but I agree, having seen the same in my own unsuccessful FANs. Holding up the FAN process for something as trivial as the placement of words and a few intro sentences, especially when there are eight supporting votes, seems sort of like foul play in my opinion.
In addition, notice that there are currently 999 FAs on the site, so if this gets the purple star soon, it might become the site's 1000th FA!--ID-21 Dolphin(Talk) 02:15, December 9, 2010 (UTC)
- Can't an overwhelming majority of users (like 10 or 12 to only 1) nullify or remove an objection by another user in a special case like this? I mean, it might not have been done before, but this case would probably be special enough to deserve an exceptional measure, IMO.--ID-21 Dolphin (Talk) 22:12, December 9, 2010 (UTC)
- I only notice this as it's in my watchlist but, yes, a vote of 5 INQ can strike an objection if circumstances require it. NAYAYEN—it appears to be a frammistat 23:05, December 9, 2010 (UTC)
- As Tommy already noted above… (edit-conflicted with Nayayen) :P Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 23:07, December 9, 2010 (UTC)
- Can't an overwhelming majority of users (like 10 or 12 to only 1) nullify or remove an objection by another user in a special case like this? I mean, it might not have been done before, but this case would probably be special enough to deserve an exceptional measure, IMO.--ID-21 Dolphin
- I have no say in this as a relatively new user, but I agree, having seen the same in my own unsuccessful FANs. Holding up the FAN process for something as trivial as the placement of words and a few intro sentences, especially when there are eight supporting votes, seems sort of like foul play in my opinion.
- A month today.—Tommy 9281 12:31, December 9, 2010 (UTC)
- I honestly have no idea whether this is some kind of devious maneuver, or if the nominator has just accidentally forgotten about the objection, or if he hasn't checked it yet for any of a hundred potentially perfectly valid reasons. But at this point, it has gone un-checked for quite some time, and it is the Inq's duty to either strike such objections or deem them unfixed, so it would be very much appreciated if some members of the Inq could take a look and say yay or nay. Thank you. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 23:07, December 9, 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that Xicer most likely forgot the objection rather than intentionally hurting the FAN. But nevertheless, it's still the case that this can't become an FA until the nomination has been addressed or removed.--ID-21 Dolphin (Talk) 20:07, December 11, 2010 (UTC)
- FWIW, in light of the Inqmoot being right around the corner, I recommend we reserve time on the agenda to discuss a resolution to this issue at that time. That will allow for a more direct, live group discussion, in which both parties will ideally be present. Toprawa and Ralltiir 23:20, December 9, 2010 (UTC)
- I'm up for that. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 23:21, December 9, 2010 (UTC)
- I as well.—Tommy 9281 00:08, December 10, 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that Xicer most likely forgot the objection rather than intentionally hurting the FAN. But nevertheless, it's still the case that this can't become an FA until the nomination has been addressed or removed.--ID-21 Dolphin