Wookieepedia:Featured article nominations/Raid on the Iziz Royal Palace

< 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.

Raid on the Iziz Royal Palace

  • Nominated by: -- Tommy9281 11:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: Damsel in distress.

(5 Inqs/1 Users/6 Total)

Support

  1. Inqvote So that's where you've been lately... Chack Jadson (Talk) 21:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
  2. Inqvote Greyman(Talk) 15:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
  3. Inqvote Thefourdotelipsis 23:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  4. Inqvote -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 15:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  5. NaruHina Talk Anakinsolo 03:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  6. Inqvote — Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 23:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Object

  1. From the physics homework Chack Jadson is not doing right now:
    • Bit too much PBP in intro
      • Really? I left out maaad details in the intro. Care to assist?—Tommy9281 Red lightsaber (Peace is a lie) 00:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
        • Just "As Ulic Qel-Droma stepped forward to offer the protection of both the Galactic Republic and the Jedi Order to the Queen". I feel that this could be rephrased a tad. I dislike the "stepped forward" bit. Chack Jadson (Talk) 19:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
          • Addressed.
    • "For 400 years" Is this an exact date? if so, link.
      • Addressed.
    • Your " seem to be off in the quotes (no spaces are necessary).
      • Addressed.
    • "Sounds of blaster fire could be heard in the background as Novar answered the comlink from the defense towers." A bit too flowery.
      • Addressed.
    • "Ulic Qel-Droma arrived at that same moment with proud stories of how the Riders he had engaged in battle met their demise, but was quickly silenced by the sight a distressed Amanoa." I don't think this is necessary.
      • Addressed.
    • "laughing ominously at the young, novice Jedi, awaiting their return." Same thing; I'd say this is unneeded.
      • Addressed.
    • "Veitch also used as the first official mission of his new characters Ulic and Cay Qel-Droma, and Tott Doneeta". Is a word missing?
      • Addressed.
    • Very nice Tommy. You've come a long way. I'm impressed. Chack Jadson (Talk) 23:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
  2. File:Iziz Royal Palace.jpg and File:PoorAmanoa.jpg are very low quality. Re-scan 'em. --Imperialles 10:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Addressed the first one, working on the second one.—Tommy9281 Red lightsaber (Peace is a lie) 12:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
      • The second one has also been addressed. Many thanks to JMAS, for the clean images. If still unsatisfactory, Imp, please advise, and I'll rectify.—Tommy9281 Red lightsaber (Peace is a lie) 01:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
    • The part where Jeth tells his apprentices of Onderon's history should be presented earlier in the piece, and not as something that Jeth speaks of, to remove that point of view aspect. Actually, that problem runs throughout the article, as you're telling this from the perspective of the Jedi. A more objective view would be desirable, where you wouldn't have to reveal what and who people are - just say who and what they are as soon as they appear. You should also talk about why Kira and Gobee are performing the raid, etc. Thefourdotelipsis 02:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
      • Still working on this, Fourdot. Should be good now, Fourdot. Please advise if more is required.—Tommy9281Dark Side Master TotG (Peace is a lie) 03:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
        • The problem still exists, since you "reveal" Kira and Gobee. "The Commandos, who were actually Beast-Lord Oron Kira and his second-in-command Gobee, easily dispatched the Protectors, and stormed the room where the Queen and her daughter were sequestered." - This should not be, and the characters should be introduced in the prelude section. Thefourdotelipsis 22:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
  3. From the underwater moffship of AdmirableAckbar:
    • Conjectural title? Additionally, and this isn't really a steadfast objection, but it looks odd having the article title at "Raid on the Iziz Royal Palace" and the bolded bit reading "Royal Palace of Iziz." I'd suggest swapping the "Royal Palace of Iziz" with the "Iziz Royal Palace" later on in the sentence for consistency.
      • Conjecture tag added, sentence swapped around. Greyman(Talk) 18:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
    • In the intro, it should state that the Jedi were trailed, then fired upon by the Beast Riders in chronological order. Additionally, the "arrival" should be clarified to state where they arrived to, since the last thing mentioned was the peace negotiations, but they hadn't actually arrived there yet.
      • addressed.
    • The intro needs a bit of reworking. The article's about the raid on the palace, not the Jedi's role in everything; if anything, the POV should be leaning towards the Beast Riders. As is, it reads like a summary, and only really four lines of it describe the actual raid itself. Also, "the Queen demanded that Ulic Qel-Droma and his companions have the Princess returned to her—at once" seems a little dramatic.
      • Addressed, I believe.
        • I'm not seeing too much difference. There's still essentially only four or five lines discussing the raid itself, with the rest detailing the background, and it still reads like a summary of the comic. Aside from the "preconceived plot" mention in the first sentence, the aim/point of the raid (kidnapping the princess) isn't stated until it happens. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 23:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
    • The "background" section should really start with a date rather than the "for four hundred years." "Between [approximately] whenever and whenever" would probably be better.
    • "As a test of their Jedi knighthood" reads a little awkwardly.
      • Addressed.
    • Per 4dot above on Jeth's brief. To be honest I don't think it's particularly relevant at all and would prefer to see it go completely, but if it has to stay it should be presented in chronological order.
      • Addressed.
    • "When the Nebulon Ranger entered the skies of Onderon, it was immediately set upon by what seemed to be a flock of giant birds flying in their path. After closer scrutiny, Tott Doneeta realized that what was thought to be birds were actually Beast Riders, determined on preventing the Jedi from reaching Iziz." Again, this is written completely from the POV of the Jedi and reads like a plot summary, which it shouldn't.
      • Addressed.
    • The Prelude section just reads like a summary of what's gone before the raid; while this is somewhat necessary and not a bad thing, there's no actual prelude for the raid itself. E.g. no planning, conception, nothing on the part of the Beast Riders.
      • Good point. Actually, this could be reworked to talk about the conception, planning, etc. from the perspective of the Beast Riders, and I'd very much like to do it that way. I'd like to catch up with you in IRC sometime to discuss this further. Please advise when you'll be around, and I'll make my best attempt to meet you. Thanks.—Tommy9281Dark Side Master TotG (Peace is a lie) 17:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
        • It should be good now.
    • Same problems re:POV with the "attack on the palace" subsection, and most of the first paragraph should be in the prelude section. And with "Galia's abduction" and per 4dot on the introduction of Kira and Gobee and the mention of the raid's purpose.
      • Addressed.
        • The "attack on the palace" subsection still suffers from the same problem, though it is marginally better now. But the "Her assumptions were cut short when a comlink transmission chimed in from the perimeter defenses, stating that the Beast Riders had overtaken the northern wall, and were en route to swarm the palace" stuff, again, is entirely from the POV of the Jedi/Amanoa, and some of the earlier stuff should be reworked. The stuff about the Beast Riders sneaking info out of Iziz - or the speculation - should be stated earlier on, and "the Queen remarked at her disappointment that lowly Jedi youths were sent to her aid, instead of an seasoned Jedi Master" should just say that Amanoa wasn't happy about it, rather than she said she wasn't happy about it. That's just one example of many in that paragraph. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 23:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
          • Most of that stuff I deemed unnecessary, and reworked it as it should be, I believe. Let me know if that's still no good.
    • The stuff about Veitch using the event for whatever purpose should come before the audio drama, unless its referring to that. If it is it's at least partially inaccurate since John Whitman wrote the actual scripts. Also, why does the ref note in the BtS link to [[Star Wars: Tales of the Jedi#Conception]]?
      • Because I couldn't figure out how to create a reference to the interview conducted by Greyman. I'd like some assistance int this area, if you don't mind.—Tommy9281Dark Side Master TotG (Peace is a lie) 02:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Addressed.—Tommy9281Dark Side Master TotG (Peace is a lie) 06:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Aside from a number of spelling errors and the like, this is a good article—however, it has a long way to go before it's more than simply a summary of the comic. Also, while normally I don't have a problem with it, passive voice is really overused in it. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 18:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  4. Toprawa:
  5. Tales of the Pasta Bowl:
    • "Because the couple knew that the Queen would not allow accept their union…" Which is it: Allow, accept, or both?
      • Addressed.
    • "The mounted warriors trailed the Jedi and attacked their starship, paying out blaster fire before the Knights could even land." Trailing implies that they are being stalked or followed closely. This does not jive for me with "before the Knights could even land" which implies that the Jedi had not even set foot on Onderon yet. Please reword this.
      • Addressed.
    • Second paragraph of the introduction: I am certain that it will make more sense to me when I read the entire article, but this paragraph is extremely confusing. At first, it is stated that the Jedi wanted to be involved, but then a description of a skirmish between the Jedi and Beast Riders is presented. Was the skirmish part of a diversion? Was it planned? Please connect these thoughts to clarify this paragraph.
      • Addressed.
    • "By the year 4,000 BBY, the Beast Riders managed to infiltrate the city and exchange information with its political underground." Is there any way to expand upon the infiltration? Were they simply trying to be civilian commoners? Was Kira among them? Also, what is "its" here: The Beast Rider group or the city?
      • Addressed.
    • "Realizing that the war with the Beast Riders was beyond their capability of winning…" "Their" is awkward in this instance, mostly because Amanoa, who is mentioned next, is a single individual. Can this be reworded?
      • Addressed.
    • "In response to a distress comlink from the Jedi's ship to the city, the Beast Riders' were repelled in their initial attack over Iziz's northern wall, suffering several casualties courtesy of the city's network of wall defenses." I see what is trying to be done, here, but could the reason for being repelled be reworded into the initial mention of it and then have the sentence broken apart into more concise, detailed ideas?
      • Addressed.
    • A few things thus far:
      • By this point in the Introduction, discussion of the Jedi wanting to be involved was mentioned. There is no mention of it in the "Background" section. Please rectify this, either in the background or the introduction.
        • Addressed.
      • Revisiting the Introduction again: "Through their underground contacts, the Beast Riders learned that the Jedi requested involvement and had used their arrival as the distraction they required to carry out their plan." First, the pronouns "their" and "they" are convoluted. Who is being referred to: Jedi or Beast Riders? First, please clarify this in the Introduction. Then, if it is the Jedi, then a large part of the Background needs to be rewritten to thread the Jedi angle into it. If it is the Beast Riders, please discuss, in the Background section, about the distraction. The words "distraction" or "opportunity" are not used in that section, but stated in the Introduction.
        • Addressed.
    • The first paragraph of the Aftermath is too short and unsourced.
      • Addressed.
    • The last paragraph of Aftermath is also too short.
      • Addressed.
    • I am pleased that the Tom Veitch interview is cited, but is there anything that can be gleaned from the Christian Gossett interview? Just a thought.
      • Addressed.
    • Additionally, is there nothing in The Complete Star Wars Encyclopedia about the event? Surely, there is something.
      • Let me know if you need help with this item. — Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 14:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
        • I was advised that nothing new was in the CSWE, but I'd gladly accept some assistance here if you've found something that I haven't. Thanks for offering, Master Fiolli.—Tommy9281Dark Side Master TotG (Peace is a lie) 16:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
          • I do not see anything "new," so to speak, but maybe some interesting wording.
    • There are many sources listed with no citations from them. While it is not a requirement, I would prefer that at least something be cited from most of them; especially the ones that are essential guides, or similar in function.
      • Addressed, though I will change a couple more when I get my source books back in hand.
        • To be honest, and it's not something I'd properly object about, but I find that completely pointless. I definitely don't see how it helps the article. If new information is provided in a source, then it can get a ref note, but shoehorning them in just so we have stuff referenced seems a waste of time. Like I said, it's not I'd object to you doing, but I disagree with Fiolli on that point. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 15:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
          • Perhaps I should have been more clear. This was not a direct objection, and, as Acky implied, it probably should not have been listed here. Although, I have seen and experienced such objections before. That said, there are a few sources that have select and specific information, such as the Guide to Planets and Moons. Sourcing something from a source such as that provides a reader to access the information quickly and easily without having to read through too many things. I am glad that a couple were added to the article. I believe it makes it easier for the reader and shows a more complete research. It also helps to verify that the information within that text has been covered, and allows me to consult it and confirm it with greater ease. Also, shoehorning them in—which I would not favor—was never the intent. Those that were added appear to have been added with ease and do not break the flow in any way whatsoever. Thank you for obliging, Tommy. — Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 14:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
            • Thanks again, Master Fiolli. I trust that this has been satisfied?—Tommy9281Dark Side Master TotG (Peace is a lie) 16:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
              • Yes, sir. It has. Thank you for indulging my nitpickiness.
    • — Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 16:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Approved as a Featured article by Inquisitorius 23:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Chack, was this supposed to be for the Raid on the Royal Palace article? If so, I've addressed each as you have stated. Thanks for the review!—Tommy9281 Red lightsaber (Peace is a lie) 00:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I am still working on this.—Tommy9281Dark Side Master TotG (Peace is a lie) 22:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Really good work with some of the objections, but others look a bit rushed, with words missing here and there and some of my points not seeming to get across. Anyway, I'm up to the objections until "Galia's abduction," I plan to reply to the rest soon. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 23:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)