Wookieepedia:Good article nominations/Aaghra

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a good article nomination that was unsuccessful. Please do not modify it.

Aaghra

Nominated by: Winterz (talk) 07:47, October 4, 2012 (UTC)
Nomination comments: From CAN

(3 ACs/1 Users/4 Total)

Support

Species: None. Languages: None. Honors: None. So many memories. Menkooroo (talk) 02:25, October 9, 2012 (UTC)
Cavalier One^{(Squadron channel)} 17:42, October 15, 2012 (UTC)
Winterz, I feel your pain. Commander Code-8 ^{To say hi, press 42} 01:24, November 6, 2012 (UTC)
IFYLOFD ^{(Floyd's crib)} 01:53, November 22, 2012 (UTC)

Object

zugzugzugzugzug

~~A common objection we folks like to give is... reload your infobox! And by that, we mean use here as a reference and be sure to include every parameter, whether there's information for it or not.~~
- Done.
  - I noticed that you removed "None" from the species field. Shouldn't it be there? The "History" section says as much.
    - Argh, that's what I call failing at reloading an infobox. Fixed.
"therefore having no political affiliation whatsoever. While it didn't have any official affiliation," --- mentioning this twice in a row is a bit repetitive. Can you combine these two sentences into one?
- Modified.
  - I think it's actually more confusing now --- "although this fact applied" isn't clear whether the fact in question is the lack of political affiliation or the lack of water. And actually, upon closer examination, I'm hoping you can reshuffle "History" to make it more chronological: If the planet was first disccovered between 25,000 and 17,000 BBY, that should be at the beginning rather than the end. Also, it seems like there's enough info to add a "Description" section, as the Layout Guide recommends. Give it a shot, baby! Menkooroo (talk) 00:06, October 9, 2012 (UTC)
    - Ironically I tried to get away with the whole 'description' thing :p but now I notice that thanks to it, organizing history chronogically became a lot easier. Anyway, done! Winterz (talk) 01:00, October 9, 2012 (UTC)
~~Do we know for sure that 8 ABY is the year that it became part of the New Republic, or do we just know that it was part of the NR by 8 ABY?~~
All from me. Nice work. Menkooroo (talk) 11:18, October 8, 2012 (UTC)
- Fixed. Thanks. Winterz (talk) 14:50, October 8, 2012 (UTC)

Cav

~~The use of "whatsoever" strikes me as a little off. Can you remove them and replace with more neutral, formal language?~~
~~Does it really need to be mentioned that the planet hasn't been referenced since 2009?~~ - Cavalier One^{(Squadron channel)} 13:47, October 9, 2012 (UTC)
- Removed both. Winterz (talk) 15:45, October 9, 2012 (UTC)

This Agra treasure intervened like an impassable barrier between us

That it was within the territory of a galactic government does not make it part of that government unless its system was place on the map. Was it on the map for any of those time periods? Related, the area that the planet was within was surveyed at the time provided in the article. That doesn't mean it was found then. NaruHina ^Talk 02:31, December 9, 2012 (UTC)
- Fixed. However about the surveying part, I did it because that's how it is, even in some FANs, so I haven't changed anything about that right away, as I consider what my approach should be. Winterz (talk) 05:25, December 16, 2012 (UTC)

Toprawa

Given the somewhat concerning lack of response below, I'm turning this into a formal objection. I request official confirmation, with page numbers for evidence, that this subject even appears in the Atlas. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 16:59, December 14, 2012 (UTC)
- It's not that I've ignored it, as I usually also address and comply with the comments. In fact I couldn't find anything in the Atlas so I left a message on the talk of page of the person who added and sourced that information. Given that it's a lot of info and that I was positive of confirming it beforehand, I'm still waiting for this user's answer. However I can understand your worries in this matter so, even considering the fact that I've been flooding with exams for the past 2 weeks (therefore another Atlas review is out of question), I'll go ahead and gather again all the intel I have from Aaghra in the original source and will remove what isn't in it, even the Atlas appearance, this very night. I'll contact you once I'm done. Winterz (talk) 20:54, December 14, 2012 (UTC)
  - Complying with what I said above, I couldn't find the page so went with removing all the Atlas' info I can't be sure of. Winterz (talk) 05:39, December 16, 2012 (UTC)
    - Very well. In that case, I would recommend amending the Atlas reference slightly so that the reader is aware that we're coming to this Atlas information based on indirect information from other source material. To give you an example, here, in reference 1, you will see that I did basically the same thing, expect I was using the Online Companion. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 21:35, December 16, 2012 (UTC)
      - Done. Winterz (talk) 21:50, December 16, 2012 (UTC)
        Good job. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 23:16, December 16, 2012 (UTC)
After looking at the source material myself, I notice the following things in regards to the infobox:
- It appears to me that we're extrapolating based on the "molten rock" information by saying that this planet has 0% water, because the source itself doesn't literally say this. Obviously, in real-world terms, we can make a basic assumption that a ball of molten rock doesn't have any surface water, but this is Star Wars, and it's often a mistake to ever assume that real-world physics apply. Even if it is extremely probable, I would recommend simply removing all mentions of lack of surface water in the absence of any literal information.
- Secondly, the affiliation field. Again, the source does not mention any affiliations, either existent or non-existent, unless I've missed something, which makes saying it has "none" an assumption. I would suggest removing this as well.
- Please also make any necessary revisions to the article proper regarding this information. Once this is handled, I will continue my review. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 23:16, December 16, 2012 (UTC)
  - All objections above, addressed.
  - Saying in the article proper that it has no "known affiliations" still remains a problem. That's basically tantamount to our MOS policy restricting "unknown" wording. That part should just be removed from the article. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 23:05, December 17, 2012 (UTC)
    - Uh, corrected.
I've taken the liberty of specifying in the Sources list which article entry from the Aargau series this planet is mentioned in. Please revise your referencing accordingly. I'm not sure if any content in this article comes from one of the three other Aargau articles. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 23:39, December 16, 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, I wasn't aware that those were required, thanks for adding them. Winterz (talk) 22:20, December 17, 2012 (UTC)
  - No problem. I'm not sure if it's required in this case, exactly, but I liken this to comic book issues, in that we always recommend referencing by individual comic issue, rather than overall story arc. Much more specific and helpful. That being said, I'm not sure you understood what I was saying, though. I meant to say to please change your sourcing in the article to reflect this individual Aargau article, which was not done. I changed the article's referencing to source everything to "Part 1" to show you what I mean. If there is information in this article from Parts 2, 3, or 4 from the Aargau article series that needs a different reference note, please make the appropriate change. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 23:05, December 17, 2012 (UTC)
    - My bad, thanks for fixing and no there isn't any other mention besides Part 1. About that division however, I don't think you can compare it to comic books and/or story arcs. The Aargonar web article is divided in parts (like chapters, not issues), and if I'm not mistaken, they were released altogether at the same date and in the same document (meh, ebook version). Also, I just noticed, the article's content is under 200 words which doesn't make it enough for a GAN. What should I do? :c Winterz (talk) 00:27, December 18, 2012 (UTC)
      - Each individual Part for every Planet Hoppers entry was released weekly, not all at once, which is why I liken it to comic book issues. As for the article word count, GANs actually need to be 250 words (by my count, this article is currently at 191). I hadn't realized myself that this article doesn't meet that threshold until you said something just now. Unless you can legitimately add some 60 words or so to bring it to 250, it will need to go back down to CAN. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 00:40, December 18, 2012 (UTC)
        Oh well but then it wouldn't even need an intro nor description and it would have to be "reshaped" yet again. I've had it with this one. Feel free to archive this failure. Winterz (talk) 00:48, December 18, 2012 (UTC)
        Well, I think you're mistaken by thinking that, and I feel like that's one of the more troubling misconceptions of the CAN system, that if an article is under 250 words that somehow it doesn't need to have an intro or sectioning, when that's not true. You're perfectly within your rights to nominate this article for CAN and maintain its current layout. In fact, I think it would be doing this article a disservice to change it. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 01:00, December 18, 2012 (UTC)
        
        Okay then please archive it. I'll nominate it in the CAN section afterwards. Winterz (talk) 02:02, December 18, 2012 (UTC)

Comments

May I ask where in the Atlas this planet is mentioned? Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 19:24, November 14, 2012 (UTC)
- After an enduring search, I still haven't found it but I'm pretty sure it is there. I didn't make up those Atlas references. Give me a few more days! Winterz (talk) 20:25, November 21, 2012 (UTC)