Wookieepedia:Featured article nominations/Trial of Ulic Qel-Droma

< 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.

Trial of Ulic Qel-Droma

(5 Inqs/1 Users/6 Total)

Support

  1. Heh heh, sweet…--Jedi Kasra (comlink) 13:50, November 28, 2009 (UTC)
  2. Inqvote The phone is back and better than ever. — Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 21:38, November 28, 2009 (UTC)
  3. Inqvote -- —Harrar (Cut the comm chatter) 00:47, November 30, 2009 (UTC)
  4. Inqvote IFYLOFD (Floyd's crib) 04:19, January 20, 2010 (UTC)
  5. Inqvote CC7567 (talk) 22:03, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
  6. Inqvote --Eyrezer 22:23, February 8, 2010 (UTC)

Object

  1. Pasta!
    • "Qel-Droma's final offense…" What were the earlier 'offenses?' Just clarify that the Republic was keeping score.
    • Actually, that's it. Nice work, Tommy. — Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 03:07, November 28, 2009 (UTC)
      • Addressed. Thanks for the review, Master Aban. Please advise if anything further is required.—Tommy9281 Dark side Master SWGTCG (No truth in me) 04:10, November 28, 2009 (UTC)
  2. Attack of the Clone
    • Please be consistent on whether or not you choose to use grammatical articles in linking, i.e. "[[Duel in the Senate|a duel]]" vs. "an [[Battle of Foerost|assault]]."
      • I'm not sure what you mean here; please clarify.
        • I don't see what else there is to clarify. You're not consistent in linking, as one time you will link something as "a duel" (including the "a") whereas others you will link only "an assault" (excluding the "an"). CC7567 (talk) 07:50, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
          • You still are not making sense. What exactly is your objection, so that I might fix it?
            • Sorry to interject, but… I see what the issue is here. Basically, the idea is that some of the piped links have articles (a, an, the) in them while others do not. Example: "[[Battle of FAN|a battle]]" or "a [[Battle of FAN|battle]]." To me, yes, this is something that should be brought up to the nominator, but objecting to it seems inappropriate with <nowiki>{{sofixit}}. Mention it so inconsistency does not become a habit, but we have no set rules on whether or not articles should be in piped links. — Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 18:12, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
            • Basically what Fiolli said. I do realize that this falls under {{sofixit}}, but I feel that the choice is better left up to you so that you're aware of it and can employ consistency in the future. CC7567 (talk) 18:37, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
              • Now I understand. That's my own fault for the inconsistency, and I'll pay more attention to it in the future. It has been addressed.—Tommy 9281 Mechnochair-NEGWT (Mechno-chair) 19:31, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
    • "No one noticed the petrification of the Senate body that silently swept through the chamber during the exchange, even as Ulic Qel-Droma's restraints suddenly became undone seemingly on their own. What was observed, however, was the unexpected and sudden arrival of Qel-Droma's superior: Dark Lord of the Sith Exar Kun." The dramatic effect aside, are you certain that this is the best possible IU perspective? The article itself doesn't seem to follow any one side or subject, so I don't see why this particular part should.
      • That is how the events transpired. Literally, no one noticed these things happened, but they did notice Exar Kun make a grand entrance. I reworked it slightly so that it's less dramatic.
        • This might be better clarified so that you can fix it with the explanation I've given for the objection below. CC7567 (talk) 07:50, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
          • See if that works.
    • The brief "flashback" in chronology for context doesn't seem to work very well and leaves the chronology itself rather confusing to me. Please try to adjust it so that it's more understandable and flows better.
      • Again, I am unsure as to what you speak of. Please clarify.
        • You go from saying in "Inquisition begins" that Kun arrived in the Senate on Coruscant, yet in the following "Sith objections," you have to backtrack and clarify how it was that Mandalore and Kun got to Coruscant—it sounds like Kun went to Coruscant twice, and the verb tense further supports that. CC7567 (talk) 07:50, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
          • Addressed.
    • "Mandalore the Indomitable made Ulic Qel-Droma aware of Aleema Keto's betrayal and order to leave him stranded on Coruscant" What order? This last part comes out of nowhere despite its implication that it was already mentioned.
      • It was already mentioned in the Prelude: He was betrayed and intentionally abandoned to his own resources by his lover, the Krath witch Aleema Keto... I did rework the part to which you objected though so that it is less confusing.
    • Though I know that you probably already believe so, I'm nevertheless compelled to ask you whether you believe that all of the information in the Aftermath is directly necessary to the trial and has the appropriate amount of detail.
      • Yes, I do, otherwise I wouldn't have incorporated it. Although the appropriate amount of detail is given in the article, I can explain the relevance of each part for you here if you like.
    • "it seemed that the Sith Brotherhood would indeed rule the galaxy just as Kun declared at Qel-Droma's trial": please check this against WP:NPOV and the original source itself, as I find its perspective rather hazy in terms of neutrality.
      • Addressed.
    • Can you clarify how it's possible for The Battle of Coruscant to mention the trial when it hasn't happened yet? CC7567 (talk) 06:16, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
      • See the lead quote. Thank you for the review, CC. Please advise if anything further is required.—Tommy 9281 Mechnochair-NEGWT (Mechno-chair) 06:58, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
        • Did the trial officially begin in The Battle of Coruscant, then, with that one line? I still fail to see how something can be mentioned before it chronologically appears; as I understand it, an event can only be mentioned after it's already happened. CC7567 (talk) 07:50, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
          • My error, it should have been {{1stm}}. Addressed.

Comments

Approved as a Featured article by Inquisitorius 22:25, February 8, 2010 (UTC)