- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a featured article nomination that was successful. Please do not modify it.
Sagoro Autem
(5 Inqs/0 Users/5 Total)
Support
The first of my summer noms. Havac 23:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)- Cull Tremayne 02:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thefourdotelipsis 10:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Imperialles 14:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)- Lord Hydronium 03:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose
- A few things:
Punctuation: Em dashes are surrounded by spaces. Remove the spaces.Quotes: Remove excessive links.BTS: "The single instance of blue eyes is likely considered a coloring error." Likely considered? Reword this.BTS: "In Loyalties, Autem's depiction bears a striking resemblance to actor Bruce Willis, who may have been used as photo reference. Willis's likeness has also been seemingly replicated for Kam Solusar in Star Wars: Union." Original research. Remove or provide a source.BTS: "Autem's reference to being backstabbed by a Devaronian may have been intended to be a nod to another Ostrander character, the duplicitous Vilmarh Grahrk. Whether the Devaronian was in fact Grahrk is undetermined." Again, original research.- Have a super day. --Imperialles 13:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm going to have someone run a bot to remove spaces around em dashes. So that will be fixed sometime shortly. I like to make sure that, when a person looks at a quote, they don't have to go digging around the first section of the article for a link. I like quotes to stand on their own, just like image captions. But if you want to enforce your personal stylistic preferences across the wiki, fine. They're changed. BTS reworded. Source already provided: Loyalties. Anyone with eyes can see that Autem looks like Willis. This isn't exactly "Autem is a representation of man's internal racism" here. That's the original research we're supposed to outlaw. Drawing very basic, fundamentally obvious connections is not banned by the original research prohibition. See the next. Never explicitly stated, but it immediately jumps out as a likely in-joke reference, and is worth noting as such, simply saying for the reader, "This may be an in-joke reference to this other character that the author writes, but don't think that it's actually established canon that it is the other character." I see no reason to remove it. Havac 17:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- The quote thing has nothing to do with my personal stylistic preference. It's policy. See WP:MOS. The two sentences in BTS qualify as original research per WP:ATT. --Imperialles 18:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- I quite deliberately checked WP:MOS, and the quote linking is only in regard to links within the quotes themselves, not the attribution of the quotes. And as for original research, those rules are ported directly from Wikipedia. Wikipedia, unlike Wookieepedia, is about real-world topics, every one of which has had some person, somewhere, write a book about. Just about any analysis they want to provide can be sourced from a book. There are, unless I am mistaken, no books available which analyze Republic comics in-jokes. That's why I've brought up NOR for the next Mofference's agenda. Can we agree to leave this matter until then? Havac 18:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- The MOS makes no distinction between the quotes themselves and the quote attributions. Very well, I'll drop the OR issue until then. --Imperialles 18:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- FWIW, it's always been my perception that BTS items did not always need to be cited, since some speculation is perfectly safe (the injoke in this case qualifies, provided it is phrased as "maybe"). The Bruce Willis thing seems more "out there." I say that not because I can't recall seeing an Autem picture that looked like Willis to me, but because it comes with less direct evidence. Gonk (Gonk!) 20:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- Read Loyalties -- there are several frames where it looked like he drew over a picture of Willis. Even in the three last images in the article, you should be able to see some similarities. Havac 20:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- FWIW, it's always been my perception that BTS items did not always need to be cited, since some speculation is perfectly safe (the injoke in this case qualifies, provided it is phrased as "maybe"). The Bruce Willis thing seems more "out there." I say that not because I can't recall seeing an Autem picture that looked like Willis to me, but because it comes with less direct evidence. Gonk (Gonk!) 20:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- The MOS makes no distinction between the quotes themselves and the quote attributions. Very well, I'll drop the OR issue until then. --Imperialles 18:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- I quite deliberately checked WP:MOS, and the quote linking is only in regard to links within the quotes themselves, not the attribution of the quotes. And as for original research, those rules are ported directly from Wikipedia. Wikipedia, unlike Wookieepedia, is about real-world topics, every one of which has had some person, somewhere, write a book about. Just about any analysis they want to provide can be sourced from a book. There are, unless I am mistaken, no books available which analyze Republic comics in-jokes. That's why I've brought up NOR for the next Mofference's agenda. Can we agree to leave this matter until then? Havac 18:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- The quote thing has nothing to do with my personal stylistic preference. It's policy. See WP:MOS. The two sentences in BTS qualify as original research per WP:ATT. --Imperialles 18:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm going to have someone run a bot to remove spaces around em dashes. So that will be fixed sometime shortly. I like to make sure that, when a person looks at a quote, they don't have to go digging around the first section of the article for a link. I like quotes to stand on their own, just like image captions. But if you want to enforce your personal stylistic preferences across the wiki, fine. They're changed. BTS reworded. Source already provided: Loyalties. Anyone with eyes can see that Autem looks like Willis. This isn't exactly "Autem is a representation of man's internal racism" here. That's the original research we're supposed to outlaw. Drawing very basic, fundamentally obvious connections is not banned by the original research prohibition. See the next. Never explicitly stated, but it immediately jumps out as a likely in-joke reference, and is worth noting as such, simply saying for the reader, "This may be an in-joke reference to this other character that the author writes, but don't think that it's actually established canon that it is the other character." I see no reason to remove it. Havac 17:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
My only suggestion is to reiterate in the P&T how Autem did bend the law to keep his children out of trouble. It needs to be there as info that Autem did not in fact always put the Republic first. Other than that, the article is very good. That's all I've got. Hobbes15(Tiger Headquarters) 05:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)- Addressed. Havac 06:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Comments