- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a featured article nomination that was successful. Please do not modify it.
IG-72
- Nominated by: -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 20:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Nomination comments: Interesting at first but it goes downhill from there.
(6 Inqs/0 Users/6 Total)
Support
IGs are awesome. Chack Jadson (Talk) 02:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)- Kill. Kill. Kill. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 18:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, what a crappy main image. Cull Tremayne 20:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Graestan(Talk) 02:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)- Nice --Eyrezer 17:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- Toprawa and Ralltiir 15:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Object
- Chack Attack:
"gaining notoriety for the IG-series"A bit of context on why the fact that he was of the IG series was notable waould be good.- I think you're misinterpreting the text. Its saying that his actions as a bounty hunter made more people aware of the existence of the IG-series.
- Bah! I completely misread that. I thought you mean the was notable because he was an IG.
- I think you're misinterpreting the text. Its saying that his actions as a bounty hunter made more people aware of the existence of the IG-series.
Can we get a date on his hunt for Tallon in the intro?- Done.
What were his seemingly random choice of targets? You mention that his targets appeared random to many. Do we know what was the pattern was, then?- Not really. The implication is that he was taking down people for the Empire, but it's not canonically established.
- I suspected that this wasn't revealed (it's not like you to miss stuff). No problems here then.
- Not really. The implication is that he was taking down people for the Empire, but it's not canonically established.
"The four IG-88s carried on with their planned Droid Revolution, but by the time of the Battle of Endor they had all been destroyed or deactivated." I'd say this bit is unneeded.- Well, I don't like to end bios too suddenly, and this sentence essentially serves as a compressed legacy section. It's not essential but I think it's somewhat relevant and does more good than harm.
- You're right. I was a little unsure about this objection for that reason.
- Well, I don't like to end bios too suddenly, and this sentence essentially serves as a compressed legacy section. It's not essential but I think it's somewhat relevant and does more good than harm.
- Good work overall. Chack Jadson (Talk) 20:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you very much. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 23:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Why no mention of his stealing the Moldy Crow (just before the Teth thing), per [1] and the CSWE? -- Darth Culator (Talk) 21:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)- Because I wasn't aware of its existence. :-P Now added. Good spot. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 21:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Good. Now what about the fact that his remains were never found, according to CSWE? -- Darth Culator (Talk) 06:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)- Added the "physical evidence of the destruction was ever found" (though I'd already done that...), if that's what you're referring to. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 12:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- Didn't see it before. Now I do. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 18:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- Added the "physical evidence of the destruction was ever found" (though I'd already done that...), if that's what you're referring to. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 12:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- Toprawa:
Are you sure he appears in the Rebellion era? The Rebellion era starts with the Battle of Toprawa, 0 BBY, which would mean that his death in Tatooine Manhunt would need to take place within the short number of days/weeks between Toprawa and the Battle of Yavin.- Yep, it does; it's semi-concurrent with ANH.
I'm left itching for more information here: "IG-88A invited IG-72 to allow him to upload his own programming and memory onto IG-72's computer core, as the the other IG-88 droids had done, so that he would join them." Join them how? A little bit more here.- Added a little bit. Let me know if you'd like more.
- I'm not sure what happened, but your second edit removed all of the changes in response to my objections. Toprawa and Ralltiir 06:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Gah. Should be good now. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 15:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what happened, but your second edit removed all of the changes in response to my objections. Toprawa and Ralltiir 06:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Added a little bit. Let me know if you'd like more.
I've taken this sentence out of the biography. It just seems rather out of place in the flow of the article, and it's really more P/T info anyways. If you would like to salvage any of this for the P/T, I would encourage it: "IG-72 was known to prefer dead bounties to live ones, and lived to kill beings"- Added a variation of it to the P&T.
I'm not sure the "Despite" works here. It would seem to me appropriate that he avoid the Core Worlds because of his criminal prominence: "Despite his prominence in criminal circles, IG-72 avoided the Core Worlds" Toprawa and Ralltiir 00:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)- Removed the despite.
- It was replaced per everything else. Still, can we say "Because of his prominence..."? I don't know how much that fits. Toprawa and Ralltiir 06:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Should be good now. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 15:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- It was replaced per everything else. Still, can we say "Because of his prominence..."? I don't know how much that fits. Toprawa and Ralltiir 06:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Removed the despite.
Can you be more specific here with a location and incident? During the docking bay fight on Tatooine, for ex? "and used explosives in a heavily-populated area."- Done.
Is there nothing to say for his presence on Cloud City with Jodo Kast and the Gang?- I wouldn't say so. It's just cover art - there's nothing to say about Leia's presence on Tatooine in [[:File:Star wars old.jpg|this picture]], for example.
- Well, the difference is that I don't believe anyone would try to assert that that movie promo is an IU image, whereas this shot of IG-72 has been retconned to be an IU image in more than one source. I might also point out that this article even features the image within the biography of the article, which also asserts its IU-ness. I feel some sort of mention of the image should be made somewhere within the IU portions of this article. Toprawa and Ralltiir 04:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Where has it been retconned to be an IU image? And if it has, was it this image with IG-72 and Kast et al. or the same image that depicts IG-88 and Fett et al.? The fact is that this event never occurs in the story, and the presence of all of those characters on Bespin directly contradicts Tatooine Manhunt, since they were all working for different factions and IG-72 was hiding in Mos Eisley for days during the adventure. Covers take artistic license. And we frequently have promo images in IU sections of articles, so I don't see the problem here. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 11:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- If it wasn't an IU image, then it would need to be removed from the biography, since we don't include non-canon images in the article proper, just like we wouldn't include non-canon bio info. And I'm guessing that if the current infobox image wasn't available, then this shot would be used instead. We include promo photos in biographical sections because they can legitimately be considered canon. Take, for example, the cover of Cracken's Rebel Operatives, which, despite being conceptual art, has been retconned to be an IU scene. Regardless, the fact that this image features in the IU timeline of Star Wars: The Ultimate Visual Guide, along with dozens of other IU shots, would make it IU by my estimate. Just because an image appears on a cover doesn't mean it necessarily corresponds to the story; again, per Cracken's Rebel Operatives. There's nothing to suggest this image can't be canon. Toprawa and Ralltiir 01:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- So you'd like to see something akin to "At some point in his existence, IG-72 stood alongside bounty hunter Jodo Kast; Jungen and Vytor Shrike, who may or may not have been bounty hunters at this point; and a LOM-series protocol droid on the planet Bespin" added to the article? Regardless of the IU-ness of the image - and it's appearance in The Ultimate Visual Guide doesn't really apply, because that was likely representing Boba Fett et al. - I just find that a little ridiculous, and it's interpreting the image way too literally. The cover is intended to portray the characters, not establish events that don't fit with the source. So, we can use it to portray the characters in articles no problem, but taking its entire content literally seems a bit much. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 16:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think it's too much to make a minor mention that at some point his travels took him to Cloud City. And of course this image in Ultimate Visual Guide applies since this image has been retconned to be him, not Boba Fett, regardless of the book's intent. Moreover, this same image is in Rebellion Era Sourcebook accompanying descriptions of Jodo Kast, etc., so you can't really say this doesn't apply. Toprawa and Ralltiir 17:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I've added a brief mention as you've suggested. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 19:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. Nice job on the article. Toprawa and Ralltiir 15:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I've added a brief mention as you've suggested. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 19:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think it's too much to make a minor mention that at some point his travels took him to Cloud City. And of course this image in Ultimate Visual Guide applies since this image has been retconned to be him, not Boba Fett, regardless of the book's intent. Moreover, this same image is in Rebellion Era Sourcebook accompanying descriptions of Jodo Kast, etc., so you can't really say this doesn't apply. Toprawa and Ralltiir 17:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- So you'd like to see something akin to "At some point in his existence, IG-72 stood alongside bounty hunter Jodo Kast; Jungen and Vytor Shrike, who may or may not have been bounty hunters at this point; and a LOM-series protocol droid on the planet Bespin" added to the article? Regardless of the IU-ness of the image - and it's appearance in The Ultimate Visual Guide doesn't really apply, because that was likely representing Boba Fett et al. - I just find that a little ridiculous, and it's interpreting the image way too literally. The cover is intended to portray the characters, not establish events that don't fit with the source. So, we can use it to portray the characters in articles no problem, but taking its entire content literally seems a bit much. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 16:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- If it wasn't an IU image, then it would need to be removed from the biography, since we don't include non-canon images in the article proper, just like we wouldn't include non-canon bio info. And I'm guessing that if the current infobox image wasn't available, then this shot would be used instead. We include promo photos in biographical sections because they can legitimately be considered canon. Take, for example, the cover of Cracken's Rebel Operatives, which, despite being conceptual art, has been retconned to be an IU scene. Regardless, the fact that this image features in the IU timeline of Star Wars: The Ultimate Visual Guide, along with dozens of other IU shots, would make it IU by my estimate. Just because an image appears on a cover doesn't mean it necessarily corresponds to the story; again, per Cracken's Rebel Operatives. There's nothing to suggest this image can't be canon. Toprawa and Ralltiir 01:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- Where has it been retconned to be an IU image? And if it has, was it this image with IG-72 and Kast et al. or the same image that depicts IG-88 and Fett et al.? The fact is that this event never occurs in the story, and the presence of all of those characters on Bespin directly contradicts Tatooine Manhunt, since they were all working for different factions and IG-72 was hiding in Mos Eisley for days during the adventure. Covers take artistic license. And we frequently have promo images in IU sections of articles, so I don't see the problem here. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 11:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well, the difference is that I don't believe anyone would try to assert that that movie promo is an IU image, whereas this shot of IG-72 has been retconned to be an IU image in more than one source. I might also point out that this article even features the image within the biography of the article, which also asserts its IU-ness. I feel some sort of mention of the image should be made somewhere within the IU portions of this article. Toprawa and Ralltiir 04:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say so. It's just cover art - there's nothing to say about Leia's presence on Tatooine in [[:File:Star wars old.jpg|this picture]], for example.
Can we specify which sources these are? "However, later sources have established that the later option is the canonical outcome." Toprawa and Ralltiir 01:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)- It's got two ref tags - do you want me to spell it out in the prose? Thank you for the review. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 16:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- I went ahead and did so. Toprawa and Ralltiir 06:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- It's got two ref tags - do you want me to spell it out in the prose? Thank you for the review. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 16:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Following my BTS edits, I don't know what year this is referring to. 1995 or 1989? Also, what source describes this? Pretty vague here. "In the same year, an "IG-series assassin droid" is described as the companion of Dace Bonearm; subsequent sources have established this to be IG-72." Toprawa and Ralltiir 06:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)- Gah, that's very sloppy on my part. Should be good now. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 15:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Comments
Approved as a Featured article by Inquisitorius 15:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Working on getting a better infobox image. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 20:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Due to constant removal of information/ addition of fanon, I have protected the article from anon editors. - Cavalier One(Squadron channel) 12:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Due to constant removal of information/ addition of fanon, I have protected the article from anon editors. - Cavalier One
