- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a featured article nomination that was unsuccessful. Please do not modify it.
K'kayeh dragon
(0 Inqs/1 Users/1 Total)
Support
Object
Manoof
"The k'kayeh dragon was a ginormous..." please change ginormous to something else.The last two quotes have the same attribution line. Change the second one up a bit so it's not identical. Manoof (talk) 11:47, February 14, 2014 (UTC)
Attack of the Clone
More context needs to be given on Old Ezil in the leading quote caption, since that's the only place he's mentioned in the article.- I think the intro and body should explicitly state that Rivan created only one dragon. Also, since we have an article for the last Zillo Beast, it seems prudent to create an article for the only known k'kayen.
- As this is a case where only a single k'kayeh exists, the species and individual dragon are pretty much the same in this case, so I'm hesitant to go down the route of creating a separate article for the individual k'kayeh. A potential solution would be to change the article to a single creature character-style article; this is something that I considered doing when I originally wrote the article, but the main thing that dissuaded me from this is that the Sea-dragon article appears to provide an FA precedent of presenting an article on a single Sithspawn beast in a species format without an individual creature article. I would be happy to go ahead with re-jigging the article into an individual creature format if you deem it appropriate, but I would appreciate your thoughts on the matter. --Jinzler (talk) 23:17, April 25, 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's a good point that you raise. I'll ask around and see what some other Inqs/other users think and I'll get back to you. CC7567 (talk) 03:29, April 26, 2014 (UTC)
- After asking around for some input, I agree that it would be best to treat the article as a creature-style article like Gor, which would require it being restructured more like a character article, though not exactly like one. The traits section could mention basically what the current "Biology and appearance" and "Behavior and intelligence" say about the creature's specific attributes. CC7567 (talk) 07:47, May 16, 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's a good point that you raise. I'll ask around and see what some other Inqs/other users think and I'll get back to you. CC7567 (talk) 03:29, April 26, 2014 (UTC)
- As this is a case where only a single k'kayeh exists, the species and individual dragon are pretty much the same in this case, so I'm hesitant to go down the route of creating a separate article for the individual k'kayeh. A potential solution would be to change the article to a single creature character-style article; this is something that I considered doing when I originally wrote the article, but the main thing that dissuaded me from this is that the Sea-dragon article appears to provide an FA precedent of presenting an article on a single Sithspawn beast in a species format without an individual creature article. I would be happy to go ahead with re-jigging the article into an individual creature format if you deem it appropriate, but I would appreciate your thoughts on the matter. --Jinzler (talk) 23:17, April 25, 2014 (UTC)
- I'll give this another look once you've handled the above objections. CC7567 (talk) 02:57, April 5, 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking a look at the article. I apologize for the fact that I have only responded to your objections close to the three week deadline (our busy season has hit at work, but that's no excuse) and that this will likely mean that this objection will not be resolved within the three week limit. I will aim to respond to any feedback you have to my points here within a couple of days and I ask that the Inquisitorius not strike the nomination from the FAN page because of this, though I will understand if they choose to do so and will re-nominate the article at a later date if need be. Thanks. --Jinzler (talk) 23:17, April 25, 2014 (UTC)
Comments
Vote to remove nomination (Inq only)
Nothing against the user, but there's an objection over three weeks old, and the user has been only sporadically active recently. CC7567 (talk) 21:23, June 10, 2014 (UTC)- Cade
Calrayn 21:31, June 10, 2014 (UTC) 
IFYLOFD (Enter the Floydome) 00:09, June 13, 2014 (UTC)- JangFett (Talk) 00:11, June 13, 2014 (UTC)
- Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 00:55, June 13, 2014 (UTC)
