Wookieepedia:Featured article nominations/Preparing for War

< 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.

Preparing for War

  • Nominated by: 501st dogma(talk) 20:01, October 21, 2013 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: Renomming as a FAN due to length issues. I like how it got three Agricorp votes before it was noticed that it was 1500 words. ;)

(4 Inqs/3 Users/7 Total)

Support

  1. Thefourdotelipsis (talk) 09:37, October 24, 2013 (UTC)
  2. Great stuff. Really good to see OOU noms. Menkooroo (talk) 23:42, November 25, 2013 (UTC)
  3. Protectorate (talk) 12:33, December 15, 2013 (UTC)
  4. Inqvote IFYLOFD (Enter the Floydome) 02:15, January 3, 2014 (UTC)
  5. Inqvote Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 08:13, January 21, 2014 (UTC)
  6. Inqvote CC7567 (talk) 19:29, February 8, 2014 (UTC)
  7. Inqvote Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 20:29, February 12, 2014 (UTC)

Object

Yeah yeah yeah
  • My outstanding GAN objections...
  • "Twelve pages long, the illustrations for the adventure scenario were done by Joe Corroney." - The illustrations were 12 pages long? Perhaps rephrase this.
    • There, remedied.
  • "As the first scenario, Preparing for War had no adventure preceding it," - Surely redundant.
    • Done.
  • "However, as this completely dooms the mission because StarForge Station will have nothing to do with the frigate anymore, this possibility is deemed non-canon as it harms future missions." - A bit clunky, perhaps rephrase.
    • How so? Is it because of the "because"?
      • It doesn't sound right to me. However, my knowledge of the whys and wherefores in English don't extend deep enough for me to point out what's wrong with it, so I can't really object.
  • The continuity should note the extent to which elements that first appeared in this scenario appeared either in later scenarios or other EU work. Thefourdotelipsis (talk) 23:58, October 21, 2013 (UTC)
    • How's that? 501st dogma(talk) 19:51, October 23, 2013 (UTC)
What's a yeah yeah yeah?
  • It's not necessary... to source anything in the "Appearances" section. The entire section is self-sourcing; it says "Here is everything that appeared in Preparing for War" without the additional referencing to Preparing for War. I know that self-sourcing statements in "Behind the scenes" sections are often sourced, but I'd argue against doing so in this case, since it adds a clunky 50+ numbers to the "Notes and references" section. Sourcing Appearances sections should, I think, be reserved for canceled products like Blood Oath.
    • I agree. I only sourced the Mid Rim in the appearances in the beginning because he was not mentioned by name in the scenario, though StarForge Station falls within that area. However, once I had one thing sourced, it was requested that I have the entire thing sourced at its GA nom. I'd be glad to remove it all, but I would like to retain the reffing for the Mid Rim. Is that okay?
      • Yeah, definitely. If it requires another source, then it seems like the right move. Maybe make ref [4] an explanatory note? A sentence explaining that Scum and Villainy establishes that this sector is in the Mid Rim or something? Just in case the ref confuses anyone. Menkooroo (talk) 01:58, November 4, 2013 (UTC)
        • There. 501st dogma(talk) 18:24, November 5, 2013 (UTC)
  • "In 0 ABY, some of the crew of the Imperial EF76 Nebulon-B escort frigate mutinies..." The words Far Orbit should be in there somewhere, shouldn't they?
    • Whooops. ADDED.
  • Also, since the mutiny occurs before Preparing for War begins, I think that present perfect tense would be better to describe what comes before the adventure begins --- that is, "have mutinied" instead of "mutiny." That kind of tense is, I think, best for describing a background to what happens before the plot actually begins. Using past tense for background events makes it seem like they happen within the actual story.
    • There you go.
  • "The last test has the characters try to plot an emergency navigation course in a minute on a datapad." "Characters" sounds like a pretty out-of-universe descriptor; since we're still in the plot summary, I recommend calling them something more IU.
    • Killed characters, added applicants.
  • "Of the two options that can occur when the Far Orbit is looking for the station, either one works, though since the option where the Y-wings find the Far Orbit first is more likely to happen, that one is considered canon." Considered by who? Also: "this possibility is deemed non-canon" - deemed by who? If this isn't explicitly stated in the source, then I think you should word the sentences with less definitive statements ("This article assumes," etc). Right now, it's confusing as to why the article is making these definitive judgments on continuity.
    • How's that?
      • Perfect. Just one question: "since the option where the Y-wings find the Far Orbit first is more likely to happen..." Where does this info come from? If it's from the adventure itself, can you make that clear? Menkooroo (talk) 01:58, November 4, 2013 (UTC)
        • There, tis done.
  • I think the "Continuity" section needs to better explain that some characters are controlled by the RPG players; which characters actually can be controlled by the players; and just what a "fringe character" is. Right now, the concept of a "fringe character" comes out of nowhere. It's a little confusing as to why certain things are happening, but I think you could make it clearer by making explicit references to the players, to the gamemaster, to what their roles in the adventure are, what kinds of characters they can play, how they can influence things, etc.
    • Is that any better? I failed to mention the gamemaster, but I think I cleared up some of the player controlled issues.
      • Yeah yeah yeah. I added a tiny bit about the non-fringers playing from the beginning; let me know if it's accurate. Menkooroo (talk) 01:58, November 4, 2013 (UTC)
        • Looks good.
  • Any other images from the scenario? Any non-canon ones or anything that would be relevant to the "Continuity" section? Any non-canon quotes that could lead off that section?
    • Nope.
  • In the intro: "As one of the eight scenarios released in The Far Orbit Project, it followed the adventures of the Far Orbit, an Alliance to Restore the Republic privateering frigate, as it operated against the Galactic Empire whilst in the Ringali Shell, which was in the Core Worlds." This reads as if Preparing for War does all that, but I think you actually mean The Far Orbit Project.
    • Well, Preparing for War does cover those issues, so I think it can stay as it is.
      • I thought it was in the Mid Rim? The description of the Ringal Shell and the Core Worlds isn't about Preparing for War, is it? Menkooroo (talk) 01:58, November 4, 2013 (UTC)
        • Since The StarForge Station scenario occurs in the Mid Rim, I've changed it "in and around the Shell...". 501st dogma(talk) 19:52, November 5, 2013 (UTC)
          • The sentence is still incorrect. "As one of the eight scenarios released in The Far Orbit Project, it follows the adventures of the Far Orbit, an Alliance to Restore the Republic privateering frigate, as it operates against the Galactic Empire whilst in and around the Ringali Shell, which is in the Core Worlds." That sentence says that Preparing for War follows the Far Orbit's adventures in and around the Ringali Shell, which is in the Core Worlds. Preparing for War doesn't do that; it takes place entirely within the Mid Rim and doesn't deal with the Ringali Shell at all. That sentence is still incorrectly applying a description of the entire Far Orbit Project to Preparing for War and needs to be re-worded. The stuff about the core worlds and the Ringali Shell is also intro-exclusive intro and should be put into the article proper, maybe the "Development" section as a description of The Far Orbit Project. Menkooroo (talk) 00:49, November 8, 2013 (UTC)
            • How is that? Intro no longer has any mention of the Shell, while I've added mention of it in the Development. 501st dogma(talk) 13:31, November 8, 2013 (UTC)
  • There's no set rule on tense for this kind of thing, but... I think that present tense would make more sense than past tense for some of the sentences in the intro and in "Development." For example: "The Far Orbit Project was a sequel of sorts" --- it still is a sequel and hasn't stopped being one. "it followed the adventures of the Far Orbit" --- it still does if you read it today. You see present tense used like this all the time on Wikipedia --- see Forrest Gump, for example. "Forrest Gump is a 1994 American epic romantic comedy-drama film," "The story depicts several decades in the life of Forrest Gump," "The film differs substantially from Winston Groom's novel on which it is based," "the film primarily focuses on the first eleven chapters of the novel," etc. Does this make sense? Menkooroo (talk) 11:24, October 27, 2013 (UTC)
    • How's that? Thanks for looking it over. 501st dogma(talk) 13:10, October 27, 2013 (UTC)
  • Sorry for the long delay. I've looked over the article again and I have just two (I swear!) last objections. In the "Continuity" section:
    • "Although it is up to the players of the scenario to choose which non-player fringe characters can join this article assumes that all of the characters that the scenario gives as examples are chosen. This is because some of them take part in some of the turmoil that happens between the mutineers and the aliens later on, such as Gruk and Kanarak." This statement doesn't seem to fit with the earlier Plot summary section. Nowhere in the plot summary does it say that all of the fringe characters are chosen --- it says things like "After the Far Orbit has received enough crew" and "One or more of the following can occur." It doesn't seem like the article actually does assume that every fringe character joins the crew. I think that statement should be excised from the "Continuity" section.
      • Well, as general precedent, I've stated in other articles that all of the those fringers got in, just to simplify things, and not pick and choose who is worthy.
        • For other articles, sure, but would anything in this particular article be affected by not making that assumption? In the articles on The Far Orbit Project's later scenarios, it would make sense to say "This article assumes that all of the fringers joined back in Preparing for War," but in this article itself, it doesn't seem like it makes a difference. Ditto "the option where the fight is still happening as Vedij returns is considered the canon option here" --- is it really? The rest of the article doesn't reflect this statement. It seems like an arbitrary assumption. It doesn't seem like there's a reason to make that assumption at all.

          Do you understand what I mean? Articles on future scenarios may operate under certain assumptions, but this article doesn't seem like it actually does. This article is just on Preparing for War and shouldn't worry about what assumptions are made in other scenarios; those assumptions should be left for the articles on those other scenarios themselves. I think the only assumptions that should be made here are the ones that make a difference between a canon mission and a non-canon doomed mission. In other words, it doesn't seem like the article actually needs to choose a canonical outcome to the fight --- any of the three would work fine. It also doesn't seem like the article actually needs to choose a canonical number of fringers who join the Far Orbit's crew. Menkooroo (talk) 01:39, November 25, 2013 (UTC)
          • Clarification, in case that was confusing (it probably was): If the assumption of how something plays out is an arbitrary assumption, then I don't think an assumption needs to be made at all. It would be fine to just say "Any of the outcomes work." A character article' Biography may sometimes need to arbitrarily choose one outcome, but this article doesn't. Make sense? Menkooroo (talk) 01:56, November 25, 2013 (UTC)
            • Think I get it. How is that?
              • P-p-perfect. I are satisfied. Menkooroo (talk) 23:42, November 25, 2013 (UTC)
    • Can you introduce the concept of player characters earlier in the "Continuity" section? If you establish right off the bat that different situations are based off of different player/gamemaster choices, then it will be clear as crystal why there are multiple outcomes. Currently, the fact that there are player characters at all isn't mentioned until halfway through the section, and it's not really clear why different outcomes are possible --- until the article establishes that there are people playing through the adventure and affecting its outcome, only the two mentions of the word "roleplaying game" are there to identify Preparing for a War as anything other than a linear story. I'd like to see "Continuity" make it clear that it's not a linear story, and that players are dictating how it proceeds, right from the beginning. Menkooroo (talk) 03:55, November 21, 2013 (UTC)
      • How is that? 501st dogma(talk) 01:35, November 22, 2013 (UTC)
        • Much better. However, I wonder if the paragraph that begins with "Fringe characters, who are controlled by the players..." would be a better paragraph to lead the "Continuity" section. Right from the beginning, establish who in the scenario can be controlled by the players (fringers as well as Far Orbit crewmembers). Currently, that explanation comes after the fringe-player-characters are already introduced, which seems a little belated. Menkooroo (talk) 01:39, November 25, 2013 (UTC)
          • Now? 501st dogma(talk) 22:05, November 25, 2013 (UTC)
Toprawa
  • As a preliminary objection, the article's main image is pretty crappy. I realize you probably copied that from a pdf file, but I would be embarrassed to showcase that on the Main Page. The black shading should be whitened out, as should the little trim of black in the upper left-hand corner. Your best bet would be to ask someone with image skillz to do this if you are unable to do so yourself. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 21:25, January 13, 2014 (UTC)
    • Done, at nominator's request. Replaced it with a better scan. No blurring to the right side either. - JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 04:57, January 15, 2014 (UTC)
  • I want to make sure that The Far Orbit Project can actually be used as a source for the 0 ABY date. Can you confirm this?
    • Yes, the crew receives news of the destruction of Alderaan, which helps spark the mutiny that occurs before this scenario.
  • I'm curious why you chose the subheading "Let's shop at the market." I find it a little too informal for our purposes.
    • I've changed it here, but I seem to remember Cav using quite a few informal subheadings for Stevan Makintay.
  • I'm not sold on the need to use the bulleted list in the "Turmoil" section. You found a way to "prosify" a similar list in "Outcomes of the fight"; why not do the same here?
    • It was the best way be able to list all of them, and then state that one or more could occur. I seem to remember asking someone on IRC, and they said that it was alright doing it like that. 501st dogma(talk) 01:00, January 17, 2014 (UTC)
      • We don't have a formal policy on this, but I'm sure you can understand the need to avoid lists like this whenever possible. This may prove to be an exception to the rule, but I hope you don't make this a habit. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 06:52, January 19, 2014 (UTC)
  • The "Continuity" section makes two references to an outcome "working." I don't understand what that means, that it "works." Please clarify.
    • There.
  • Reference 1 cannot be used to source the entire final paragraph of the "Continuity" section. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 07:38, January 16, 2014 (UTC)
    • Done. Thanks for the review. 501st dogma(talk) 21:23, January 17, 2014 (UTC)
      • That's not proper referencing. Please learn and adapt your future articles to our policy on referencing sourcebook editions. You should also use CSWECite. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 06:52, January 19, 2014 (UTC)
        • Fixed the edition problem. As for CSWEcite, would it not be more appropriate to just do it the way I have it? The Far Orbit is mentioned in multiple entries. Or should I do the CSWECite with the page number, entry name, and volume fields blank? 501st dogma(talk) 13:57, January 19, 2014 (UTC)
          • The fact that it appears in other entries is rather extraneous here. Simply populating the template with the Far Orbit entry data would suffice for the statement it is sourcing. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 07:14, January 20, 2014 (UTC)
            • Done.
  • And now that I read this sentence again, it states that the Far Orbit appears in multiple later "works," implying more than just CSWE. Therefore, the CSWE reference alone cannot be used to source that statement. You should include other ref notes with whatever these later works are. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 07:18, January 20, 2014 (UTC)
    • Added two more refs. 501st dogma(talk) 23:37, January 20, 2014 (UTC)
Cadeth
  • My only real thing is the headings for the Outcomes. Are they necessary? I think it'd look a lot cleaner if they were removed, and the Locating and Signing sections were then two paragraphs. Thoughts? Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 18:22, February 12, 2014 (UTC)
    • Pow. 501st dogma(talk) 20:27, February 12, 2014 (UTC)

Comments

Approved as a Featured article by Inquisitorius 20:29, February 12, 2014 (UTC)