Wookieepedia:Featured article nominations/Torture

< 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.

Torture

(0 Inq/2 Users/2 Total)

Support

  1. Nightlily 16:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  2. Fixed a bunch of typos; pretty impressive range, maybe not comprehensive, but a good review Enochf 17:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Object

  1. No sources section. As NOWIS pointed out in IRC, there's likely loads of WEG stuff about torture. And I'd like to see an infobox come from somewhere. More elaboration on the Inquisitorius, too. And I'd like the appearances section to discern when the term "torture" is said. Also, and I know this is a bit complex, but can the whole first paragraph actually be sourced, or is it just real-world stuff? -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 18:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  2. From the Merciless Hammer of Toprawa:
    • Per Acky. I've been (kind of) monitoring work on this thing, and you've both done an admirable job, but I seriously doubt this article is comprehensive. Toprawa and Ralltiir 19:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I guess I'll start listing bits of Torture history I come across that isn't listed in this article
    • The fact that your appearance and source list doesn't match up with your Notes and refs section should tell you that you don't have everything. I would recommend clicking on the "what links here" button as part of your research
    • In That's Entertainment: The Tale of Salacious Crumb, University professor Melvosh Bloor discusses a dissertation written by one of his colleagues entitled Torture Observed: An Interview with Jabba's Cook Toprawa and Ralltiir 19:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  3. From the ruthless legal pad scrawlings of Atarumaster88
    • Present tense in the intro.
      • Addressed.
    • The very loose referencing of the first body paragraph is unacceptable. I smell Original Research.
    • Organization of Methods section is very poor. It's not fully chronological-at least, I don't think so. There's no context given on the timeline of the first three paragraphs.
      • Working on.
    • Methods section is ridiculously far from comprehensive. In fact, it doesn't read like a methods section. It reads like a list of "famous" torturers. If it's a method section, then I should be reading about The Burning, torture by chagrin, etc. I'm not.
    • Methods section never mentions the Vong.
    • For such a massive topic, the article could use a longer intro.
    • Aw, to heck with it. Rewrite the whole Methods section. Should be at least four times as long and ten, no, twenty times as comprehensive.
    • Wait, we need a "Description" section to go with Methods? That doesn't make any sense. Your methods section should be telling us the different modes of torture, we don't need another section to tell us about how the victim felt during torture. Place any necessary anecdotes on that in the aforementioned Methods section or in Consequences.
    • I don't like the Force-users section. Split it up into the appropriate sections. For example, Jacen's mind-invasion should go under Methods, crucitorn under resisting torture. As it stands, the layout of this article makes no sense.
    • Notable examples I'm undecided on. Most of this information should be included in the Methods section and making the reader hunt for it in the examples section is a royal pain. Perhaps a better way to represent this section would be to describe notable torturers/organizations that practiced torture, and not notable victims of torture.
    • Consequences section is way undersized. I recall recently reading an FAN about a Rebel who was tortured until he was in a vegetative state. Where is that? Where is the bit about Jacen Solo's torture under Vergere turning him into a heartless scumbag?
    • No BTS?!! You've got to be kidding me.
    • Naturally, this will also need a non-canon appearances section.
    • Naturally, you will want to run a SW.com Wizards.com and HoloNet News check on this.
    • You reference things that aren't listed in Appearances and the non-existent Sources section. If torture appears, then it gets listed. If it is mentioned, it gets handled with a {{Mo}} tag. Get thorough with this.
    • I can flat out tell you that this barely meets GA requirements as it is. If this is going to get a star, it'll need a lot more work. I didn't even look at your sentences or the fine details.
    • Have a pleasant and tortured day, since this nom is not ready for my catchphrase. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 19:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • For as much work as myself and my young partner Nightlily have put into this, we believe that this is where it can be definitively molded into a quality article. That being said, we finally believe it's ready for the big leagues! As always, open to critisisms/objections/comments, etc.—Tommy9281(Safe harbor, my friend.) 14:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • A very interesting read, but like the others said above, I believe this could be greatly expanded from all other sources. —Xwing328(Talk) 05:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for Removal

  • I am requesting the removal of the nom, until my partner and I can at least work on this slew of objections we hadn't forseen. When we deem it ready again, we will resubmit it. Thank you.—Tommy(Clean face and hands)The Anvil 16:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Removal vote (Inquisitor-only vote)

  1. Inqvote Started per request from nominator. Toprawa and Ralltiir 19:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  2. Inqvote I don't even know if this is necessary, since Tommy requested it. Chack Jadson (Talk) 20:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  3. Inqvote Abstract topics are among the most difficult FAs to write (just look at Starfighter combat), and right now this just doesn't cut it. Hopefully it will some time in the future. :-) -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 20:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  4. Inqvote Graestan(Talk) 20:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  5. Inqvote Definitely. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 21:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)