Wookieepedia:Featured article nominations/Mimph

< 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.

Mimph

(4 Inqs/2 Users/6 Total)

Support

  1. Hooray! Congrats on WOTM, by the way. :) ~SavageBOB sig 20:29, May 1, 2011 (UTC)
    • Many thanks, Bob. :)
  2. Inqvote --Eyrezer 09:57, June 3, 2011 (UTC)
  3. –Tm_T (Talk) 21:34, June 10, 2011 (UTC)
  4. Inqvote 1358 (Talk) 07:16, June 20, 2011 (UTC)
  5. Inqvote Menkooroo 03:31, June 22, 2011 (UTC)
  6. Inqvote CC7567 (talk) 08:21, June 22, 2011 (UTC)

Object

Prepare to be savaged…
  • I'll give a more thorough review later, but on first glance, can you add another paragraph to the lead? In a case like this, I'd say a paragraph of biological/society stuff plus one of history would be warranted. ~SavageBOB sig 03:18, April 28, 2011 (UTC)
  • OK, a bit more: Can you find a clearer image for the infobox? I know that until the cartoons they're in get released on DVD or Blu-Ray or something, it's not going to be "clearer" per se, but I mean an image that shows a more close-up view of the species so readers can get a better look at their anatomy, etc. Maybe something that features one or two members of the species, full-body if possible, and close up; that'd be ideal. The current infobox image would be fine for the "Biology and appearance" if something for the infobox is found (alternatively, you could put the "clearer" image in the B&A section, but I tend to think that the infobox should house the most "representative" image or a species article).
  • I think you can go into a lot more detail in "Biology and appearance." For instance, the article currently makes no mention of the color of their teeth, the unique shape of their ears (and their large size in proportion to the body), the unique shape of the tail (flat and heart-shaped), the fact that their heads are about the size of the rest of their body combined (!), their plumpness compared to the thinness of their limbs, their whiskers, their eyebrows, their hair (they seem to have hairdos in addition to the fur?), the fact that the nose is red, the fact that some of them can grow facial hair, what colors of hair and facial hair we know of, and does Smasher have horns?
    • That's incredibly odd, because I could have sworn I wrote that they had "two whiskers on each side of their round, red nose" in the B&A...but now I don't see it. I'll get to that and your other objections later. Regarding the horns, it appeared to me that they were part of his hat.—Axinal Convocation Chamber 10:05, April 28, 2011 (UTC)
    • I've added most of that, but perhaps you can help me with the hair/horns part if you have that episode available. I'm seeing the "hairdos" and the unidentified mimph hunting team leader's horns as headwear rather than parts of their bodies, though it's hard to tell.—Axinal Convocation Chamber 19:16, April 28, 2011 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I just watched it. It's hard to tell if it's hair or helmets. Maybe keep it how you have it, but add a note to BTS that it's ambiguous in the OS and that you've interpreted it as helmets? ~SavageBOB sig 04:08, April 29, 2011 (UTC)
        • Forgive my naivete...I might just be tired, but could you clarify what OS is for me (original show?) :P—Axinal Convocation Chamber 13:28, April 29, 2011 (UTC)
          • Sorry, "original source." :) ~SavageBOB sig 17:13, May 1, 2011 (UTC)
  • "Society & culture": You can say a bit more about the architecture of their homes. They have a very distinct look to them, like bundles of reeds tied off at the top and bottom.
    • Added. I don't know if we should say they're reeds, but they're definitely some sort of plant material.—Axinal Convocation Chamber 19:16, April 28, 2011 (UTC)
  • Similarly, the fact that their signature clothing includes booties should be mentioned, especially since it reminds me of the kid from A Christmas Story in his rabbit outfit. ;)
  • Do we know they constructed the tools we see them use on their own (the rope, wheeled vehicles, etc.)? I mean, is it possible given what the cartoons say that they traded for them instead?
    • Hmm, the cartoon makes no mention of them, other than "Smasher! Tighten those ropes!" I've changed "creating" and "constructing" to "used".—Axinal Convocation Chamber 19:16, April 28, 2011 (UTC)
  • Probably also worth mentioning that they owned and used snow shovels. More later! ~SavageBOB sig 06:42, April 28, 2011 (UTC)
  • From the cartoon, they all seem to speak with high-pitched voices. Might be worth mentioning in B&A. ~SavageBOB sig 04:08, April 29, 2011 (UTC)
    • I considered adding that, but I think we're hearing that from Wicket's point of view. Since they're so small, their voices would naturally sound high to him, but not necessarily to themselves. Do you still think it deserves a mention?—Axinal Convocation Chamber 13:28, April 29, 2011 (UTC)
      • I can see what you mean. But the thing is, the OS has them speaking in high-pitched voices, and the OS is all we have to go by. I'd add it, but maybe with a note that "To Ewoks, they seemed to have high-pitched voices" or something. ~SavageBOB sig 06:08, May 1, 2011 (UTC)
  • "on the banks of a river" -- Is this the same river mentioned earlier (and that I redlinked)? Either way, a bit of clarification as to the two mentioned rivers' relationship would be helpful.
    • Though the river is never named, I think the episode intends for them to be the same river. I've clarified the relationship, and I will create the redlink shortly.—Axinal Convocation Chamber 18:05, May 1, 2011 (UTC)
  • Please restore anything I changed that is incorrect. For instance, I was trying to remove the passive voice from the first part of history and didn't know exactly who placed Wicket behind the curtain, but I assumed it was the hunting team. ~SavageBOB sig 06:08, May 1, 2011 (UTC)
    • Seems okay to me. I'll be sure to reread it more thoroughly and be sure.—Axinal Convocation Chamber 18:05, May 1, 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure the section on the Odra Crisis needs to be so detailed. I had to talk about this incident in the Strutter article, and, although it's possible I underwrote the section, I think it could be shortened up quite a bit in the mimph article to only talk about the crisis as it affected the mimphs. In other words, remove the extraneous stuff that doesn't pertain to them or their village. ~SavageBOB sig 06:12, May 1, 2011 (UTC)
  • OK, last bit. Can you add the original airdates and the names of the writers of the episodes in which they appear to BTS? ~SavageBOB sig 06:13, May 1, 2011 (UTC)
    • Added. As with your first set of objections, I will address the others shortly. Thanks!—Axinal Convocation Chamber 11:22, May 1, 2011 (UTC)
Eyrezer
Jeffers
  • Reference [5] isn't really necessary, and is in fact kind of erroneous. It's totally OK to mention a full name even if that source doesn't use the full name --- as an example, if Cade Skywalker was only called "Cade" in an issue of Legacy, you could use his full name in an article and just source it to that issue. Similarly, you could call Tarkin "Wilhuff Tarkin" without sourcing Star Wars Screen Entertainment, or call Vader "Darth Vader" even if it were from a comic issue that just used "Vader." The same goes for reference [4], actually. As an example, there's a scene on the Hidden Temple in Legacy 43 that doesn't mention that it's on Taivas, but one could still state that it was on Taivas without sourcing something else. My recommendation is that you jettison those two references in order to keep the article's sourcing as simple as possible. Thoughts?
    • SavageBob told me quite the opposite in the nomination of this article, where he asked me to source Wicket and Kneesaa's names to The Essential Guide to Characters. If you think it detracts from the article quality, and Bob has no qualms about it, I'll take them out, but I'd just as soon leave them in.—Axinal Convocation Chamber 10:43, June 21, 2011 (UTC)
      • Yeah, Menk's right. I had a change of heart about this the more I thought about it. Like Menk suggests, if a comic refers to "Leia," we don't require a source for her surname if our article calls her "Leia Organa." Sorry for the earlier misdirection, as at that time, I hadn't yet come to the same conclusion as Menkooroo above. :) ~SavageBOB sig 16:53, June 21, 2011 (UTC)
        • No problem, Bob, I appreciate the help. The references have been removed.—Axinal Convocation Chamber 21:49, June 21, 2011 (UTC)
  • The history section mentions that there are Mimph mothers and children --- could you throw in a quick mention of Mimph families in the society and culture section?
    • We only see them briefly, so we really aren't given much information about them, but I've added a bit to the second paragraph of the S&C section. What do you think?
  • Is Teebo definitely Force-sensitive? His article speculates on it in the BTS, but it doesn't seem like it's confirmed. If it's not, I'd get rid of the pipelink to The Force in the History section.
    • I'm 99% certain that I read somewhere that the uses of magic by the Ewoks were manipulations of the Force. Unfortunately, I read it somewhere on the Wook, and while I can't find it at the moment, I'm pretty sure it was sourced, possibly to Castaways of Endor. I'll keep looking through the site to see if I can find it again, and I'll also ask Bob if he can check Castaways in the meantime.
      • Ewok shamanism is indeed a version of "totem magic," which is Force manipulation according to "Castaways of Endor," p. 2. However, whether an individual is Force-sensitive or not is hard to state without an outright declaration of such from a source, since CoE also speaks of "Force-magnifying artifacts" that can bestow Force abilities on non-sensitives. Nice and muddied, courtesy of Wallace and Pronovost. :) ~SavageBOB sig 16:53, June 21, 2011 (UTC)
        • In that case, I think it is safe to keep it linked, but it's up to you two. Thanks again!—Axinal Convocation Chamber 21:49, June 21, 2011 (UTC)
  • Good work! Menkooroo 09:04, June 21, 2011 (UTC)

Comments

Approved as a Featured article by Inquisitorius 08:21, June 22, 2011 (UTC)

I am open to different ideas regarding the infobox template. SavageBob suggests I use sentient, because that allows me to list famous members. However, the sentient infobox does not allow one to add the semi-sentient designation, so there are pros and cons to both. There is also a discussion on the matter which could help resolve the issue.—Axinal Convocation Chamber 01:45, April 28, 2011 (UTC)

  • It might be worth adding the full frame of the Wicket captured image. Whether you specify a size or use the "upright" field (which is supposed to make horizontal images be about the same size as vertical ones), it's hard to fit highly horizontal images into articles. The full frame of this scene might fit better. ~SavageBOB sig 06:08, May 1, 2011 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I was trying to use an image already on the Wiki, for simplicity's sake. Strangely, I couldn't find that particular frame in the episode. I found similar ones that showed the mimphs at the bottom or Wicket's face up top, but it was too zoomed to see the whole thing, so I'm not sure how to get that exact frame. Anyway, I've changed the image. What do you think of that one?—Axinal Convocation Chamber 11:44, May 1, 2011 (UTC)
      • I just checked the cartoon on YouTube, and it looks like whoever added the original image pieced the full shot together in Photoshop or something. That's fine (it's a pan up from feet to head), but the problem is, again, that it creates that extreme verticality. I'd say the image you have there now is fine. In the end, though, this is just a suggestion, so use the version you prefer. As the expander of the article, you kind of earn the right to do the images how you like. :) ~SavageBOB sig 17:19, May 1, 2011 (UTC)
        • Regarding the pixels, I was asked by Toprawa and Ralltiir to specify a pixel size for the body image in this article. Is there a standard on when pixel sizes should and should not be specified? Thanks.—Axinal Convocation Chamber 18:16, May 1, 2011 (UTC)
          • Hmm. I don't think it's specified anywhere, but I always leave image sizes to "thumb" so that user preferences can take effect. If a user has a low-res monitor, they may wish to specify 100 px as their size, say, and who are we to deny them that privilege? Perhaps Tope will weigh in, but as far as I know, there's no official policy. I'd still suggest that best practice would be to allow user prefs to do their magic, though. ~SavageBOB sig 18:18, May 1, 2011 (UTC)