Wookieepedia:Good article nominations/902 BBY

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

902 BBY

  • Nominated by: Darth Morrt 21:59, February 3, 2011 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments:Every source describes the event a bit differently, which reculted in messy-looking sourcing.

(3 ACs/2 Users/5 Total)

Support

  1. I need to write up some year articles too. QuiGonJinn Senate seal(Talk) 22:01, February 19, 2011 (UTC)
  2. ACvote I liked this.—Tommy 9281 Tuesday, March 22, 2011, 12:20 UTC
  3. ACvote Cavalier OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 07:58, March 31, 2011 (UTC)
  4. Nice job Morrt Kilson 05:32, April 2, 2011 (UTC)
  5. ACvote Donezo. Toprawa and Ralltiir 23:30, April 13, 2011 (UTC)

Object

Toprawa
  • I seriously suggest you proofread your work while using a spellchecker. Don't rely on reviewers to fix all your little typos for you. Toprawa and Ralltiir 22:02, February 3, 2011 (UTC)
    • Checked. I've found a good and free online spellchecker and am going to use it on my future noms. Darth Morrt 03:33, February 4, 2011 (UTC)
      • If you aren't already, I would recommend using FireFox, Wookieepedia's preferred browser, which has a built-in spellcheck feature, so you can proofread your work as you go. Toprawa and Ralltiir 23:11, February 4, 2011 (UTC)
Xd1358
  • Some parts of this article are identical to parts of one of your other GAs, 590 BBY. There is no idea to have several copy-pasted GAs, so please reword a bit. 1358 (Talk) 23:00, February 4, 2011 (UTC)
QGJ
  • I'm seeing a few instances of present tense usage: …the different stories mention sometimes a band of Jedi; …and accept the judgment of a Jedi in any dispute great or small, etc. Please check the entire article and fix those.QuiGonJinn Senate seal(Talk) 19:35, February 12, 2011 (UTC)
Cav
  • I'm not sure if using the Timeline Gold as a reference is a wise idea; it is not an official source despite Butler having published and contributed to SW works. Unless there is some evidence that the CSWE used Butler's date as a reference point for their information, I suggest you remove all reference to Timeline Gold. - Cavalier OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 23:06, February 28, 2011 (UTC)
    • I don't have an evidence. However, it cannot be coincidental that two authors independently rounded "many centuries" to 900 years. The canon date of 4,500 BBY was already established and published by the the of the release of the CSWE. The current edition of the Timeline Gold uses 4,500 BBY with a note that it was 900 BBY before the release of TNEGTAS. The CSWE used Butler's date, that's I am sure of. Should I e-mail the authors one by one and ask them to state this? Darth Morrt 22:18, March 8, 2011 (UTC)
      • If the CSWE authors go on record to state this is the case, then fine, the statement can be sourced and verified. But unless clear proof that they worked off of Butler's dates is presented, then it is speculation to assume this and should be removed from the article. - Cavalier OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 22:55, March 9, 2011 (UTC)
        • Butler removed. Darth Morrt 07:47, March 24, 2011 (UTC)
Toprawa
  • Please correct the italics formatting of GG4 in the Sources and references. Toprawa and Ralltiir 02:22, April 3, 2011 (UTC)
  • Sources list requires a "First mentioned" tag. Toprawa and Ralltiir 21:55, April 3, 2011 (UTC)
  • Please also revise the GG4 mention in the BTS, per the first objection. Toprawa and Ralltiir 19:57, April 6, 2011 (UTC)
  • Ok, we've been doing some minor rejiggering to the year infobox template. There should now be a secondary "eras" field for you to fill out at the very bottom, for OOU publishing eras. In this case, this should include the Rise of the Empire era. Please fill in this new field and source appropriately. Toprawa and Ralltiir 19:15, April 8, 2011 (UTC)
  • For the sake of formatting and clarification, I would recommend just going ahead and moving the reference notes to the end of the text line in the three "Year" infobox fields. I know previous year articles have not been doing this up to this point, but this is something I expect we'll be changing from now on. Toprawa and Ralltiir 22:30, April 9, 2011 (UTC)
    • I can't do that. The text lines are in the template. Darth Morrt 08:51, April 10, 2011 (UTC)
      • Oh, yeah. Sorry about that. I think we were going to try and find a way to make that possible but never got around to it, if I remember correctly. Nevermind, then. Toprawa and Ralltiir 18:09, April 11, 2011 (UTC)
  • I would recommend placing the body quote at the top of the article as the main quote, perhaps with a touch more specific attribution description. This is essentially the spirit behind GAN Rule 12.
  • I don't find the BTS written very effectively, or necessarily accurately, for that matter, in describing the true mentions of the year 902 BBY in canon. The only source material that even comes close to mentioning this year in any specific terms is CSWE, which is the entire basis for the very existence of this article. The way the BTS is written and outlined at present sort of makes it seem like the year was first referenced way back in 1994 with GG4, when this isn't even really remotely true. I think the BTS would be written most clearly and effectively if it started out with describing the CSWE reference, establishing that this article treats that description as the basis for the year, and then leave a brief note explaining that previously published source material therefore makes what are effectively retconned mentions of this year. When I say brief, I mean the BTS does not need to quote every single wording example like it does now. Because these mentions of "many generations," "centuries ago," "distant past," etc., are very generalized, ambiguous wording, and are not necessarily referring to this specific year at all. They're referencing the general conflict, which we know to have spanned thousands of years in length. Frankly, I think the article is pushing it a little by even including these items in the Sources list, but I won't make an objection to have them removed. Toprawa and Ralltiir 18:09, April 11, 2011 (UTC)
    • Re-edited. These ambiguous mentions are describing the Jedi intervening, so I think they are actually referencing this year, not the conflict. Should I move the {1stm} to the CSWE in the Sources list and add {retcon} to the older ones? Darth Morrt 13:06, April 12, 2011 (UTC)
      • Hmm, ok, gotcha. Yeah, I think it would probably be best to rearrange the Sources list tags. I would recommend perhaps leaving the 1stm tag on GG4, adding retcon to all the appropriate items, and adding a "1stID" tag to CSWE. Your change to the BTS is perfect overall. Just what I was looking for. I would also recommend either sourcing the 2 BBY date for the GCW beginning, or say something like "began in 2 BBY, according to [Insert Source Item]." Toprawa and Ralltiir 18:19, April 12, 2011 (UTC)
        • Tags changed. I removed the NEGTAS from the source list, since it mentions only Noga-ta and the beginning of the conflict, but not this year, not even ambiguously, like the other sources. I have not found a clear mention of the beginning of the GCW in the NEC and in the Atlas, so I sourced it to the TFU novel, which presents the declaration of the Rebellion and is set to 2 BBY. Tell me, please, if you know a more appropriate source. Darth Morrt 12:59, April 13, 2011 (UTC)
          • I think NEC can actually be used for the 2 BBY date. The info is on page 89 in my book under the "Dawn of Dissent, 19-0 BBY" section: Less than two years before the Battle of Yavin, the Corellian Treaty was signed [forming the Alliance to Restore the Republic]. Though that's more ambiguously worded. If the TFU novel does literally state 2 BBY, you're welcome to stay with that. Also, I think it would be best if the CSWE Sources list item still kept the Imo tag, along with the 1st ID tag. Toprawa and Ralltiir 22:49, April 13, 2011 (UTC)
            • NEC is better. The TFU novel does not give a year. The book is set to 2 BBY in the novel timeline, and the Treaty is signed in the book. Imo tag added. Darth Morrt 23:19, April 13, 2011 (UTC)

Comments

Approved as a Good article by AgriCorps 23:30, April 13, 2011 (UTC)


Vote to remove nomination (AC only)

  1. ACvote Idle objections two weeks old. Toprawa and Ralltiir 02:36, March 24, 2011 (UTC)
  2. ACvote Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 02:41, March 24, 2011 (UTC)
  3. ACvote 1358 (Talk) 06:23, March 24, 2011 (UTC)
    • Fyi to everyone: objection was fixed before nomination could be archived. CC7567 (talk) 08:36, March 24, 2011 (UTC)