Wookieepedia:Featured article nominations/Sacking of Coruscant

< 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.

Sacking of Coruscant

(4 Inqs/2 Users/6 Total)

Support

  1. Inqvote IFYLOFD (Floyd's crib) 00:42, April 26, 2011 (UTC)
  2. Great book. Malgus is definitely a complex character.--ID-21 Dolphin DolphinJedi(Talk) 20:36, June 11, 2011 (UTC)
  3. Inqvote CC7567 (talk) 20:03, June 22, 2011 (UTC)
  4. Inqvote --Eyrezer 11:30, July 30, 2011 (UTC)
  5. A long read, but a good one. Kilson(Let's have a chat) 17:06, July 30, 2011 (UTC)
  6. Inqvote A fantastic job on a complex and multi-sourced event. I was particularly impressed with the character bios, which, rather than just rehash already-stated info, gave unique insights into their motivations and let us know what happened to them after the war. Menkooroo 01:03, August 5, 2011 (UTC)

Object

Floyd:
  • Intro: "After decades of fighting, the Republic was overwhelmed and heavily inundated" Inundated with what?
  • Intro: "Although it brought an end to the Great Galactic War and returned the capital to its original occupants, the treaty set the stage for the Cold War" How did it set the stage for the Cold War? Clarify.
  • Prelude: "Ultimately, the Mandalorian gambit failed" A little context on how it failed is needed.
    • Done.
  • "Zallow was able to defend against Malgus for a time and avoid many of his attacks, but the Jedi eventually fell to the Sith, who thrust his lightsaber through Zallow's abdomen." The wording at the end is somewhat unclear, as it seems that you are referring to the two groups as a whole, rather than just the individuals Zallow and Malgus. Please change; something like "the Jedi Master fell to the Sith Lord", or however you see fit.
  • In the second paragraph of the "long road back" section, the word "downtrodden" is used in consecutive sentences. Please vary your word choice.
  • That's all. Great work. IFYLOFD (Floyd's crib) 23:27, April 24, 2011 (UTC)
Attack of the Clone
  • "While the Jedi Council urged caution": to clarify, is this the Jedi High Council (or can it be assumed that it was)?
    • It's never specified—in fact, there's no indication that there are even multiple councils at this time (the Order's organization changes from time to time, and it's not been fully fleshed out here yet). So does that mean it was the High Council? I'm not sure, it's only ever been called the "Jedi Council" in media. I think it's a safe assumption, but if you or anyone else has a problem with that, I can change it back
      • It's fine with me; I assumed that it was the High Council on my own. :P CC7567 (talk) 02:52, June 18, 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't normally ask this, but you might consider making a template for the TOR site (maybe call it {{TORCite}}?) similar to {{LucasArtsCite}} or {{SW}}. The only reason I ask is because 1) it'll make things look prettier, and 2) it's a good way to avoid having to use {{WebCite}} for all of those citations to various parts of the TOR site. :P Otherwise, all of those non-templated citations will have to be fitted into {{WebCite}}, which—although comprehensive—can be a real pain to use. Let me know if you need help with this, but you can take a look at the aforementioned templates for ideas about how to format it.
    • I've been considering this, but haven't really gotten around to it, given that we have one for The Holonet already. I'll give it a test or two and ask your opinion before I make it official.
      • Sure thing. CC7567 (talk) 02:52, June 18, 2011 (UTC)
        • I've created the template at {{TORweb}}. I used the same image as the {{Holonet}} template, but I intend to change that one to a picture more specific to the holonet. Tell me what you think. I've put it in the sources list for now, and I'll implement it in the references later today. Darth Trayus(Trayus Academy) 11:06, June 21, 2011 (UTC)
  • In the beginning of "Preparing the endgame," can you provide some context on Angral and Malgus? I know that it seems rather obvious that they're Sith Lords, but it's always better to cater a little more to the reader when it comes to context. Saying that they were Sith Lords will be fine.
    • Done.
  • Is it "drop ship" or "dropship"? I believe both are canonically correct, but please choose one for consistency.
    • Sources split the words, so it's been altered to that in the article.
  • Similarly, is it "Republic Military" or "Republic military"? The article is also rather inconsistent with these references.
    • Military. I've fixed those.
  • "While Tavus and several Coruscant Security forces": something's not reading right here, since "forces" isn't usually a term for a unit of a specific quantity ("several"). Please clarify.
    • Switched to "personnel".
  • What exactly was the reasoning for splitting the Duel in the ruins of the Jedi Temple and the Skirmish in Liston Spaceport into separate articles from the parent article (this one)? If they were entirely different conflicts, they're fine the way they are, but otherwise, the splitting of the same conflict into multiple articles is normally discouraged because it creates several articles about the same topic. Please clarify. Also, not specifically related to the Sacking, but the Skirmish article's title leaves out the "the" before "Liston Spaceport," which I'm not sure is correct—please see what you can do to address the inconsistency, since the Sacking article incorporates this article.
    • I could really go either way on this issue. I didn't create those additional articles, and I do feel like they could/should be redirected to this one. I kind of see it as more of a "Duel on the Invisible Hand" situation than a "Duel on Death Star II" situation, if you know what I mean, but I wasn't adamant enough about it to redirect both to this article. I would leave this one up to the Inq, but my heart goes towards redirects. And in reference to the Liston Spaceport thing: I only included "the" that single time because I was referring to "the Liston Spaceport landing bay" and not the spaceport alone.
      • Ah, okay. I myself would encourage merging the articles, but if you'd like to ask other Inqs to weigh in (maybe Jon, even, since it looks like he was involved with the Liston Spaceport article), that's fine with me. CC7567 (talk) 02:52, June 18, 2011 (UTC)
        • According to Jon's reasoning here, I think the articles should be kept as is. It's a little difficult to explain without having read the book itself, but upon further consideration, this should be treated as more of a "Duel on Death Star II" situation as opposed to a "Duel on the Invisible Hand" situation. These duels were minor personal conflicts that occurred within the larger scope of the Sacking of Coruscant, and are important to the progression of the occupation, but aren't part of the event itself, due to different personal motivations. While all of the parties involved are still members of the factions participating in the occupation/resistance, these specific conflicts are smaller and separate. I've only included a small number of sentences in direct relation to them anyway, as they do warrant a mention here, but I don't go into any level of detail, so I think it should be okay. What do you think? Darth Trayus(Trayus Academy) 19:45, June 22, 2011 (UTC)
          • That's fine with me—I was just looking for that clarification bit. CC7567 (talk) 20:03, June 22, 2011 (UTC)
  • Were the Imperial commandos part of the battle and/or the occupation? They get mentioned in the article, but they got left out of the infobox for some reason.
    • My bad—added in.
  • Can you find a place to mention Roon Neele in the history part of the article? Currently he only gets referenced in "Notable participants," but it seems like he's also relevant to the battle itself.
    • I got his mention in there. He's not that notable, but i squeezed him in. :P
  • Please try to watch linking a little more next time; it was rather lacking in some places. Also, please remember to reload the infobox in articles; even though some fields will be left blank, this ensures that no important ones go unfilled. CC7567 (talk) 01:21, June 18, 2011 (UTC)

Comments

I know that this doesn't follow the conventional "Prelude" "The Battle" "Aftermath" formatting of most battle articles, but this one is kind of unique—the Sacking of Coruscant was both the invasion and the following occupation, so it had to be split up like so. Also, the LG indicates that this is allowed with the "Note: if something else of significance concerning the event is relevant, a section of its own can be created." clause. Thanks, and happy reviewing! Darth Trayus(Trayus Academy) 23:22, April 20, 2011 (UTC)

  • Oh, and this contains SPOILERS for all y'all who've not yet read Deceived. Darth Trayus(Trayus Academy) 23:24, April 20, 2011 (UTC)
  • I'ma review this thing this week :) But I have a question/comment for you before I do. As the TOR website is a relatively recent resource, it doesn't seem like any guidelines have been set out regarding what parts of it count as "Sources" for the Sources section. Last year, a CT we had on sw.com ruled that an article from that website only counted as a Source if it provided unique, canonical information. As you're the TOR trailblazer, I'd like you to consider what sorts of things from the TOR website should count as bona fide "Sources." Three items from this article's Sources section stick out to me as Sources that wouldn't be considered such if they were on sw.com: Concept art, a blog announcing the "Timeline" series, and a page that merely collects various other videos. Thoughts? Menkooroo 14:59, July 20, 2011 (UTC)
    • I see what your saying, but I always saw the CT as a referendum on the inclusion of articles that served primarily as previews or advertisements for upcoming products (although one could claim that all of swtor.com is an advert for an upcoming product...). I seem to remember it was born out of an issue with the Cad Bane article, wherein it originally included every SW.com article that mentioned or pictured him—even those that were in regards to exceedingly minor things, like French TCW advertising campaigns. As far as the first link you provided (the concept art), this is in my view the best I can do for this instance without a physical art book, like The Art of Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith. While the link does not provide unique canon information, it does provide unique developmental/production information that is not currently offered anywhere else. The same can be said for the timeline article, which also offers unique information on the development of the Sacking. The text between the collected videos is also unique, and adds a few tidbits of information that are not mentioned elsewhere in canon. I've even used all of these links as references from the article's body itself. While I would agree with you if this were an instance of, say, me putting this article as a source for either Darth Malgus or Satele Shan, this situation is considerably different. If you still have concerns however, I would be more than happy to discuss them with you on either talk pages or emails, if only to avoid such winding discussions here. Thanks, and let me know what you think. Darth Trayus(Trayus Academy) 06:30, July 22, 2011 (UTC)
      • That all sounds good. I just wanted to make sure you were thinking about it. If I had read the article first and had seen the citations to those three, I could have saved myself some embarrassment. :P Anyway, time to start reviewing this! Menkooroo 12:43, July 25, 2011 (UTC)

Approved as a Featured article by Inquisitorius 01:03, August 5, 2011 (UTC)