Wookieepedia:Featured article nominations/Tirog

< 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.

Tirog

(5 Inqs/1 Users/6 Total)

Support

  1. Encouraged to do this by Gonk and Eyrezer, after Gonk tricked encouraged me to write him up over IRC. —Silly Dan (talk) 23:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  2. Inqvote--Eyrezer 07:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  3. Inqvote -- Darth Culator (Talk) 18:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  4. Inqvote Interesting stuff, and an unusual/difficult topic. Good work. Thefourdotelipsis 07:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  5. Inqvote Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 22:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  6. Inqvote Good work. Toprawa and Ralltiir 22:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

  • There are still a few redlinks at time of nomination: Evinn Dastt, Greg Gorden, Greg Costikyan, and Thannik. —Silly Dan talk) 23:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
    • It's below the limit of three now, I guess. —Silly Dan (talk) 03:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
      • And then there were none. I presume I'm allowed to strike my own objection...—Silly Dan (talk) 02:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • List in the bio, and the bio needs better sectioning, whether it's anecdotes or not. See Gunman for examples. Thefourdotelipsis 02:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
    • You mean it needs sectioning of any sort in the bio... As for the list, I honestly thought that was the best way to format the miscellany there. I think it's better than presenting it as a prosified list, at least. I'll get back to you if I have a better idea, though. —Silly Dan (talk) 03:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Well, it's sectioned, but the list is still there. I don't see the advantage to turning it into a bulletless list (l"Tirog fought people on speeders, ran from Wookiees, commanded a platoon, spam, eggs, sausage and spam.") or a series of short disconnected sentences ("Tirog shot a speeder. Tirog crashed a speeder. Tirog ran from Wookiees. Run, Tirog, run.") but if everyone else agrees with 4dot that a list is unacceptable, I'll make it a single sentence. —Silly Dan (talk) 03:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
        • I actually think the bullet point lists is the better option here. --Eyrezer 04:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
          • I'm going to bring this up at the Inq meeting briefly, and get a feel for what the general sentiment is here. I think it's mainly a consistency issue, as we've really uprooted lists where possible, and I can't think of another FA that has one. I think it could be presented as a bulletless list without a sacrifice in quality, since it's not exactly a manifesto or anything, but if it turns out I'm in the unvast minority, I'll concede. Thefourdotelipsis 23:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
            • I've removed the bulleted list format, anyway (see below) but if you still want to bring it up at the meeting I'd be interested to know what the policy is. —Silly Dan (talk) 02:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • From the desk of Atarumaster88
    • FWIW, I dislike the list in the main article too.
      • Have turned it into a prose list, and moved it to the top of the bio. —Silly Dan (talk) 02:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Humour me and spell out versus please.
      • Since you were nice enough to spell "humour" with an extra "u"...—Silly Dan (talk) 02:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
    • A bit more detail on the Tirog's associates section--which I'm treating as something of a Relationships section given that it's non-MoS--in regards to Ace, the droid, and Drebble please. Even what you have listed in the intro is better than what's there, and you said they were some of his most important associates.
      • I'll get to that. —Silly Dan (talk) 02:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
        • I expanded it a little: the problem is, there's not much to say in that section which I didn't either mention in the "Tirog vs." sections, or that I didn't say in the "Personality" section. For instance, while I call Drebble and Ace two of his most common companions, the truth is they interact with him exactly twice each in the rulebook: once during the marketplace fight (where they have already been traveling together for a while), and once each during a one-paragraph example of game rules (Drebble fixing Tirog's ship, and Ace reviving Tirog.) I did mention GT-9R was with him most frequently. (That's four times in the book: the audience with Dermeg, the visit to the Dancing Dewback, the fight on the space station, and the marketplace fight, plus the possibility that two more examples which have too little context to mention in the IU part (Tirog buys a droid, Tirog tries to fix a droid) involve GT-9R.) I may also edit the "Personality" section to avoid repetition (and address T&R's concerns.) —Silly Dan (talk) 22:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Have a Super Terrific Friendly Un-frustrating day. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 02:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
      • As for the stylistic issues you mentioned on IRC (short paragraphs and use of "it appears that bla bla bla"), I suppose since you didn't put them into this comment I won't change them. 8) —Silly Dan (talk) 02:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
        • That's right; they're not something I'd go to the mattresses for. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 04:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  2. Toprawa:
    • Please reword this to avoid saying, essentially, that as a combatant he served in combat. A bit redundant: "A skilled combatant and hunter, he frequently found himself in the midst of combat"
      • Rephrased as "skilled marksman, pilot, and hunter." —Silly Dan (talk) 02:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Is it possible to add a little bit to this to say who was firing at him, specifically? "such as operating an AT-AT walker while avoiding fire from a speeder"
      • Sorry, no. The incident in the book is only there as an example of the rules for a "walker-scale" vehicle dodging a "speeder-scale" vehicle. No context is given. (A lot of the incidents in his life come from these rule examples, with little or no context.) —Silly Dan (talk) 02:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
    • You refer to the speeder here as a "snowspeeder." Can you give this a little more context? AFAIK, T-47s were only referred to as "snowspeeders" when they were modified to operate in cold weather, such as on Hoth, obviously.: "and attacking a snowspeeder flying overhead"
      • They call it a snowspeeder, say Tirog's shooting at it, and that's all. This one is just an example of how to determine the range for a target flying overhead when the shooter is on the ground. Any attempt to explain why a known Rebel associate is firing at a vehicle apparently only used by the Alliance on Hoth would be pure speculation, I'm afraid. —Silly Dan (talk) 02:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
    • In the first paragraph of the "Bio" section, during the enumeration of his adventures, you leave 4 successive ref notes to the same source. This is unnecessary. Just leave one reference note for that source at the end of that list, encompassing everything.
      • That's a holdover from the "bulleted list" format which 4dot and Ataru had me remove. I'll fix it. —Silly Dan (talk) 02:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
    • This wording doesn't fit well in its current speculative state. If you can't reword to avoid the "apparently," and the equivalent "unknown" wording of the first clause, I would suggest removing entirely: "While the ultimate outcomes of many of his adventures are not certain, it appeared that he came out on top most of the time"
      • I'm not sure what to do about this. Most of these incidents, being quick examples of play to illustrate a particular rule, just have the middle of the story (e.g. there's no explanation of why he's shooting at a snowspeeder, and we never find out if he hit it either.) All we have to imply a positive outcome (plus his general status as one of the "good guys") are his five Force points, as explained in the note. —Silly Dan (talk) 02:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Could you reword, then, to avoid the first clause of that sentence, which says the outcome of this adventures is uncertain? Leaving it just as "Appearing to come out on top" with the accompanying reference note would suffice. Toprawa and Ralltiir 17:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
          • But aside from surviving long enough to get Force points and do the "guide to the galaxy" thing in the revised rulebook, the outcomes really are unknown. All the same, I've rephrased it to just "It appeared he came out on top most of the time, and managed achievements that could be described as heroic." (And, as my comments below indicate, I think it should be "appears", as in "appears to those of us writing this article in the present from all available sources" not "appeared" as in "appeared during the course Tirog's career a long time ago.") —Silly Dan (talk) 14:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Please reword to avoid "unknown" type phrasing: "Though the details of these alleged crimes are not known"
      • Well, they aren't. Gov. Dermeg is described in the book as kind of crazy, so Tirog might not even have committed whatever crimes he's accused of. —Silly Dan (talk) 02:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Could you say something along the lines of Dermeg's less than stable mental state left the validity of these accusations dubious as best? Toprawa and Ralltiir 17:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
          • I wouldn't want to place too much emphasis on the possibility of Tirog being innocent just because his accuser is a mite unstable, since he has several Rebel friends, and the rest of the section does goes on to have him shooting at Imperials. Rephrased it to "Whatever the details of these alleged crimes or the truth of Dermeg's allegations, Tirog was involved..." —Silly Dan (talk) 14:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Please reword one of the picture captions to avoid having them both say, simply, "Tirog."
    • Could you reword this to avoid the "apparently?" "who had apparently been pursuing the group for some time."
      • The gambler in the example says "Well boys, we finally caught up to you!" So, come to think of it, the word "apparently" should be removed. —Silly Dan (talk) 02:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Can you try and paraphrase some of the direct quotes you use in the P&T? They're a bit overused.
    • Very nice P&T and an excellent BTS. Just the the way those sections are to be done. Nice work. Toprawa and Ralltiir 00:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Thanks! (This is the only P&T I've even tried to do...glad it worked. As for the BTS, it's really the most important part of the article, since it's necessary to explain why the IU part is so vague.)—Silly Dan (talk) 02:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Approved by Inquisitorius 12:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

  • The BTS is especially nice. --Eyrezer 07:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • A comment on tense: a few copyedits have turned statements like "Most of what is known" and "it appears that" into "Most of what was known" and "it appeared that". I don't think this is correct. I realize we write in past-tense, but "what was known" implies that at one point, only facts A, B, and C were known, but now we know fact D as well. "What is known" means to me that "this is what we know now, at the unspecified time after the fact where we write this article", so present tense is fine in this case. Unless someone can convince me this is incorrect, I'll probably change statements like that back. —Silly Dan (talk) 02:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)