Wookieepedia:Featured article nominations/The Written Word (second nomination)

< Wookieepedia:Featured article nominations
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a featured article nomination that was unsuccessful. Please do not modify it.

The Written Word

  • Nominated by: Thefourdotelipsis (talk) 02:11, October 15, 2013 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: How to brown-nose with the bureaucracy 101.

(0 Inqs/2 Users/2 Total)

Support

  1. Oh, crap, now that he's answered all of my objections, I have to support, don't I? Saved the most awkward part of this weirdness for the end. jSarek (talk) 11:30, October 26, 2013 (UTC)
  2. Objections satisfied for now, but the issue in the comments section remains open for discussion and may produce another objection later. —MJ— Council Chambers 00:23, October 27, 2013 (UTC)

Object

Reviewing this feels weird

Seriously, weird. I'm loath to edit articles regarding my own creations except in cases of extreme vandalism, so I'm not going to "sofixit" at all, but here are some issues I've noticed:

  • .Opening quote has double quotation marks within double quotation marks.
    • Fixed.
  • Hazlett's previous work was published under his screen name of "Ris_jSarek" - might want to double-check what the linked references actually have as my byline.
    • Well... there you go.
      • Though now the statement about The Essential Atlas that follows is incorrect. (I wish that changing my username at the JCF had been possible BEFORE the name check in the Atlas.)
  • Since the characters shown initially in Return of the Jedi translated into a meaningless repeating pattern - the offsite link in the main text should probably be converted into a note.
    • Done.
  • The idea of adapting an alphabet out of a logographic system was not without its basis in history: Sequoyah of the Cherokee used Latin characters when creating the Cherokee syllabary but associated them with entirely different sounds - since Latin isn't a logographic system, this needs to be reworded.
    • Indeed so. Does the current change work?
      • Indeed it does.
  • This ambiguity mirros [sic] that of the natue [sic] of Basic itself - No objection for you, but I'd like to go back in time and object strenuously at ME here. I guess my "R" key was being temperamental that day. Grr. Anyway, carry on.
    • Apologies for punishing you with [sic]s, but there you have it.
      • Kids, remember: proofreading is your friend.
  • Fan scrutiny of Darth Vader's armor revealed ... - Another main-text link.
    • Fixed.
  • ... clearly functioning vocal functions - less redundant wording might seem less redundant.
    • Fixed... perhaps.
      • I'd say so.
  • Continuity: since writing the article, several continuity wrinkles have appeared that ... complicate the article. The first is the examination of the Sith and writing system carried out in the Book of Sith: Secrets from the Dark Side and "Speak Like a Sith", which bears no obvious relation to either High Sith or Common Sith as described in "The Written Word." The other is the appearance of Aurebesh, by name, in the Dawn of the Jedi franchise; here is a JCF thread that covers this issue in a bit more detail.
    • Acknowledged. Your own thoughts are reflected of course. P
      • It's really hard to be objective on these things. I was about to say "my thoughts aren't that important," but thinking it over, if it were any other author, I'd say it's important Bts information. As I keep saying, so ... weird.
  • Speaking of JCF threads, I see that this article is still listed in Forum:SH:Cleaning up after the Jedi Council Forums move.
    • I believe that's done too. Though... I'm not sure that I did it right.
      • Looks like you did just fine. The only thing I'd suggest is providing an access date, but it's an optional parameter and a minor detail, so I'm not going to press for it.
  • Seriously, though. Weird. Thanks for making the Wook's coverage of my article top notch. :-) jSarek (talk) 09:20, October 20, 2013 (UTC)
    • Basically our coverage of your article is now better than our coverage of an EU mainstay like Streen. I don't know how we got to this point but there you go. Thefourdotelipsis (talk) 11:33, October 21, 2013 (UTC)
      • Such are the vagaries of our status articles. Again, my gratitude. jSarek (talk) 18:04, October 23, 2013 (UTC)
From the Council Chambers:
  • Overview: "The Written Word is a six page in-universe profile of all the various written languages used in the galaxy,": Do we know for sure that it covers "all" of them, as in every single writing system that has ever existed in-unverse over tens of thousands of years and thousands to millions of planets and cultures? If not, "several of the major" seems to be a more appropriate term.
    • Done.
  • Development: "Hazlett had served as an administrator on Wookieepedia": Context needed on Wookieepedia. Yes, I'm serious: because of our CC-BY-SA license, we can't assume that the reader will be reading this article here on Wookieepedia. They could be reading it on a site that mirrors or copies our content, or reading a printed copy, without having ever heard of Wookieepedia.
    • Indeed so; done.
  • Sith: "making the connection to the Hebrew letter "Aleph."": Since it is directly mentioned and extremely relevant to the topic being discussed, should the actual Hebrew letter be displayed in the prose are this point?
    • I've added that in—please let me know if you believe there's a better way of formatting it or feel free to tinker with that, as I'm not overly touchy about those things.
      • That's exactly how I would have done it. :)
  • Continuity: The lead quote for this section seems out of place, because the content of it is discussed in the section above, not in this section. Based on that, it seems to me that the quote should not be used here. A different quote that is more relevant to the content of this sections should be used instead.
    • Good point; I've changed that now.
  • Speaking of Forum:SH:Cleaning up after the Jedi Council Forums move, the JCF quote sources are still broken.
    • Gah! Sorry about that. Fixed now.
  • That concludes my objections, but please also see the comments section below. —MJ— War Room 19:41, October 26, 2013 (UTC)
El Jefe
  • Overview is unsourced.
  • I love the alliteration, but is "Segregating" really relevant to the content of the section? What exactly is being segregated? IFYLOFD (Enter the Floydome) 01:52, December 20, 2013 (UTC)

Comments

  • Original nomination from way back when in '67. I was the dandy of Gamma Chi, et cetera. I'm aware of the OOU LG, but that seems to be specifically for narrative works, which this isn't. Since it's without precedent though I'm a little bit unsure as to how to proceed, so I am very much open to discussion on what this should have and in what order. Thefourdotelipsis (talk) 02:11, October 15, 2013 (UTC)
    • My recommendation would be to put "Overview" first, similar to how Narrative works put their plot summaries first --- that is, telling the reader what it is before telling them how it was made. I realize that you're kind of already doing that with sentences like "The article itself is an in-universe profile of all the various written languages used in the Star Wars universe, broken up into several sections dictated by the different scripts" coming early in the "Development" section, but those kinds of sentences would, I think, be more at home in the "Overview" section anyway. Menkooroo (talk) 12:52, October 19, 2013 (UTC)

The Development section titles. Let's talk. Are the alliterative titles really professional enough for use in an encyclopedia? I personally think not, that alliteration is too informal for encyclopedia use, but I'm open to being convinced otherwise. I invite comments from anyone who reads this as to what your thoughts on the matter are. I'm not going to consider making this a formal objection until I hear what others have to say. —MJ— War Room 19:41, October 26, 2013 (UTC)

  • It's not really a "thing" per se, but I've always thought of the sub-section headers as the "harmless" place to have a bit of fun, to be a bit more illustrative so to speak. I have no emotional attachment to such things, but I basically put it in the same basket as things like what we used to have as a link to the non-Cal Omas image category, the wink wink nudge nudge we're-not-all-robots things. Just my rationale behind doing it in the first place, I'm curious to see how others think, but I will say that if this is meant to be professional by Jove I'm owed some cash by now. Thefourdotelipsis (talk) 00:11, October 27, 2013 (UTC)
    • I'd very much like to see some of that cash myself. :P Yeah, I'd like to hear opinions from several others before I consider officially objecting to this. In the meantime, I will support. —MJ— Jedi Council Chambers 00:18, October 27, 2013 (UTC)
      • I think Fourdot's right on the money about section headers being harmless places for a bit of fun. This FA from earlier this year is pretty tangible precedent. Other FAs and GAs have had some wink winkers in image captions, too. And of all of these examples, the section headers here in The Written Word seem to be the least egregious. Menkooroo (talk) 10:26, October 27, 2013 (UTC)

Vote to remove nomination (Inq only)

  1. Inqvote Unaddressed objections. Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 00:10, January 12, 2014 (UTC)
  2. Inqvote 1358 (Talk) 00:11, January 12, 2014 (UTC)
  3. Inqvote CC7567 (talk) 00:12, January 12, 2014 (UTC)
  4. Inqvote -- Darth Culator (Talk) 21:13, January 12, 2014 (UTC)
  5. Inqvote Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 01:30, January 13, 2014 (UTC)