Wookieepedia:Good article nominations/Battle of Primus Goluud

< 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.

Battle of Primus Goluud

(3 ACs/2 Users/5 Total)

Support

  1. Nice. SoresuMakashi(Everything I tell you is the truth) 03:20, December 6, 2009 (UTC)
  2. Goodie : ) Kreivi Wolter 04:44, December 9, 2009 (UTC)
  3. ACvote Chack Jadson (Talk) 00:31, January 5, 2010 (UTC)
  4. ACvote Jonjedigrandmaster (Jedi Beacon) 01:15, January 19, 2010 (UTC)
  5. ACvote Toprawa and Ralltiir 06:25, January 22, 2010 (UTC)

Object

  1. Kreivi sputters
    • Casualties: No notable figures... eh, what?
    • Prelude is now bigger than the battle itself. I'm not familiar with the appearances/sources, so I ask: can the battle section be improved?
    • This was just my first, single look on the article. More to come, if necessary.Kreivi Wolter 13:24, December 1, 2009 (UTC)
  2. The Grand Master
    • In the intro, it's not very clear that the Republic forces ever actually come to Primus Goluud.
      • Addressed.
    • Does the source actually state that the Sith casualties are "Unknown"? If not, then it must be removed; words such as "unknown" and "unidentified" have long been avoided where possible.
      • No, but there is no information on casualties. What should I put?
        • Usually, if there is no information known, the corresponding section is left blank. (Otherwise every single section in an infobox for which no information is known would have to have "unknown" written in, for the sake of consistency)
          • Unidentified number of such and such is acceptable. There is no policy stating that it isn't. There are quite a few FAs with "unidentified number ofs" in their infoboxes.—Tommy9281 Dark side Master SWGTCG (Mechno-chair) 06:00, January 18, 2010 (UTC)
            • I've seen multiple other ACs object to using "unknown" or "unidentified" in articles, even in the infoboxes; there have been many GAs with this objection. Also, this case doesn't refer to a general "unidentified number of" situation, it refers to the casualties section, which is usually given in either specific numbers or such relative words—if available from sources—as "heavy" or "light" or "several". This isn't anything new: such casualties sections among GAs have commonly been left blank if no information is known. And my last point still stands: if you have a blank field in the infobox and you fill it in with "unknown," then by that line of thinking you should have to fill in all the other blank fields with "unknown" as well (as they would also be unknown), which would be completely impractical and illogical.
              • Your last point can stand all day long, since I never disputed it. My point was that "unidentified number ofs" in the "casualties" sections of infoboxes isn't anything new either; I'm simply stating that it (it being "unidentified number ofs" in the "casualties" section of an infobox, not the article itself) is acceptable. Three of the four examples you provided have clearly-stated casualties, so they are not relevant to either of our points. Just because you may have observed others in past instances objecting to "unidentifieds" or "unknowns" as general practice doesn't make it policy. If you are uncomfortable with the use of such terminology, it might be prudent to initiate a CT so that an official standard can be decided upon for the sake of consistency. As it currently stands, there is nothing in writing that says yay or nay.—Tommy9281 Dark side Master SWGTCG (Mechno-chair) 07:37, January 18, 2010 (UTC)
                • That's fair enough. I've just seen it objected to several times (even in the casualties section of the infobox) on the basis of it being OOU: unless a source actually states that the number is "unidentified" or "unknown," then you can't claim it to be so from an IU perspective. Anyway, I'll talk to the other ACs about it, and see if we can make some kind of official policy to avoid further confusion. Jonjedigrandmaster (Jedi Beacon) 14:55, January 18, 2010 (UTC)
    • "...After Gav Daragon's death in the Battle of Primus Goluud, Jori Daragon took over operations of Aarrba's Repair Dock, the business that the late Aarrba the Hutt had owned in Cinnagar, the capital city of Koros Major, in his memory." Does "his" refer to Aarrba or Gav?
      • Addressed.
    • Jonjedigrandmaster (Jedi Beacon) 21:25, January 14, 2010 (UTC)
  3. Hey Floyd, sorry to object after I've already supported, but after looking at several GAs, I think unknown should be remvoed and it should be left blank in the casualties section of the infobox. Chack Jadson (Talk) 15:12, January 18, 2010 (UTC)
  4. Toprawa:
    • Two things regarding linking. Firstly, I've noticed in a few of your TOTJ noms that you refer to the "Koros Army" without linking to any kind of specific article under than "Empress Teta system," which in my opinion doesn't exactly do justice. Should there not be some kind of article for this army? If so, please do link to it in the appropriate places, which will require to kill the resulting red link. And in that case, I would strongly suggest going through your other TOTJ noms and linking to this army article as well. And secondly, I think it would be best if you linked to a specific article for Sadow's Meditation Sphere. This will also require you to kill a red link, I believe. Toprawa and Ralltiir 00:04, January 20, 2010 (UTC)
      • Linked and redlinks killed. —Unsigned comment by Ifindyourlackoffaithdisturbing (talk • contribs)
        • Objection struck, though you failed to properly link everything in the article. I've cleaned this up for you. And should you read this message before the nomination is archived, please take some time and update the appropriate links in the remainder of your TOTJ articles. Toprawa and Ralltiir 06:25, January 22, 2010 (UTC)

Comments