Wookieepedia:Featured article nominations/Snoova

< 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.

Snoova

  • Nominated by: ~SavageBOB sig 06:49, May 24, 2011 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: The anti-Wookiee, great character to end my barn-burning with.

(4 Inqs/2 Users/6 Total)

Support

  1. Inqvote --Eyrezer 20:58, May 25, 2011 (UTC)
  2. Inqvote IFYLOFD (Floyd's crib) 00:26, May 30, 2011 (UTC)
  3. Inqvote Hooray! Menkooroo 05:49, June 16, 2011 (UTC)
  4. Kilson(Let's have a chat) 10:39, June 16, 2011 (UTC)
  5. Madclaw. –Tm_T (Talk) 20:47, June 17, 2011 (UTC)
  6. Inqvote Wild Irish Rose.—Tommy 9281 Sunday, June 19, 2011, 02:00 UTC

Object

Floyd:
  • You have a tendency in the body to start off paragraphs rather choppily. Please fix.
  • "By 3 ABY, Snoova was well-known and the most famous Wookiee bounty hunter in the galaxy." This is worded rather awkwardly, as saying that he was the most famous Wookiee bounty hunter in the galaxy makes saying that he was well-known redundant. Maybe something like "he was well-known, to the point that he was the most famous Wookiee bounty hunter" would be better, but do as you see fit.
  • Well done. IFYLOFD (Floyd's crib) 00:36, May 27, 2011 (UTC)
    • Well, if it was good enough for Hemingway… ;) How's that? (And thanks or the review!) ~SavageBOB sig 05:06, May 28, 2011 (UTC)
Jefferson
  • Is the statement "For the remainder of his career" in the intro accurate? It seems to suggest that we know something about his death or the end of his career, but as we don't, it seems like speculation.
  • Is there any way you can standardize the paragraph size in the intro a little more? Three paragraphs of comparable size might be a little more eye-pleasing than a giant middle one surrounded by two tiny brothers.
  • In the bio, Snoova isn't named as a Wookiee, either directly or indirectly, until the second paragraph. The first paragraph says that he's a native of Kashyyyk, homeworld of the Wookiee species, and that he lives in Wookiee society, but that could also apply to Saun Dann. Why not just outright identify his species from the get-go?
  • "At some point in his past" --- His past relative to what? A timeline hasn't been established yet. Even then, the bio should really be told chronologically. Maybe something like "At some point prior to blah blah blah" or even "At some point in his life" that keeps the narrative moving forward rather than backtracking.
  • Should Asteria get a mention in the infobox's affiliation field?
    • All above addressed (I think). ~SavageBOB sig 15:14, June 15, 2011 (UTC)
  • A bit of context on the Death Star is needed. Even just two words identifying what it is and who it belongs to.
    • I just axed it as unnecessary. ~SavageBOB sig 15:14, June 15, 2011 (UTC)
  • In the bts, everything is sourced save for the final sentence --- any reason for the omission? Even if it's self-sourcing, so are a lot of the other statements, so it's probably best to keep it consistent.
    • Should be self-sourcing, but extra numbers never hurt anyone. ~SavageBOB sig 15:14, June 15, 2011 (UTC)
  • Is his action figure really enough to state that he "often" wore a pauldron and a short cape? Or even at all? The figure is Chewbacca, after all, not Snoova.
    • Well, the disguise is supposed to be one of Snoova's actual uniforms that Guri provides, but I've tried to establish the two elements separately from visual depictions, etc. Take a look.
      • I really dislike references that contain multiple sources, and I know I'm not the only one. I think a better course of action might be to just choose two of those sources and ref both of them (as they're all already-existing refs). Sticking with one source per reference makes everything simpler and easier, IMO. Thoughts? Menkooroo 15:25, June 15, 2011 (UTC)
        • The difference from Shadowsuit is that, there, Skippy was trying to indicate that certain sources all contained the same information. The same is sort of true here, but the difference is that I'm making an inference based on commonality between sources when none has outright said, "Snoova often wore a pauldron." In other words, with Shadowsuit, the sources explicitly said the same things over and over, but here, I'm trying to show that a fact that has never been explicitly stated can still be inferred from commonalities in pictures of Snoova. I'd be happy to change it to just two or three ref tags in a row, but that removes the possibility of including the explanatory note that explains the logical conclusion that I've drawn. Is that sufficient referencing in this case? ~SavageBOB sig 22:38, June 15, 2011 (UTC)
          • That'd be sufficient, yeah. Statements like "he often did this" or "he demonstrated this on more than one occasion" don't really require an explanatory note if there's more than one ref, ya know? The fact that there's more than one ref is, essentially, the explanation. Does that make sense? I do see the difference between this and Shadowsuit, yeah, so it probably wasn't the best comparison to make on my part. Menkooroo 04:56, June 16, 2011 (UTC)
            • OK, I think that'll work. ~SavageBOB sig 05:47, June 16, 2011 (UTC)
  • Good work. I had that toy! Menkooroo 05:20, June 15, 2011 (UTC)
    • Thanks! And thanks for the review. :) ~SavageBOB sig 15:14, June 15, 2011 (UTC)
Tm_T
  • In the first paragraph of the Bio there's fighting claws when rest of the article talks about climbing claws, so which is it?
  • with {{Gamemechanics}}, please define the game within the template, like {{Gamemechanics|The Game}} (uh, is this considered $sofixit?) –Tm_T (Talk) 20:04, June 17, 2011 (UTC)
    • Ah, I had no idea that "Gamemechanics" worked like that. I've tried to comply, but I'm having some trouble with the template. Take a look and "sofixit" if you can help. :P ~SavageBOB sig 20:18, June 17, 2011 (UTC)
      • Template wasn't made that kind of usecase in mind, interesting, fixored it now. –Tm_T (Talk) 20:47, June 17, 2011 (UTC)
        • Great, thanks for the help, and for the template surgery! :) ~SavageBOB sig 20:49, June 17, 2011 (UTC)
Have you seen Kelly?
  • Please use the appropriate WEG|Shadows of the Empire Sourcebook template.—Tommy 9281 Sunday, June 19, 2011, 01:04 UTC
    • Isn't that template only for WEG adventures and not for general sourcebooks? I've seen folks object to the template's overuse in other noms, so I thought I'd check. And thanks for the copy edit, as always. ~SavageBOB sig 01:25, June 19, 2011 (UTC)

Comments