Wookieepedia:Featured article nominations/Gilad Pellaeon (third nomination)

< 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.

Gilad Pellaeon

(5 Inqs/4 Users/9 Total)

Support

  1. Inqvote Havac 08:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. Inqvote A good read. Greyman(Paratus) 04:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  3. Too bad about the lack of action images. Meh.--Goodwood Redstarbird (For the Rebellion!) 06:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  4. Inqvote Thefourdotelipsis 00:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  5. Chack Jadson (Talk) 01:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  6. Inqvote No epaulets! Cull Tremayne 15:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  7. Insanity to the first degree! But in a good way. Hobbes15(Tiger Headquarters) 03:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  8. Might as well throw my support to this article. It really is a good read, if'n you have the time to read it. Jorrel Wiki-shrinkable Fraajic 19:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  9. —Graestan Jedi Order (This party's over) 00:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Bah! More than 3 redlinks! :P Greyman(Paratus) 15:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Fixed. Havac 18:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. Just a couple of minor things from the Forest of Goodwood.
    • Picture of a bacta tank is unneeded.
      • Not particularly, no, but it maintains a rather steady distribution of images instead of having one large section go completely without one and leave a large imageless blank space in the article. It's not particularly hurting anything and helps keep the presentation uniform, so I'd generally prefer it to stay. Havac 05:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Many of the pictures could be a bit bigger and repositioned to help break up the large blocks of text.
      • I think they're about as big as they can reasonably be. I'm not sure what you mean about repositioning them, though. There's not a whole lot of room to move them around. Havac 05:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
    • At least one more action picture relating to Pelly would be nice, but isn't required if none are to be had.
      • None are to be had, unfortunately. Havac 05:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
    • TIMMMMBERRRR!--Goodwood Redstarbird (For the Rebellion!) 04:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  3. This is minor, and I could be wrong, but shouldn't ranks like "Admiral" and "Moff" be capitalized all the time? For your sake, Havac, I hope I'm wrong. Chack Jadson (Talk) 20:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
    • No, I don't believe so. Havac 20:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
  • "...he admitted that he would need a top-flight slicer to travel to Yaga Minor and attempt..." - Eh, "top-flight" is very informal. Very. Thefourdotelipsis 08:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
  • "Pellaeon took the opportunity of being left along to have Dreyf jimmy open Disra's desk drawers." - Informal. Don't touch Jimmy! Thefourdotelipsis 08:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Get off Jimmy's back! Both fixed. Havac 23:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
  1. From the lair of Hobbes15
    • "Pellaeon had all he could do to preserve his own ship"? This isn't clear.
      • Common turn of phrase. He had his hands full trying to preserve it. Havac 21:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
        • Meh. "...had all he could do..." doesn't seem right to me, but I'll defer. Hobbes15(Tiger Headquarters) 00:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
    • "Disaster at Endor" is slightly POV—it certainly wasn't a disaster for both sides. Perhaps it should be "Battle of Endor."
      • It was a disaster for Pellaeon. As we're describing his life, I don't think it's that out of line. If it were for an article on the Rebel Alliance, or the Galactic Civil War in general, certainly it would be POV, but when it was an unambiguous bad thing for the person in question, heading that section of their article in accordance with its effects of them should be suitable. Havac 21:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
    • "would-be warlords"? They were warlords, weren't they?
      • Well, they haven't exactly set up their own fiefs yet. They split off so that they could become warlords, really. At this point, they're just deserters. Havac 21:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
        • Well, there weren't really any who didn't become warlords. How about "soon-to-be warlords? Hobbes15(Tiger Headquarters) 00:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
          • Actually, the individuals involved being rather indeterminate other than Harrsk, we actually don't know that -- some could have ended up serving others, like how Apwar Trigit went rogue to serve under Zsinj, etc. I think this is actually the cleanest, most factually accurate way to say it. Havac 04:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
    • When you say the freighter escaped, it seems as if it left the system, when in reality it landed. Also, it should be mentioned that the Solo's were behind the chase for Killik Twilight.
      • Elaborated. Havac 21:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
    • "the theory that he had been so unwilling to believe" is unclear— the article does not actually say Pellaeon didn't believe C'Baoth was capable of coordinating forces before this is stated.
      • Well, it says he "resisted Thrawn's argument" and "disliked . . . the idea". Saying in that same original paragraph that he didn't really accept it seemed kind of like overkill. The point should be made; in any case, the statement in question makes it clear he hadn't quite believed it until now. I don't think it's too off. Havac 21:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
    • "and modified his plans." How so?
      • Well, it says Thrawn was considering killing Skywalker, Pellaeon said it was unwise, and Thrawn agreed and modified his plans. Clearly, he decided to capture Skywalker if at all possible. It's a less tedious way of saying, "He issued orders to do exactly what Pellaeon just suggested he should do." Havac 21:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
        • I made a small change; you can change it back if you think it disrupts the flow. Hobbes15(Tiger Headquarters) 00:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
    • What was the result of the search for Skywalker? He's stranded in space, then lo and behold he's stopping the attack on Sluis Van. I realize it's mentioned later, but a short mention is needed during the explanation of the battle to prevent the reader from being confused.
      • It's only the one paragraph between the disappearance and the explanation, and I think it distracts too much from the flow of the article to go off on tangents about Skywalker when you can keep it in the context of what Pellaeon knows and have a follow-up of "how that happened" in the next paragraph. It's not like the article is about Luke. Havac 21:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Although maitrakh is linked, it might need a little explanation.
      • I'd like to, but, again, it kills the flow. Tangents to explain a little detail that has enough context to tell you "It's some kind of local authority" and a link to tell you more . . . I think it would make an already long sentence just too convoluted. Havac 21:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
    • "The Chimaera prepared to aid the Judicator, present at the Katana site. C'baoth suddenly arrived on a Lancer-class frigate, the crew of which he had under his mental control. The Dark Jedi demanded to talk and would not be dissuaded." Is it just me, or does something seem missing there?
      • See if the change clears it up. Havac 21:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
    • "Unexpected tragedy" is also slightly POV. Perhaps change to "Unexpected loss."
      • Done. Havac 21:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Daala's "first campaign" (Rebuilding the Empire) should be linked or explained a bit.
      • Clarified. Havac 21:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
    • "Fortunately, Ghent was available." So? Explain that Ghent was a capable slicer, otherwise the reader may not get the point.
      • Clarified. Havac 21:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
    • "Pellaeon also got the side benefit of being highly amused by his verbal abuse of the Yuuzhan Vong commander." Is this really needed?
      • Yes. Yes it is. Pelly had fun toying with Vorrik. Establishes his mindset. Havac 21:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
    • "Galactic Alliance officers had hesitated to trust Pellaeon earlier; now he was entrusted with retaking the galactic capital.[1][39][15][16]" Place the references that belong after the semicolon there, rather than at the sentence's end.
      • They all belong there. It's one sentence. Havac 21:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
        • Yes, but Pellaeon wasn't entrusted with retaking Coruscant in Remnant or Reunion. The reference(s) where it states that the GA officers were reluctant to trust Pellaeon should go after the statement that says so (which is where the semicolon is), and the ones that say he was entrusted with the retaking of Coruscant should go after the statement that says that. Otherwise, it seems like all the info from the sentence is told/ stated in all of those ref's. Hobbes15(Tiger Headquarters) 00:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
          • Mmmmmmm . . . I've never reffed like that, and I hesitate to start. I ref whole sentences, which I think is the cleanest way to do it -- reffing words and clauses and bits of punctuation just becomes too disjointed, and having the little ref tags floating in the middle of statements is ugly and, I think, more than is needed. I'm all for reffing the heck out things, but I draw the line at breaking up sentences into bits and pieces to source. Your mileage may vary, but I think it works. Havac 04:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
            • I can understand that, and I agree with you in that I don't like leaving references randomly in the middle of sentences much. However, when there's something like a semicolon that divides the sentence up neatly, like there is here, I think it isn't too much of a stretch to ref that way. After all, a semicolon is basically used to merge two sentences into one. But I suppose that's personal preference, as we don't really have a hard and fast rule for something like this, so if you choose to leave it the way it is, I'm fine with it. Hobbes15(Tiger Headquarters) 03:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
    • He also attempted to counter Omas's growing resentment of the Jedi, whom he felt were undermining his administration; Pellaeon had great faith in Skywalker and the Jedi." This doesn't make sense. Did Pellaeon think the Jedi were undermining him, or did Omas?
      • Well, it's not Pellaeon's administration. Havac 21:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
    • "Even more disturbing", then "Still more disturbing" needs to be reworded.
      • The whole point was that they built on one another. "He thought this was disturbing . . . but then he saw this, and oh, man!" It's deliberate parallelism, rather than accidental overreliance on one word. Havac 21:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
        • Ah, I see what you mean. It doesn't look good on a computer screen, but read aloud, it makes more sense. Hobbes15(Tiger Headquarters) 00:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
    • That's all. Besides these, insanely brilliant. Great article. Hobbes15(Tiger Headquarters) 07:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. From the squalid cubicle of Graestan:
    • In the intro, "continued serving" is used twice a twinge too close together.
      • Editated. Havac 20:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Article can be more thoroughly linked.
      • Hmmmm. I think I hit most of the highlights . . . without combing through the wiki looking for things to link, I can't really see what else should be. Feel free to add anything you think ought to be there, but otherwise I'm not sure what I should do. Havac 20:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
    • "Pellaeon later recalled fighting unstable clones as part of the fleet; he may well have spent the last months of the war serving in the siege of Saleucami, in which a clone Morgukai army was destroyed."—Speculative, but in my opinion, acceptable. However, the fact that it is a near-certainty could be pointed out in the BtS.
      • Added to the BTS. Don't tell Imp. Havac 20:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
    • "Precisely why Pellaeon was assigned these administrative duties remained unclear."—While events in the GFFA happened a long time ago, the observer still resides in the present, and instances like this should be changed to present tense.
      • I've had people object to present tense before. It does tend to jerk you out of the flow a bit, though I agree past tense is problematic too. Fixed it, though. Havac 20:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
    • "After the initial rush of enthusiasm, Pellaeon had a hard time getting used to the idea of an alien officer; whether because of speciesism or the simple novelty of such a thing under the Empire was unclear."—Another tense issue.
      • Fixed. Havac 20:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
    • "Grand Admiral" should be capitalized when used outside of direct titles also, as it is a specific title and not a POV statement about how much we like Thrawn. Same goes for "Vice Admiral," per the MOS
      • Altered. Havac 20:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
    • —Graestan Jedi Order (This party's over) 19:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments

  • Another insanely long article! This one is, BTW, a re-FA nomination. Havac 08:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)