Wookieepedia:Good article nominations/Chad Hilse

< 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.

Chad Hilse

  • Nominated by: — Hunter Kahn 20:52, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: Not much else to say, really. :)

(3 ACs/4 Users/7 Total)

Support

  1. —Master Jonathan New Jedi Order (Jedi Council Chambers) 18:19, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
  2. Nice. Menkooroo 05:02, September 8, 2010 (UTC)
  3. Clone Commander Lee Talk 09:59, September 8, 2010 (UTC)
  4. ACvote Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 21:39, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
  5. —Jedi Kasra (comlink) 15:26, September 10, 2010 (UTC)
  6. ACvote -- 1358 (Talk) 14:33, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
  7. ACvote Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 02:12, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

Object

From the Council Chambers:
  • In the infobox, all references should be wrapped with {{Ref}}.
  • Also in the infobox, never omit unneeded fields; all fields should be present in the correct order even if not needed to simplify bot work.
  • Use citation templates where appropriate; here, {{FFCite}} and {{InsiderCite}} should be used for refs 3 and 4, respectively.
    • The second parameter of {{FFCite}} is meant to be used in a specific, different way, but since I am completely unfamiliar with the FFs and have never used that template myself, I'll let someone else explain it. —Master Jonathan New Jedi Order (Jedi Council Chambers) 03:10, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
  • ANH itself is not a source for the stormtrooper unit being the 501st; you'll need to source that to Star Wars: Battlefront II.
    • You need to make it clearer which info goes to which ref. Only the text "engaged the 501st Legion stormtrooper unit." can be sourced to BFII; the rest of the last two sentences of that paragraph can only be sourced to ANH. This means you'll have two ANH refs in the paragraph, including the one at the end. —Master Jonathan New Jedi Order (Jedi Council Chambers) 03:10, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
      • Better now? — Hunter Kahn 06:38, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
  • His rank of ensign needs to be mentioned in the body; currently, it's exclusive to the intro.
  • Otherwise, good work. I realize most of these are {{Sofixit}}, but I'm objecting to them so that you're aware of them for the future. —Master Jonathan New Jedi Order (Jedi Council Chambers) 21:07, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
In front of the magic
  • Can you mention in the intro that the Tantive IV is a CR90 corvette?
  • "Hilse was stationed aboard the CR90 corvette Tantive IV with Princess Leia Organa received..." --- should that "with" be a "when"? I would have changed it myself but I just want to be entirely sure that's what you wanted to say.
  • Context on Pello Scrambas (even just "Lieutenant" would do it).
  • "Hilse" is used a bit too often. Can you change a few of them to "he" for better flow?
  • Building on Xicer's comment --- the comic adaptations of ANH (original, Special Edition, and Manga) probably feature this guy too. I have access to them; message me if you want me to check 'em out.
  • I don't know if reflist|2 is appropriate for so few sources. :^P Menkooroo 00:13, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
    • Think I've addressed them all. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 02:05, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
  • One more! Make sure to cite ccg cards like with the ccg cite. Like so:
    Swccglogolg Star Wars Customizable Card Game — Premiere Limited Card: Rebel Trooper (backup link)
    ~ Menkooroo 05:55, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
    • Done. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 06:38, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
Lee attacks
  • P&T required. You can tell something about his loyality to the Alliance and his combat training.
  • the Tantive IV personnel were destroyed by an asteroid storm. "Destroyed" does not fit on people. Replace it.
  • All from me. Clone Commander Lee Talk 10:00, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
    • OK to both. Let me know if the P&T section is acceptable. (Just so you know, the "typical of the volunteers" wording is not POV. It came straight out of SWE and the SWCCG card, which said Hilse "...typifies the loyal Rebel volunteers...") Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 14:09, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
Xd1358
  • Context on Vader.
  • -- 1358 (Talk) 07:41, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
    • Added, although if there is a better way to provide that context than what I wrote, I'd certainly appreciate any suggestions. — Hunter Kahn 06:32, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
      • I'd go with simply 'Sith Lord'. Having too much context is not good, IMO. -- 1358 (Talk) 06:34, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
        • I am guilty of "too much context" at times. :D I've changed it. — Hunter Kahn 14:18, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
Jujiggum
  • Judging by your comment below, it sounds like you don't know for sure that the two action figures are definitely Hilse. If we have no official confirmation of them defintiely being Hilse, then you should change the wording back, as it is original research. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 20:42, September 13, 2010 (UTC)
    • I saw this edit, and it turns out Hanzo Hasashi is right, if you look at the photos of these action figure packages (here and here), those are definitely pictures of Chad Hilse. Based on that, I'd say these action figures are indeed Hilse, and I'm comfortable with the wording that's currently there. What do you think? — Hunter Kahn 12:17, September 15, 2010 (UTC)
      • But how do we know that the action figure itself is really meant to be Hilse? How do we know it's not just meant to be a nondescript Rebel trooper? I'm not really sure which way to go on this one… Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 20:06, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
        • Yeah, I don't know. I guess if it's better to be safe than sorry, I can restore the wording to something like what it was in this older version, that it can't be clear whether the figure was Hilse or not. Let me know what you think... — Hunter Kahn 13:51, September 18, 2010 (UTC)
          • That's probably for the best, just to be safe. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 14:23, September 18, 2010 (UTC)
            • Made the change. — Hunter Kahn 22:20, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Comments

Approved as a Good article by AgriCorps 02:12, September 20, 2010 (UTC)


  • I know it seems kind of silly, but have you checked all ANH adaptations for appearances of this guy? He could be hanging around in the background of the PhotoComic or something. Also, I know Behind the Magic loves referencing CCG characters, so you might want to check that out too. It has even offered new information in the past, such as in the case of Laudica. And finally, looking through the article's "What links here" it appears that this character has been made into at least two action figures ([1] and [2]), possibly more. That should be worth mentioning somewhere. Xicer9Atgar(Combadge) 21:27, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
    • I will check the other adaptations just in case. In the meantime, a question about the action figure. I'm more than happy to add them to the BTS here. My question is, can we say for sure that these figures are based on Chad Hilse specifically, and not just one of the random Rebel troopers? It doesn't seem as though he's identified by name at either link... — Hunter Kahn 02:05, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
      • That's true. I thought he might be mentioned somewhere on the back of the box, but I guess not. I suppose what captured my attention was that his picture was on the front of both boxes, so I thought it was implied that they're intended to be him. Since he's not mentioned by name, do what you see fit with them. Xicer9Atgar(Combadge) 02:09, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
        • Ok, well, I've looked at the adaptations, and it seems to me there is a similar problem in the comics as with the action figures: there are plenty of Rebel troopers that look like Hilse, but they are never identified by name, and there is no clear way to determine whether they are indeed the guy or just some random Rebel Trooper. I decided to try addressing this problem by essentially explaining exactly that in the BTS section. Take a look at what I wrote and let me know what you think. If you feel it doesn't work, I can remove it... — Hunter Kahn 06:58, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
          • Methinks some "possible appearance" appearances are in order. :^D
          • The new stuff in the bts is OK but could use some cleanup --- things like "it is impossible to say" are a bit ehhhhhhhhhh. And the second paragraph should make it clear that not every rebel trooper from the firefight appeared in the adaptations, rather than the "None were identified by name". Since they're not identified by name in the original source, either, it seems a bit off as it currently is.Menkooroo 07:20, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
            • I added the possible appearances. I've also tried to clean up the wording a bit but please let me know if it needs further tweaking. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 14:10, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
              • I don't mean to interject, but I do not believe we are allowed to put "possible appearances" in the Appearances section. I remember when these were omitted from Revan, before he was confirmed to have been the Revanchist. It's essentially speculation, is what I'm getting at.—Jedi Kasra (comlink) 00:50, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
                • Talked with an Inq about this, maybe you could place this in the BTS?—Jedi Kasra (comlink) 01:43, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
                  • They are already in the BTS, as well as the appearances. I have no problem either way, whether they are removed from appearances or kept. Out of courtesy to the reviewer who suggested it, I've reached out to him on his talk page to weigh in on the matter before I remove them... — Hunter Kahn 02:48, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
                  • Hey Kasra --- do you mean that possible appearances aren't appropriate for this article, or in general? They're definitely OK in general; whether they're appropriate is usually done on a case-by-case basis. With Revan and the Revanchist, it sounds like they weren't OK because it was based on mere speculation that Revan was the Revanchist. Hilse's story here is a little different. He's definitely in the gunfight, and many, but not all of the gunfight soldiers appear in those two comic issues. Is he one of them? Maybe. Menkooroo 05:03, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
                    • Hmm, I meant in general, but in this case, I suppose it's alright. He, as you said, was present at the battle, so it should be fine.—Jedi Kasra (comlink) 06:49, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
  • Hunter Kahn: Take a look at this edit and see if it's good. -- 1358 (Talk) 19:35, September 13, 2010 (UTC)
    • Well, this edit seems to indicate the action figures are definitely Hilse, as opposed to possibly Hilse. which is what I was trying to indicate. But if you feel this wording is alright, then I'm fine with that. — Hunter Kahn 20:31, September 13, 2010 (UTC)
      • Wait --- there were like a dozen identical-looking rebel troopers in the firefight. How can we say that the action figures were definitely Hilse? Menkooroo 16:42, September 14, 2010 (UTC)
      • That had been my thoughts on the matter too. But then I saw this edit, and it turns out Hanzo Hasashi is right, if you look at the photos of these action figure packages (here and here), those are definitely pictures of Chad Hilse. Based on that, I'd say these action figures are indeed Hilse, and I'm comfortable with the wording that's currently there. — Hunter Kahn 12:18, September 15, 2010 (UTC)