Wookieepedia:Featured article nominations/Tarsus Valorum/Legends

< 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.

Tarsus Valorum

(5 Inqs/1 Users/6 Total/INQCON 5)

Support

  1. Not as catchy as "I believe in Harvey Dent", but "I believe in Tarsus Valorum". On a serious note, did a good job, Rhea. Look forward to going over your next FA nom.--Jedi Kasra (talk) 12:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  2. Inqvote Maybe not, Kasra; but the battle cry is "I believe in Brandon Rhea," no? — Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 01:57, September 4, 2009 (UTC)
  3. Inqvote Chack Jadson (Talk) 19:59, September 15, 2009 (UTC)
  4. Inqvote Sweet as for a first nom. -- —Harrar (Cut the comm chatter) 15:48, September 16, 2009 (UTC)
  5. Inqvote CC7567 (talk) 00:05, September 20, 2009 (UTC)
  6. Inqvote -- Darth Culator (Talk) 00:23, September 21, 2009 (UTC)

Object

  1. From the Pasta Bowl of Fiolli:
    • "A member and potentially the progenitor…" Is this speculation in-universe? If not, it needs to be removed.
      • Weird. I could've sworn it was in the New Essential Chronology. Looking back on it, it seems that it's not.
    • "Valorum secured the funds and Othone, before his death…" Whose death?
    • "Tarsus Valorum was a Human male born in 1,050 BBY on Coruscant…" The infobox states that he was born circa 1,050 BBY. These need to be reconciled. (Note: If it says he was fifty in 1,000 BBY it does not mean he was born in 1,050 BBY. That only means it was approximately that year. No different than someone being born in December of 1990 but being nine in August of 2000.)
    • "During the final days of the New Sith Wars, a galaxy-wide armed conflict…" This sentence is a run-on and is a little too convoluted.
    • "To this end, Valorum devised a series of Republic-wide reforms…" It is mentioned above (in the article) that he had already begun tinkering with these ideas from the time he rose to power. There is a disconnect with this statement which overtly implies that he started this work after the war ended.
    • "While the Senate was responsible for passing laws, Valorum wanted to ensure that he would have the support of the Order." Why? Is there a reason ever given in the text?
      • I added a brief reasoning at the end of the sentence. It's not a reasoning per say, but it's doable I think. It's also in the text (Page 98). - Brandon Rhea Alliance Starbird (talk) 17:40, September 1, 2009 (UTC)
    • The subheading "post-chancellorship" might be better served as something relating to diplomacy or diplomatic missions. I suggest this because the beginning of the first paragraph goes into the extension of his tenure through a second term and the pushing through of the reformations.
      • Changed to "Diplomatic efforts." I'm not really a fan of that name, so if you have any other suggestions that would be great. - Brandon Rhea Alliance Starbird (talk) 17:40, September 1, 2009 (UTC)
        • I understand, but it does appear more apt right now.
    • "…it did seemingly have drawbacks." Seemingly is a weasel word and needs clarification. Why did it "seem?" To whom did it "seem?" etc.
      • Well it seemed that way due to the information stated right after that. If that's still a weasel word because of it, I can't specify who it seemed to, but just saying it had drawbacks would probably be POV. Am I wrong in thinking that removing seemingly would make "drawbacks" POV? - Brandon Rhea Alliance Starbird (talk) 17:40, September 1, 2009 (UTC)
        • The two together is not of npov. Drawbacks alone boarders on it, in a way, as well. I understand what you are trying to say. I would put that it had something along the lines of 'unintended consequences' or 'ultimately fostered the very things it aimed to remove.' Something like that deflects away from a perception-based view. After all, the Trade Federation loved the reforms ultimately. — Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 01:46, September 4, 2009 (UTC)
    • "…a descendant of Tarsus Valorum…" This needs to be cited as it does not come from Episode I.
    • "…like many citizens of the Republic…" Is that from Rule of Two? It seems like an over-generalization that is not of npov.
    • Not a bad first FAN. Nice choice of individual, as well. — Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 16:02, September 1, 2009 (UTC)
      • Thanks. Your objections have been corrected, save for the one with "seemingly" due to my response (above) being a question. - Brandon Rhea Alliance Starbird (talk) 17:40, September 1, 2009 (UTC)
  2. Attack of the Clone
    • The chronology in "Early life" isn't working very well. You say that he was elected, then talk about the election, and then that he took the role after Farfalla declined. This can be organized better rather than just a jumble of redundant facts, which is what it basically is in its current state.
      • I personally don't see anything wrong with the way it is. It's giving context on the election. If you have a suggestion for how to improve it, though, I'll gladly do so. - Brandon Rhea Alliance Starbird (talk) 04:54, September 19, 2009 (UTC)
        • The context on the election essentially isn't stopping the paragraph from being choppy. If the chronology isn't currently set in stone (which is what I'm assuming), it could be worded something like this: "During the final days of the New Sith Wars, a galaxy-wide armed conflict between the Jedi Order and the Sith Brotherhood of Darkness, Valorum was a candidate for the office of the Supreme Chancellor of the Galactic Republic. Though Jedi Master Valenthyne Farfalla was in line to take the position, the Jedi declined in order to fight with the Army of Light during the Ruusan campaign, the last campaign of the war. With Farfalla out of the running, Valorum took up the mantle of leader of the Republic as the first non-Jedi Chancellor in over a hundred years." I would check to see if that's factually correct as well as if it suits you before you adopt it, though. CC7567 (talk) 07:00, September 19, 2009 (UTC)
          • Added that, albeit with a few tweaks. - Brandon Rhea Alliance Starbird (talk) 17:17, September 19, 2009 (UTC)
    • Please vary "representation".
      • Removed two, kept two. Did you want me to remove another or is it looking good now? - Brandon Rhea Alliance Starbird (talk) 04:54, September 19, 2009 (UTC)
    • "Beginning in 124 BBY, the Federation used its power to buy votes from poorer sectors. The Federation attempted to exploit this": please clarify what you're referring to with "this"; it sounds like the Federation is trying to exploit its own actions.
    • A very good read for a first-anything here. This last one isn't really an objection, but more a comment: would you consider implementing one or two relevant images in the article? It's a bit boring in that respect, and while this superficial element isn't a requirement, it may make it look better. CC7567 (talk) 03:09, September 19, 2009 (UTC)
      • Any relevant images you can think of? I'm not really familiar with the choices. - Brandon Rhea Alliance Starbird (talk) 04:54, September 19, 2009 (UTC)
        • You could try images of Farfalla, Bane, or even Coruscant. It can basically be anything related to Valorum...within reason, meaning that it should have some importance in its relevancy to him. CC7567 (talk) 07:00, September 19, 2009 (UTC)
          • IMO, none of those really seem relevant to him. A picture of Farfalla fighting, or a picture of Bane doing something, or an image of Coruscant doesn't really strike me as being relevant to Valorum. Unfortunately, any image of relevance to him, sans the infobox image, doesn't really exist from what I can tell. - Brandon Rhea Alliance Starbird (talk) 17:17, September 19, 2009 (UTC)

Comments

  • My first featured article nomination on Wookieepedia. Let ‘er rip. - Brandon Rhea Alliance Starbird (talk) 02:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Approved as a Featured article by Inquisitorius 00:23, September 21, 2009 (UTC)