Wookieepedia:Good article nominations/Aaeton

< 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.

Aaeton

  • Nominated by: Winterz (talk) 02:28, September 30, 2012 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: A planet..

(4 ACs/4 Users/8 Total)

Support

  1. ACvote Cavalier OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 10:36, October 29, 2012 (UTC)
  2. How the heck do you pronounce this? Commander Code-8 To say hi, press 42 03:39, November 3, 2012 (UTC)
    • I believe it is Ah-aeton. ^^ Winterz (talk) 03:43, November 3, 2012 (UTC)
  3. ACvote IFYLOFD (Floyd's crib) 01:52, November 22, 2012 (UTC)
  4. Supreme Emperor (talk) 05:08, December 21, 2012 (UTC)
  5. Looks good now. I made a few final tweaks myself to avoid dragging out the nomination any longer with picky objections; let me know if you have any questions about what I changed. —MJ— Council Chambers 23:27, December 23, 2012 (UTC)
  6. Exiled Jedi Oldrepublic crest (Greetings) 04:44, December 25, 2012 (UTC)
  7. ACvote 1358 (Talk) 16:29, December 25, 2012 (UTC)
  8. ACvote Good work. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 19:59, December 28, 2012 (UTC)

Object

Trayus
  • I'm seeing a few too many redirect links. Be sure you've got those in order.
    • Check it now.
  • Your TOR citation should use {{TORcite}} so you can specify the exact source of the information within the game. Darth Trayus(Trayus Academy) 02:46, September 30, 2012 (UTC)
Cav
  • Article for the Imperial bioweapon?
    • Done.
  • Article for the chemical attack?
    • I don't think there's enough info. Plus, how should I name it? "Attack on Aaeton"?!
      • Something like that. "Bioweapon attack on Aaeton" would be sufficient I think. - Cavalier OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 17:40, October 15, 2012 (UTC)
        • Finally done. Winterz (talk) 14:11, October 19, 2012 (UTC)
  • What was the result of the bioweapon attack? The molds spread, but was it cured or did it ravage the planet?
    • Resulting in your companion gaining more XP or not, that's all. I have no idea on what's our policy on the Companion quests, but they're available to all (in this case Republic) classes companions and its fate is inconclusive.
  • [[Ragoon VI|Ragoon-6]] - Why is Ragoon VI formatted this way? If the article name is correct, it should be reflected in the name. If the article is incorrect, it should be changed to reflect the correct spelling/format.
    • Both names are correct, one shouldn't take priority over the other, however in the source used for Aaeton it was named "Ragoon-6". Changed it anyways. Winterz (talk) 17:37, October 9, 2012 (UTC)
      • Hmm. I've changed them to Ragoon VI for now since that's the article title. Aaeton sources might state Ragoon-6, but its the majority of sources that determine the correct usage of the name. Or LFL insistance (thank TCW and Mon Cala/Dac/Mon Calamari). If the majority of sources support Ragoon-6 over Ragoon VI, then the article will probably need to be moved in any case. Note that I'm not fussed which name is used, I just want it to be consistent and uniform and in line with the article name :p - Cavalier OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 17:40, October 15, 2012 (UTC)
  • Article for the Senator of Aaeton? - Cavalier OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 13:11, October 9, 2012 (UTC)
    • Done and thanks for your objections. Winterz (talk) 12:29, October 10, 2012 (UTC)
CC-8
  • Aaeton was a planet in the Aaeton system of the Core Worlds region, joining the civilized galaxy by 5,000 BBY. The latter part of this sentence doesn't make sense. I'd change it to "Aaeteon was ...(etc.) Core Worlds reigion that had joined the civilized galaxy..."
  • The second sentance of the intro should be split since it covers a very large section of history and is a bit confusing to read at the moment
  • I don't think its nessecary to say that Ragoon IV was only half a day's hyperspace travel. It sort of messes up that sentance
  • That's all. Good job noticing the SWTOR reference. Commander Code-8 To say hi, press 42 06:09, October 30, 2012 (UTC)
    • All objections attended to, except the "hyperspace travel" one. I think it is very relevant since they are, in a way, related planets, plus it won't be confusing in the sentence because it's separated from the rest of it through to use of hyphens ;). Thanks. Winterz (talk) 23:12, November 2, 2012 (UTC)
    • I made a few small edits in the intro too which you can check if you don't agree with them :) Commander Code-8 To say hi, press 42 03:39, November 3, 2012 (UTC)
Floyd
  • One thing: Are there any possible quotes? IFYLOFD (Floyd's crib) 21:29, November 19, 2012 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately nope, none about the planet itself. Winterz (talk) 20:19, November 21, 2012 (UTC)
      • It appears that there quotes after all. Feel free to "scratch" your supporting vote as I haven't complied with your objection yet.
From the Council Chambers:
  • There are quotes in Trail of the Jedi.
    • I've got to be honest (though you've probably noticed it), I don't have that novel. Didn't thought a "Mo" was enough to buy it so asked a friend, who owns it, to give me whatever he could find on Aaeton. Planet quotes nor that those were Fia's words never reached me. I'd appreciate if you could give me those quotes ;)
      • It would be difficult to simply provide you with the quote, as I would also need to explain other things that aren't entirely easy to explain so the quote could be put into proper context. I would really recommend obtaining Trail of the Jedi and reading it for yourself; you'll be able to get the quotes yourself, and you'll have a better understanding of what I'm talking about below. Since you have a friend who owns it, maybe see if he'll let you borrow it for a day or two. —MJ— Jedi Council Chambers 00:55, December 6, 2012 (UTC)
        • Done, there was only one worthy quote.
  • {{CSWECite}} needs to be used on the CSWE citation.
    • Done.
  • The reliability of the second paragraph of the intro and third of paragraph of the History section is not very good. Remember that Floria is telling the Jedi that as part of a lie to cover for the fact that she's actually a bounty hunter trying to capture the Jedi. I would take her words with a grain of salt and not source any of that stuff to Trail of the Jedi without explicitly saying that "Floria claimed that...", "According to Floria...", or something along those lines. If there is a neutral, unbiased source for that information, use it instead.
    • Are you sure it was a lie? I know I haven't read it within context but the Encyclopedia kind of confirms that it's true, not even mentioning that those were Fia's unreliable claims.
      • There's nothing outright saying that Floria was lying about the history, but neither can we be sure that it was the truth, as she know she lied about being from Aaeton at the same time, and the whole thing was an elaborate cover story, which isn't necessarily based entirely in truth. It's best here to treat it as unreliable and report only that Floria claimed that was the truth. The only text supported by the CSWE, which we can take as unambiguous truth, is "half a day's hyperspace journey away" and "the Government of Aaeton had special permission to allow their people to visit the Ragoon's homeworld, being among the few offworlders allowed on Ragoon VI." The rest of that paragraph should be explicitly attributed to Floria. —MJ— Jedi Council Chambers 00:55, December 6, 2012 (UTC)
        • Fixed.
          • Not fixed, but for the sake of my sanity I'm going to strike it and start fresh, more detailed objections below. —MJ— Council Chambers 21:02, December 23, 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't recall the data in the "Societal" section of the infobox being mentioned in Trail of the Jedi, at least not without the issues in the previous objection. Find a different source for the Republic affiliation, and for the other two, either give me page numbers where it says that, find a different source, or jettison them (remember that Floria was telling an elaborate lie, so we don't know that she's from Aaeton based on that book alone). Same goes for this sentence: "It joined the civilized galaxy around 5,000 BBY, becoming part of the Galactic Republic and eventually gaining representation in the Galactic Senate."
    • Yep, societal crap "airlocked" (someone has been referencing lies all over the planets' articles). However, the civilized galaxy part is confirmed in the Essential Atlas. I'll leave it open until we discuss Fia's lie (or not) further, hoping we can reach a consensus on that matter. Winterz (talk) 23:54, December 5, 2012 (UTC)
      • The "Galactic Republic" line in the infobox should still be sourced to something more reliable than Trail of the Jedi. The 5,000 BBY claim is still incorrectly sourced (Trail of the Jedi doesn't support that at all, not even in Floria's claims), and the rest of that sentence should get a more reliable source if at all possible. —MJ— Jedi Council Chambers 00:55, December 6, 2012 (UTC)
        • Fixed.
          • Not entirely fixed, but for the sake of my sanity I'm going to strike it and start fresh, more detailed objections below. —MJ— Council Chambers 21:02, December 23, 2012 (UTC)
  • Finally, if you do leave anything sourced to Trail of the Jedi, I would explicitly note the nature of the information and the fact that it is unreliable in the BTS.
    • Done.
  • —MJ— Comlink 23:28, December 1, 2012 (UTC)
    • Okay so now that I've read the essentials I'm a bit confused on which my approach should be. If I switch the JQ's refs for the CSWE's I'll be ignoring the novel's info, however if I ref it to the novel, adding a "Floria claimed that (...)", I'll be disclosing the fact that the CSWE "confirms" it. I know how to approach it on the BtS but its the body that's leaving me tied up. I can't just say that one claimed and then on another context that it is true since I don't know it for sure. Winterz (talk) 23:57, December 14, 2012 (UTC)
      • It's not an all-or-nothing situation with the sourcing. You can and should use both sources. Here's how I would do it: In a personal sandbox, or even with pencil and paper, break all of the information from JQ and the CSWE down into the smallest chunks you can, then note which source(s) each chunk comes from. If a chunk is in the CSWE, state it in the body as fact and ref it to the CSWE, regardless of whether it is also in JQ. If a piece of information comes only from JQ, attribute it to Floria and ref it to JQ. If something that can only be sourced to JQ (e.g. the Senator's help) leads directly to something known as fact via CSWE (e.g. Aaeton's permission to visit Ragoon VI), then end the first statement with a very brief explanation of why Floria might not be telling the truth and lead into the second statement with something along the lines of, "Regardless of whether Floria's statements were the truth, it was known that..." This may result in some complicated sourcing with several refs per sentence, but there's nothing wrong with that. Also be sure to correctly source information from the Atlas, such as the 5,000 BBY statement. —MJ— Council Chambers 00:56, December 15, 2012 (UTC)
        • Done.
  • Another objection: after looking closer, the JQ book only says that Aaeton gave the elders of Ragoon refuge when the planet was handed over to the Senate. It says nothing about any Senator of Aaeton or about Aaeton helping the Ragoon make the transfer. This is why you should always read the source for yourself from the start whenever possible and never rely on information given to you by non-Wookieepedians. Getting information from another Wookieepedian is one thing, as they should know to make sure that what they give you complies with our policies, but the average person that's never seen our policies is likely going to make assumptions that we can't make without telling you that they did. —MJ— Comlink 01:00, December 15, 2012 (UTC)
    • Corrected that. After addressing all your objections, the text got a bit messy, it would be great if you could correct the poor grammatical situation that occurred there. Thanks in advance. Winterz (talk) 20:49, December 23, 2012 (UTC)
      • Not fixed, but for the sake of my sanity I'm going to strike it and start fresh, more detailed objections below. —MJ— Council Chambers 21:02, December 23, 2012 (UTC)
Exiled Jedi
  • I think you can probably get some additional information from the Atlas maps, just be sure to not say that the planet was controlled by a governemnt unless Aaeton appears on the map.--Exiled Jedi Oldrepublic crest (Greetings) 00:16, December 14, 2012 (UTC)
    • Done. However, in one map (New Sith Wars), its coordinates' quadrant is divided between neutral space and Galactic Republic's, so I decided to ignore that. Winterz (talk) 00:09, December 15, 2012 (UTC)
The Jedi Council investigates further
  • In the process of changing references in the infobox, you created a cite error.
  • "the government of Aaeton had the Ragoon of Ragoon VI join the Galactic Senate,": Transferring the administration of the planet to the Senate is not the same as joining the Senate; the latter implies full membership and representation, which there is no evidence of here AFAIK. Furthermore, Floria only says that Aaeton "gave the elders of Ragoon refuge" and says nothing about Aaeton being involved in the actual handover of the planet. Either correct this to actually match the source or give me the page number that explicitly states that. Additionally, if you leave anything there for which the only source is JQ, it must be explicitly attributed to Floria.
  • "Eventually, it became part of the Galactic Republic": If at all possible, source this to something other than JQ. If JQ is the absolute only source, explicitly attribute that statement to Floria.
  • "and gained representation in the Galactic Senate.": JQ says absolutely nothing about a Senator from Aaeton and therefore is not a source for this at all. Either source this to something other than JQ or remove it completely.
  • "the Senator of Aaeton": Again, JQ says absolutely nothing about a Senator from Aaeton and therefore is not a source for this at all. Either source this to something other than JQ or remove it completely.
  • "was responsible for helping the Ragoon [...] to transfer their homeworld's administration to the Senate": Again, Floria only says that Aaeton "gave the elders of Ragoon refuge" and says nothing about Aaeton being involved in the actual handover of the planet. Either correct this to actually match the source or give me the page number that explicitly states that. Additionally, if you leave anything there for which the only source is JQ, it must be explicitly attributed to Floria.
  • "in the same sector as Aaeton": JQ says nothing about sectors AFAIK. Either source this to something other than JQ or give me the page number that explicitly states that.
    • The source here still isn't valid, as the CSWE does not support the sector claim either. —MJ— War Room 21:23, December 23, 2012 (UTC)
  • "In repayment to the Senator's contributions,": Again, JQ says absolutely nothing about a Senator from Aaeton and therefore is not a source for this at all. Either source this to something other than JQ or change it simply Aaeton's contributions. If you go the latter route, it must be explicitly attributed to Floria.
  • "turning her description of Aaeton into unreliable info." "Info" is informal and should be expanded to the full word "information". Additionally, this wording implies that it was reliable to begin with, which it was not. I would suggest rephrasing it as "casting doubt on the rest of her information about the planet."
    • The new wording seems a little unusual, as I'm not sure that skepticism is something one can project. Can you find different wording? You can always just use my suggestion above if you want to. —MJ— War Room 22:30, December 23, 2012 (UTC)
  • —MJ— Council Chambers 21:02, December 23, 2012 (UTC)
    • OK, hang on a minute. You made some significant edits to the article that I didn't see before I saved this list. Let me look over those edits before you respond. —MJ— Training Room 21:03, December 23, 2012 (UTC)
      • Lol, my bad. I usually don't expect one to reply so fast so I'm replying here as I'm addressing objections and then after submitting it here, I still do some overall work on the article before publishing it for good. Winterz (talk) 21:16, December 23, 2012 (UTC)
        • OK, take a look now. Two objections above remain, plus one new one below. I'll give it a final copy-edit after those are addressed. As a note for the future, it's best to not save your responses on the nomination page until after you've saved all changes to the article. I picked up the initial set of responses about an hour ago directly off of recent changes, and not seeing many changes to the article, I thought you weren't getting the point, which is why some of the struck objections might come off as a little frustrated. —MJ— War Room 21:23, December 23, 2012 (UTC)
  • One more objection generated by the latest changes: The Essential Reader's Companion would be a much better source for the 27 BBY date. The only way to date the Jedi Quest books using the books themselves is to calculate off of Anakin's age, but his birthday is a bit funky, so two people can get two different dates by that method, which is why I recommend using the ERC instead. —MJ— Council Chambers 21:25, December 23, 2012 (UTC)
    • All objections addressed. I'm not sure why I added that sector part, but anyway, that's gone now. Winterz (talk) 22:10, December 23, 2012 (UTC)
      • See the comment above. —MJ— War Room 22:30, December 23, 2012 (UTC)
        • Okay, I used your words to avoid confusion. Winterz (talk) 23:09, December 23, 2012 (UTC)
Toprawa
  • In the intro quote, the very same sentence alternates between capitalizing "Senate" and not capitalizing it. Does the original source really format its text this way, or is this our inconsistency?
    • The quote is exact. It's probably just an innocent mistake from the writers.
      • There must be multiple versions of the book out there then, as my copy capitalizes both instances of "Senate". Interesting... —MJ— War Room 18:53, December 27, 2012 (UTC)
        • I'm not sure if you're accusing me of anything but mine certainly does not capitalize the latter. It is however, an ebook version, which means that it's possibly a mistake (like I said, innocent) from the editors. If you want any further proof, I can give you a print screen. To be honest, I don't see why all the fuzz, it's just a non-capitalized senate, it certainly isn't implying that there is another senate in this context. Winterz (talk) 20:11, December 27, 2012 (UTC)
          • I believe you and am not accusing you of anything, just making it known that there appear to be two different versions with different capitalization. The question is which to go by here. Although, I didn't know there was a eBook version; where might I get an eBook copy for my own use? —MJ— Training Room 00:34, December 28, 2012 (UTC)
            • [(link removed by admin) Here], a free hosted pdf of the book, you don't even have to buy anything. Winterz (talk) 00:39, December 28, 2012 (UTC)
              • OK, that is in no way an official copy, and in fact whoever created that (not you) is committing copyright infringement. To that end, I've removed your link to avoid potential claims of contributory copyright infringement. The quote should be changed to match the official version of the book, which capitalizes both instances of "Senate". —MJ— Council Chambers 01:02, December 28, 2012 (UTC)
                • Done. I'm sorry for inserting that link here. Winterz (talk) 02:16, December 28, 2012 (UTC)
                  • Just leaving some final thoughts without intending to exacerbate anything here: MJ is right that we should always format our quotes according to how they are presented in the officially published text. If you choose to use unofficial pirated copies you may find online somewhere to do your research and whatever else, when it comes to formatting quotes you should always double check the official copy. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 18:28, December 28, 2012 (UTC)
                    • The thing is, Tope, I wasn't aware that it was unlincensed material, otherwise I wouldn't have inserted it here, as I might as well be giving a piratebay torrent's link ^^. Winterz (talk) 18:58, December 28, 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm sort of confused by the wording here saying that the Ragoon "handed" their planet to the Senate. I'm not even sure what that's supposed to mean. Can we clarfy this at all? "handed their homeworld to the Senate"
    • Handed is the exact word and, unfortunately, Floria gives no explanation.
  • I find it sort of strange in the way the BTS selectively mentions publication/release dates for certain items, namely TOR, but not for others. Mentioning a date for a subject's first appearance/mention is always important, but subsequent items for consistency should either all list release dates or none of them should. Meaning that there's really no point in mentioning that TOR was released on Dec 20, 2011 if you're not going to also mention release dates for CSWE and the Atlas. I would suggest just removing TOR's release date. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 01:50, December 27, 2012 (UTC)
    • Argh, I'm sorry about that, I generally don't add much besides the years but in this case, I believe I was using sort of a template from other TOR promoted articles. The month and day is gone now. Winterz (talk) 16:04, December 27, 2012 (UTC)
      • No need to be sorry. I don't have a problem with including the years. I just believe they should best be kept consistent with any other source item you happen to mention in the BTS as well. If you mention one release date, for example, mention all of them. In this instance, you're still mentioning the 2011 release year for TOR, which really provides no critical information for Aaeton itself, the subject of this article. If you prefer to mention 2011, mention the release years for CSWE and the Atlas as well. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 18:28, December 28, 2012 (UTC)
        • Argh, I wasn't aware my early nominations were this under-quality. Do not worry though, my most recent ones are a lot better treated and once I'm done with these older nominations, the articles I have on standby for GAN (i.e. Sif-Uwana and Abbaji) will be less annoying to review ;) . As for your objection, it's addressed now. Winterz (talk) 18:58, December 28, 2012 (UTC)
            • Good to hear. I look forward to seeing your future nominations. :) I made a small wording change to this part of the BTS to mention "2009" directly instead of pipelinking it, which I think just presents better, not to mention it's probably more accurate, since the Atlas was not released one full year after CSWE. If you want to change that at all, go ahead. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 19:59, December 28, 2012 (UTC)
              • Nah it's fine. Thanks for your objections, regardless of the ACs approval delay. Winterz (talk) 20:13, December 28, 2012 (UTC)

Comments

Approved as a Good article by AgriCorps 19:59, December 28, 2012 (UTC)


  • Hope you don't mind me asking, as I understand you're probably busy, but could someone archive this? It's just that I've got a few articles waiting for GAN slots, and I'm not sure if I can nominate them while this one remains :c Winterz (talk) 14:32, December 26, 2012 (UTC)