Wookieepedia:Featured article nominations/Gados

< 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.

Gados

  • Nominated by: ~ SavageBob 22:45, August 26, 2010 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: Stub a toe and they have a heart attack.

(3 Inqs/4 Users/7 Total)

Support

  1. Inqvote --Eyrezer 05:23, September 16, 2010 (UTC)
  2. Wonderful! Menkooroo 01:03, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
  3. Inqvote Green Tentacle (Talk) 17:05, October 27, 2010 (UTC)
  4. Good. (: –Tm_T (Talk) 10:06, November 2, 2010 (UTC)
  5. 1358 (Talk) 15:57, November 26, 2010 (UTC)
  6. Inqvote CC7567 (talk) 22:24, November 26, 2010 (UTC)
  7. Looks pretty good to me. Any objections I would have fall under "personal preference," so I'll just let those be. Trak Nar Ramble on 07:13, November 28, 2010 (UTC)

Object

Eyrezer
  1. No mention of Gados Floatboats?
    • It seems significant to me that they are called Gados floatboats. (If that is their correct name). --Eyrezer 05:32, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
      • Fair enough. Changed. ~ SavageBob 14:33, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
  2. A couple of things: did you not feel it possible to work in a reference to the Clone Wars battle over Abregado-rae?
  3. Veizen Fever: if this is correct, something about the plague should be added. --Eyrezer 23:23, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
    • The floatboats are in there already, the Veizen fever article was chock full of speculation that has been removed, and the battle has been added in. Thanks for the review! ~ SavageBob 03:56, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
Fergzer
  • "Visitors from another planet first visited the world" --- can you change one of the "visit" words?
  • Can you try to find that image from HTTE4 with the speech bubble's text intact?
  • "galactic standard" and "galactic-standard" are both used. Pick one, baby!
  • Does Coruscant and the Core Worlds definitively state that the Leaping Tree family are the one major exception? If not, there could be more, for all we know. If so, carry on!
  • All the present tense in bts is a bit... off. Stating that Daniel Wallace bases his description of the species on that character makes it sound like he's continuously publishing the book to this day. When you're discussing such a variety of appearances and sources, past tense is surely better form? It's far less confusing, anyway.
  • All I got! Menkooroo 11:35, October 3, 2010 (UTC)
    • Done the first, queried the second on my talk page fixed the second, done the third (distinguishing one form for adjectival use and one for nominal), fixed the fourth, and made a go at the fifth (I've tried to focus solely on the scenes that feature them, thus requiring the present tense, but let me know if it's still wonky). Thanks for taking a look! ~ SavageBob 17:03, October 3, 2010 (UTC)
Xd1358
  • Make the history image bigger. No point in having an image if you can't see it. 1358 (Talk) 17:33, October 27, 2010 (UTC)
    • Do you mean I should crop in on the Gados in the picture to make him/her more prominent? Or just make the whole shebang bigger? If the latter, I'm a bit hesitant, since we never know what screen resolution people are viewing our pages at, but I could do the former. ~ SavageBob 20:50, October 27, 2010 (UTC)
      • I think Xd is actually referring to the picture of the Abregado system from TCW that is in the History section. My rule of thum is that "square" pics are at 200px, whereas pics that are wider than they are taller are at 250px wide... --Eyrezer
        • I'll take another look. But my operating assumption has always been that it's best to leave pics at "thumb" (with no px specified) because this allows users to customize their viewing preferences. In other words, if I'm reading Wookieepedia from a low-resolution screen, I have the ability to specify in my preferences that I prefer images to display at a small size. However, hard-coded image sizes override that preference and force me to view images that are too big for my screen. In other words, I've always thought it best to leave stuff at default ("thumb" for landscapes, "thumb|upright" for portraits). If there's a site policy on this, though, I'll comply, of course. ~ SavageBob 14:46, October 28, 2010 (UTC)
        • Yes, I was referring to the Abregado image; hence why I said "history image". Anyway, AFAIK, images in articles should be 250-300px. 1358 (Talk) 14:48, October 28, 2010 (UTC)
          • Sorry, had a long day yesterday, hence my mix-up with the canal image. Do we have a policy that says images should be hard-coded to a specific size? I'd still like to allow for user preferences to go into effect if possible. ~ SavageBob 14:53, October 28, 2010 (UTC)
            • I do not know if we have a policy, but to be honest, I have serious difficulties when trying to see what is in the image. 1358 (Talk) 15:04, October 28, 2010 (UTC)
              • It's difficult to see anything when it's at full size too, mainly because the image is so dark. I added it on the assumption that a bad image was better than no image, but do you think I should just yank it? I'm cool either way. ~ SavageBob 15:37, October 28, 2010 (UTC)
                • Make it 250 px and I'm fine with it. 1358 (Talk) 16:04, October 28, 2010 (UTC)
                  • What do you have set as your default image thumbnail size? Unless I'm mistaken, 250px is the default for any image left as "thumb," so the image should already be displaying as 250px for you (unless you've chosen a smaller size for your default). I'm leaning toward just yanking the image, since it was only added for the sake of having another image! :) ~ SavageBob 19:00, October 28, 2010 (UTC)
                    • Haha that explains things. I had it set to 180px. 9_9 Anyway, just to be sure, I still suggest you make it 250px. :P Also, maybe use File:Abregado system.jpg instead? 1358 (Talk) 19:05, October 28, 2010 (UTC)
                      • Image changed. I'd still prefer to keep the image size as "thumb" so we can accommodate user prefs, but that more squared-off image should appear more clearly for just about anyone at any default size. Sound good? ~ SavageBob 19:09, October 28, 2010 (UTC)
  • TCW does not take place in 22 BBY. Star Wars Annual 2011 said it takes place in 21 BBY. 1358 (Talk) 15:06, October 28, 2010 (UTC)
    • Ah, good eyes. Changed. ~ SavageBob 19:04, October 28, 2010 (UTC)
  • Please mention their sentience in the B&A.
  • "By 137 ABY, Abregado-rae fell within territory claimed by Darth Krayt as his Galactic Empire." Uh, should that be 'and his...'? Also, perhaps some small context for Krayt? 1358 (Talk) 19:40, November 23, 2010 (UTC)
    • Addressed! Thanks for taking another look. ~ SavageBob 21:15, November 23, 2010 (UTC)
      • Eyre forced me to. :P 1358 (Talk) 15:57, November 26, 2010 (UTC)
        • What a jerk! :P ~ SavageBob 20:29, November 26, 2010 (UTC)

Comments

Approved as a Featured article by Inquisitorius 09:59, November 28, 2010 (UTC)