- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a featured article nomination that was successful. Please do not modify it.
Geelan
- Nominated by: ~ SavageBob 17:19, December 28, 2010 (UTC)
- Nomination comments: Say hello to my little friends! Seriously, these are dark side Squibs or something. ~ SavageBob 17:19, December 28, 2010 (UTC)
(4 Inqs/2 Users/6 Total)
Support
- Menkooroo 07:19, March 8, 2011 (UTC)
--Eyrezer 05:17, March 20, 2011 (UTC)- Sorry I took so long to get back to this. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 00:09, March 25, 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe Zirtran's Anchor was purposely taken back in time to serve as a military base in a great war against a deadly enemy…Oh, wait. Wrong franchise. QuiGonJinn
(Talk) 18:06, March 29, 2011 (UTC) 
We live for the Geeloniran, we die for the Geeloniran. Green Tentacle (Talk) 19:56, April 12, 2011 (UTC)- Cavalier One(Squadron channel) 13:04, April 19, 2011 (UTC)
Object
Xd1358
No first mention template.1358 (Talk) 14:23, February 5, 2011 (UTC)- Fixed! ~ SavageBob 19:11, February 5, 2011 (UTC)
Jujiggum
Should "Geeloniran" be italicized or not? The first few times it comes up you do italicize it, but later you don't.- I've italicized "Geeloniran" on first mention in the intro and body but left subsequent mentions non-ital'ed. My thinking is that it's good to indicate it's a foreign word upon first mention but then after that it gets a bit cumbersome. I can italicize all of them if you think that'd be better though. ~ SavageBob 06:42, March 8, 2011 (UTC)
- I see your reasoning, but I think it would be best to be consistent one way or the other. As is, it's confusing for the reader. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 18:16, March 8, 2011 (UTC)
- OK, all italicized. ~ SavageBob 20:15, March 12, 2011 (UTC)
- I see your reasoning, but I think it would be best to be consistent one way or the other. As is, it's confusing for the reader. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 18:16, March 8, 2011 (UTC)
- I've italicized "Geeloniran" on first mention in the intro and body but left subsequent mentions non-ital'ed. My thinking is that it's good to indicate it's a foreign word upon first mention but then after that it gets a bit cumbersome. I can italicize all of them if you think that'd be better though. ~ SavageBob 06:42, March 8, 2011 (UTC)
"If Whisk the Elder had indeed been the previous Geeloniran, individual who occupied the post after the Vanishing maintained his headquarters on Needan and seldom visited the station, and when he did, he was accompanied by various functionaries and a bodyguard named Tiny."Seems like a word is missing in there somewhere. Also, could we avoid the speculation at the beginning?- I've fixed the missing word. As for the speculation, it's in the OS, but I've tried to clarify that a bit more so it doesn't sound like us speculating. What do you think? ~ SavageBob 06:42, March 8, 2011 (UTC)
- Here's the problem though: the "If" makes the entire sentence dependent on the first part. It seems to me like we know for certain those things you mention about the new Geeloniran. However, by your use of the word "If," you technically say that those things were only the case if in fact Whisk was the previous Geeloniran. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 18:16, March 8, 2011 (UTC)
- OK, got it. Better? ~ SavageBob 20:15, March 12, 2011 (UTC)
- Here's the problem though: the "If" makes the entire sentence dependent on the first part. It seems to me like we know for certain those things you mention about the new Geeloniran. However, by your use of the word "If," you technically say that those things were only the case if in fact Whisk was the previous Geeloniran. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 18:16, March 8, 2011 (UTC)
- I've fixed the missing word. As for the speculation, it's in the OS, but I've tried to clarify that a bit more so it doesn't sound like us speculating. What do you think? ~ SavageBob 06:42, March 8, 2011 (UTC)
- Good work. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 04:14, March 7, 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks! ~ SavageBob 06:43, March 8, 2011 (UTC)
Just a couple more things I found: I'm pretty sure Tiny is not what you mean to link to here: "…he was accompanied by various functionaries and a bodyguard named Tiny."And, regarding my second objection above, I just want to make sure I have it straight: So, canonically, we don't know for sure who was Geeloniran after the Vanishing, although some people believed it was still Whisk the Elder? Also, I hate to be so picky here, but it still has a bit of a speculative air with the current "whether" wording. Is there some other way to tweak it just so that it doesn't sound like we (the narrators) are questioning the matter?Kill that intro redlink, please!Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 22:15, March 12, 2011 (UTC)- OK, I think it's good now. I tried to clarify what the article treats as rumor, what it tells from from Platt Okeefe's POV, etc. In short, nothing is certain regarding the vanishing and Whisk's role in it, nor in Whisk's ID as the Geeloniran. I've tried to clarify that now. If it sounds speculative, that's because it's that way in-universe as well. How's it look? ~ SavageBob 02:08, March 16, 2011 (UTC)
And one last thing (for real this time!): "According to "Zirtran's Anchor," the average member of the species is highly dexterous and competent at firing a blaster, picking pockets, bargaining, running a business, and fighting in hand-to-hand combat." Why isn't all of this mentioned in the main body of the article? You talk about their business ventures and bargaining abilities, but none of the rest.Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 16:34, March 16, 2011 (UTC)- Well, the reason I didn't treat these game stats as canon, as it were, is because the article Alien Encounters completely ignores them and presents a completely different "average" Geelan. ~ SavageBob 04:17, March 17, 2011 (UTC)
- That's contradictory: you say in the BTS regarding Zirtan's Anchor: "…the article does not provide game statistics…" So were they game stats or not? Also, did Smithson's article strictly contradict Zirtan's Anchor? Or did it just not mention the abilities mentioned in Zirtan's Anchor? And even if they did contradict, right now in the BTS you say that Russo's were specifically not game statistics while you mention that Smithson's specifically were. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 15:27, March 17, 2011 (UTC)
- There are two things being mixed up here, the stats of a "typical" Geelan (useful mainly for gamemasters only) and the stats for the species as a whole (given as a list of ranges that Geelan characters must fall within, and useful to players). So, what the article is saying is that the stats for "typical" Geelan differ from the first source to the second, and that the second is the only source to offer the range-type listing that allows Geelan player characters. I've tried to clarify this; is it clearer? ~ SavageBob 01:04, March 19, 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, got it now. Yeah, that works for me. I'll give the article one more quick look-over tomorrow when I'm a bit more awake before I vote. :P Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 05:19, March 19, 2011 (UTC)
- There are two things being mixed up here, the stats of a "typical" Geelan (useful mainly for gamemasters only) and the stats for the species as a whole (given as a list of ranges that Geelan characters must fall within, and useful to players). So, what the article is saying is that the stats for "typical" Geelan differ from the first source to the second, and that the second is the only source to offer the range-type listing that allows Geelan player characters. I've tried to clarify this; is it clearer? ~ SavageBob 01:04, March 19, 2011 (UTC)
- That's contradictory: you say in the BTS regarding Zirtan's Anchor: "…the article does not provide game statistics…" So were they game stats or not? Also, did Smithson's article strictly contradict Zirtan's Anchor? Or did it just not mention the abilities mentioned in Zirtan's Anchor? And even if they did contradict, right now in the BTS you say that Russo's were specifically not game statistics while you mention that Smithson's specifically were. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 15:27, March 17, 2011 (UTC)
- Well, the reason I didn't treat these game stats as canon, as it were, is because the article Alien Encounters completely ignores them and presents a completely different "average" Geelan. ~ SavageBob 04:17, March 17, 2011 (UTC)
A single tear
Kinda minor, but the first time that nests are mentioned in Society Culture reads like context has already been given on them. True, context is given at the beginning of the next paragraph, but the first mention still gives a bit of a "wait, what?" reaction (and isn't linked!). Could you tweak it a little bit?- I've taken the word out and replaced with "groups"; like you suggest, the nests are discussed in detail in the following paragraph, so I don't want to gum it up and talk about them earlier if it's possible to avoid it. ~ SavageBob 06:42, March 8, 2011 (UTC)
Can you create an article for "Handler" ? The one currently linked to is something unrelated from The Mandalorian Armor. Ditto "Nest," which currently links to something from a Republic comic.- If they're redlinks when you read this, they'll be blue soon enough. ~ SavageBob 06:42, March 8, 2011 (UTC)
I don't normally object to stylistic choices, but is there a reason that both images within the article fall at the very beginning of sections? If the first one were moved down a few paragraphs, the article might look purdier with less non-image space between the two images. Give it a try and hit preview to see if you like it; if not, I'll gladly strike.:D- No skin off my nose. How's that? ~ SavageBob 06:42, March 8, 2011 (UTC)
Similar to Jon's objection, is it correct for nest to only be italicized once?- In this case, I was trying to emphasize the first use as a "word used as a word." In other words, if you say, "In English, we call a thing we sit in a chair," lots of style guides will tell you to italicize it since it's a word being used as a word and not as a chair. This case is borderline, so I've just de-italicized nest. ~ SavageBob 06:42, March 8, 2011 (UTC)
- That makes sense. I wouldn't object if you re-italicized it.
- In this case, I was trying to emphasize the first use as a "word used as a word." In other words, if you say, "In English, we call a thing we sit in a chair," lots of style guides will tell you to italicize it since it's a word being used as a word and not as a chair. This case is borderline, so I've just de-italicized nest. ~ SavageBob 06:42, March 8, 2011 (UTC)
In the second paragraph of the bts, "This article" is used twice, once to refer to Alien Encounters and once to refer to the Wookieepedia article. It was kinda confusing; can you vary the wording?- Better? ~ SavageBob 06:42, March 8, 2011 (UTC)
- That's all! Spectacular work, my friend. Menkooroo 07:47, March 7, 2011 (UTC)
- Muchos gracias! ~ SavageBob 06:42, March 8, 2011 (UTC)
Green Tentacle
Society and culture: "The goal of such haggling was, of course, acquisition of new items for the Geelan nest's horde. … Many of these possessions wound up in a communal treasure horde owned collectively by a particular nest." The horde is mentioned before it's introduced.Behind the scenes: "Smithson's expansion includes game statistics to allow players of Star Wars: The Roleplaying Game to portray Geelan characters; the canines are more agile and perceptive than Humans, but they are weaker and less intelligent. The Adventure Journal article presents different statistics for a typical Geelan and makes them more dexterous and perceptive than an average Human, but removes the various skills given them in Russo's article." A little repetitious, particularly the comparison to Humans. Green Tentacle (Talk) 20:07, April 6, 2011 (UTC)- I've removed the first uncontextualized mention of hordes. As for the repetitiveness of the BTS statement, I have to confess I'm at a loss for how to word it better. I could mention that Humans are the baseline in the WEG RPG, but that would necessitate repetition of the word "baseline" or some such. I could just say that they are "dexterous and perceptive" (without an explicit reference to Humans), but that would be removing helpful information in my opinion. Do you have any ideas? ~Savage 02:37, April 9, 2011 (UTC)
- I think any way which avoids repeating "more perceptive than Humans" would be better. If both sets of stats say this, does it need stating twice? Also, you need to source the comparison to Humans since the page references given don't make this clear. Green Tentacle (Talk) 16:06, April 12, 2011 (UTC)
- Do you mean cite a page that shows that Humans are 2D/4D in all attributes? Just to clarify. ~Savage 19:38, April 12, 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, either a page reference or some footnote that explains the comparison for those of us who think 4D is the next big thing in cinema. Green Tentacle (Talk) 19:44, April 12, 2011 (UTC)
- OK, I think maybe that'll work. Take a look. ~Savage 19:50, April 12, 2011 (UTC)
- Works for me. Green Tentacle (Talk) 19:56, April 12, 2011 (UTC)
- OK, I think maybe that'll work. Take a look. ~Savage
- Yeah, either a page reference or some footnote that explains the comparison for those of us who think 4D is the next big thing in cinema. Green Tentacle (Talk) 19:44, April 12, 2011 (UTC)
- Do you mean cite a page that shows that Humans are 2D/4D in all attributes? Just to clarify. ~Savage
- I think any way which avoids repeating "more perceptive than Humans" would be better. If both sets of stats say this, does it need stating twice? Also, you need to source the comparison to Humans since the page references given don't make this clear. Green Tentacle (Talk) 16:06, April 12, 2011 (UTC)
- I've removed the first uncontextualized mention of hordes. As for the repetitiveness of the BTS statement, I have to confess I'm at a loss for how to word it better. I could mention that Humans are the baseline in the WEG RPG, but that would necessitate repetition of the word "baseline" or some such. I could just say that they are "dexterous and perceptive" (without an explicit reference to Humans), but that would be removing helpful information in my opinion. Do you have any ideas? ~Savage
Comments
Approved as a Featured article by Inquisitorius 13:04, April 19, 2011 (UTC)