- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a featured article nomination that was successful. Please do not modify it.
Karazak Slaver's Cooperative
- Nominated by: Skippy Farlstendoiro 19:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- Nomination comments: My first FA nomination. Correct the article wherever is needed, please. Correct me wherever I need.
(5 Inqs/0 Users/5 Total)
Support
Atarumaster88 
(Talk page) 19:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)- Cavalier One
(Squadron channel) 12:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC) - Nice work. I hope to see another! --Eyrezer 11:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Chack Jadson (Talk) 13:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- -- Darth Culator (Talk) 23:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Object
Hi Skippy. Could you expand the introduction of the article a bit more. Could you also add a couple of sentences to the Behind the scenes about when the KSC first appeared in canon, and later developments, etc. Also, could you remove the references in the intro paragraph, and, while keeping the various names in the intro, also place that information in the main body of the article as well. --Eyrezer 14:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)- Done, done and done. Only the first sources and appearances are listed in BtS; I don't want to re-tell the list of sources and appearances in prose.--Skippy Farlstendoiro 11:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- Cav's squadron briefing:
Acquisitions specialists were also used to define the potential value and risk of a specific person or small group, if a contract for them was possible. Not sure what you mean here - are they used to scout out potential targets already identified, or to find them and offer them for sale?- Canonically, only after a request. Changed.
The developer, maximum responsible of the operation, was to coordinate the plans with strike team leaders, and to give the final "go". Sometimes, the executive leadership of the Cooperative could differ the developer's judgement. These sentences appear to be missing a few words, or use the wrong ones in some places. Please revise to give some clarity.- Reworded it; I hope it's clearer now.
- I changed something to make it a little clearer - can you check that it is correct?
- Looks like what I understand reading the OS. I mean: Yes, it's correct.--Skippy Farlstendoiro 13:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- I changed something to make it a little clearer - can you check that it is correct?
- Reworded it; I hope it's clearer now.
Any information of what the Slavers did with the subjects they bought off Thulaka?- No idea. The KSC might sell them or eat them for what I know. No changes to the article.
- Fair enough.
- No idea. The KSC might sell them or eat them for what I know. No changes to the article.
At least three teams - three teams of who or what?- Changed: Strike teams, as defined in the same article.
Check your source ref tags - the should come after punctuation, not before.- Cavalier One(Squadron channel) 19:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- Done except twice: Before a hyphen and before a closed parenthesis; in both cases I thought it would have been ambiguous otherwise. Tell me to change it and I will.--Skippy Farlstendoiro 11:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Generally, I would avoid using parenthesis altogether in an article, and have removed two and replaced them with — instead. I would look to remove any and work them into the article body as sentences. I think using a ref tag before a hyphen is the standard; I'm sure I've used it myself. Nice work, Farl - told you that you could produce a FAN :) Just check the unstruck objection for me, and I'll support it. - Cavalier One(Squadron channel) 19:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Generally, I would avoid using parenthesis altogether in an article, and have removed two and replaced them with — instead. I would look to remove any and work them into the article body as sentences. I think using a ref tag before a hyphen is the standard; I'm sure I've used it myself. Nice work, Farl - told you that you could produce a FAN :) Just check the unstruck objection for me, and I'll support it. - Cavalier One
- Done except twice: Before a hyphen and before a closed parenthesis; in both cases I thought it would have been ambiguous otherwise. Tell me to change it and I will.--Skippy Farlstendoiro 11:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- From the desk of Atarumaster88
Does the source capitalize Cooperative when it's stated by itself? My initial inkling is that it should be decapitalized, but I'd like to know what the source says.- Sources tend to say "KSC" or "the Karazaks." I think acronyms are best avoided in an encyclopedia, and the article deals with other things named Karazak; so I tried to choose a third way.
Some short paragraphs really could use combining.- Please specify which ones. Unfortunately, I don't see anything telling me "Please, join me with the previous paragraph."
- I merged two paragraphs, but in retrospect, they're pretty well delineated. Objection struck. Atarumaster88 (Talk page) 19:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- I merged two paragraphs, but in retrospect, they're pretty well delineated. Objection struck. Atarumaster88
- Please specify which ones. Unfortunately, I don't see anything telling me "Please, join me with the previous paragraph."
"Due to these policies, the Karazaks were notorious, and at the same time the slavers would strive for perfection" Vague and confusing wording.- Reworded.
"pressure the ambassador" Which ambassador?- Reworded.
"bought exotic prey to" Either "bought" or "to" doesn't seem to fit.- Reworded. "Buy from".
"although their operations were amateurishly botched" POV/'poor wording.- Reworded.
Eliminate double-linking in Members section. Link once per intro, per main body, per infobox, and possibly in an image caption or succession box.- Done.
- Not bad for a first run; as a suggestion, try to read your article aloud before you submit it—that'll help with some with the clumsy wording that pops up every now and again. Have a Super Terrific Friendly Un-frustrating day. Atarumaster88 (Talk page) 16:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'll keep it in mind, thank you. --Skippy Farlstendoiro 13:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
What do you mean by "the choice of being a slaver or being denounced"? --Eyrezer 11:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)- Reworded.--Skippy Farlstendoiro 11:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Few things:
"Empire preferred to use others for their slavery endeavors" What others? Also, I believe this info was included only in the intro, and not mentioned in the body.- Added. In the body: The Empire studied the Karazaks in many a report, but they preferred to deal with the more famous Zygerrian Slavers. (History, 4th paragraph).
Context on Cantras Gola please.- Added in the first mention to Cantras Gola; that's mostly all the context in the OS.
- Seems pretty good overall. Chack Jadson (Talk) 04:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you.--Skippy Farlstendoiro 12:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
"The Karazak Slavers' Cooperative, also known as the Karazak Slaver's Guild, the Karazak Slavers Cooperative and the KSC…" None of which explains why the article is at Karazak Slaver's Cooperative. You seem to use the non-apostrophe version throughout the article, but this should be consistent with whatever the article name is. Green Tentacle (Talk) 17:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)- Names used alternatively in canon without apparent reason. Article moved to Karazak Slavers Cooperative (call it {non-apostrophe}), and Cooperative referenced thoroughly as {non-apostrophe} in the article (obviously except when talking about its alternate names). If you agree with this solution, I'll update the links to Karazak Slaver's Cooperative so that they link to {non-apostrophe}.--Skippy Farlstendoiro 18:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Comments
Approved as a Featured article by Inquisitorius 22:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)