Wookieepedia:Good article nominations/Combined Clans Center Building (second nomination)

< 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.

Combined Clans Center Building

  • Nominated by: —Xwing328(Talk) 22:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: Re-nomination after addressing the concerns from before, plus significant expansion.

(3 ACs/6 Users/9 Total)

Support

  1. —Silly Dan (talk) 02:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  2. I know I put you through a lot, nice article. Kilson Likes PIE 20:12, 04 May 09 (UtC)
  3. Master JonathanJedi Council Chambers 01:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  4. ACvote Under the pretense that my remaining objection will be fixed soon. CC7567 (talk) 01:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  5. ACvote Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 22:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  6. IFYLOFD (You will pay the price for your lack of vision!) 16:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
  7. SoresuMakashi(Everything I tell you is the truth) 09:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  8. --Darth tom Imperial Emblem (Imperial Intelligence) 11:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  9. ACvote Toprawa and Ralltiir 22:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Object

  1. From the Council Chambers:
    • Context on the Combined Clans and the Caamas Document Crisis is needed in the intro and body.
    • "the center was unintentionally host to a devastating riot": "Unintentionally" is unnecessary, methinks. Since when did a building (i.e. an inanimate object) ever intentionally host a riot? ;)
    • "Security for the building included—but was not necessarily limited to—": The second part of that sounds just a little bit too much like the whole "unknown" thing and probably should be removed. (It's also legalese, but that's off topic.) "Include", by definition, leaves open the possibility that the following list may be incomplete, and in fact some writers insist that it should only be used when followed by an incomplete list (but don't tell a lawyer that). See the usage note halfway down the page here.
      • I actually agree, I'm not sure why I put that in there in the first place. I'll probably get the rest of these once I "contextify" everything. Thanks for the review! —Xwing328(Talk) 01:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
    • "Councilor Leia Organa Solo and her husband Han Solo were inadvertently visiting the building at the same time in an attempt to exam the Combined Clans' financial records.": They were in the building intentionally (i.e. to examine the financial records), so "inadvertently" doesn't make sense in that context. Reword, please (perhaps "By coincidence,…").
    • Master JonathanJedi Council Chambers 23:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  2. Kilson's problems
    • In the BtS, you should give the exact year the novel was released instead of saying the late '90s. Just to be more accurate.
      • "late 1990's" because the duology was spread out over two years, but I added it after the book like other writings often due. —Xwing328(Talk) 01:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
    • In the history, you mention that two Leresai were killed by the sniper. Why is this important, what do Leresais have to do with the building or the riot?
      • They have nothing to do with it other than they were at the riot and were killed. It's some of the only info actually provided about it. —Xwing328(Talk) 01:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
    • At the end of the history section, you say the entire first floor of the building was destroyed, why, how? You need to explain this also.
    • Why are the Imperials now instigating riots (this goes along with context on the Caamas Document Crisis that Manster Jonathan asked for), why is this Drend Nevatt dude there shooting up the place? Context need here too.
    • You mention that Senator Orou'cya in a quote asking Leia for help, but you don't mention this in the history section.
      • Missed this one first time around. Good now, I think. —Xwing328(Talk) 01:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
    • You don't have any information in the history section about the building before or after 19 ABY. If any exists, you should put it in there.
      • None exists. Please keep objections within the rules laid out at the top of this page. Graestan(Talk) 15:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't want to sound nasty or anything, especially after all the help you gave me in the Hoth nom, but you need a lot more information about the Clan Building. After you address these, I'll re-review. Kilson Likes PIE 00:01, 29 April 09 (UTC)
      • That's out of line. You're not even on one of the article review panels; please be more respectful. Graestan(Talk) 15:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
        • Really, I don't want to sound mean, and I mean no disrespect to Xwing, but the article is lacking in information. It's true, I am not an Agricorps member, and I might be compeletly wrong on this, but I think the article needs more context to what exactly happened during this riot. Kilson Likes PIE 19:15, 29 April 09 (UTC)
          • I will try to add what little left there is, including some context, but like Graestan has said, the author just didn't provide much more. PS: since final projects are due this weekend, it might be a few days before I get back to it. I can leave you a message when to check it. —Xwing328(Talk) 01:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
  3. One question from Dan
    • Was it a three-story building, or a building with at least three floors? The article currently implies that it's a three-story building, but I somehow suspect it's not specified in the book (which is currently boxed, or I'd check myself.) —Silly Dan (talk) 20:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Yes, it's three floors. Aside from the part stating the atrium having three floors and then describing the staircases connecting the floors, it talks about people on the first floor during the riot, and those escaping to the "upper two floors," hence three. And then Han is stated to be on the third-floor balcony, later referred to as the top. Now, since the atrium is only the first third of the building, the rest of the building could theoretically be taller. I know you didn't need all that info, just explaining. And I've reworded it to hopefully reflect this better. —Xwing328(Talk) 01:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
      • OK, makes sense. Thanks! —Silly Dan (talk) 02:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  4. Bumrushin' the Show with IFYLOFD:
  5. Attack of the Clone
    • "During the 19 ABY Caamas Document Crisis—brought about by the discovery of a document that implicated the involvement of Bothans in the destruction of Caamas—the center was host to a devastating riot incited by Imperials just prior to the Second Battle of Bothawui." First of all, I did some rewording for this sentence. However, the context for the crisis is rather windy, and even with dashes, it derives from the sentence flow. Can it be compacted/smoothed out in any way?
    • "An ornamental stairway ran between the first two floors, yet only a standard stairway connected the top two floors." Use of the word "yet" doesn't seem to be appropriate for a description of the building itself, unless it's extremely awe-worthy or extremely contrasting.
      • It is contrasting (ornamental vs. ordinary), hence the use of the word. I'll go for something less extreme like "while," if it appeases you. —Xwing328(Talk) 01:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
    • "representative to Bothawui": I was going to change it to "of Bothawui", but I wasn't really sure if that's what you meant. Also, it should be made clearer about where Fey'lya represented Bothawui.
      • Added what he represented. Also, "representative to" and "representative of" are essentially interchangeable in the English language. If it really bugs you, we can change it, too. —Xwing328(Talk) 01:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
    • "Concurrent with the arrival of Leia Organa Solo and her husband Han Solo at the Combined Clans Center Building in order to look into the Bothan financial records": the use of "concurrent" isn't really appropriate here, since the following details about the Solos' mission are admittedly rather lengthy. Even with rewording of the sentence itself, I think the Solos' mission needs to be stated differently from their arrival.
    • "another species whose government adamantly demanded sanctions against the Bothans": it sounds like the Leresai also had a government that demanded sanctions against the Bothans; I know that you're saying that they were simply another species, but it needs to be reworded for clarity.
      • Actually, this one goes both ways, as they are simply another species, but they are also now one of several species demanding sanctions. But I changed "another" to "a" to eliminate unnecessary confusion. —Xwing328(Talk) 01:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
    • "Calm" is a noun, but it's not a state itself; "calm" can't really be appealed for. Please change to another word.
      • I respectfully disagree with you on this as well, and I hope you reconsider. Calm can be asked or appealed for, and it is in fact a quite common phrase to "appeal for calm". Not that the web is always reliable, but Google it if you still disagree. As you can see, quite a few news agencies even use this phrase. —Xwing328(Talk) 01:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
    • "Bothan guards fired shots into the crowd that ended in the destruction of the entire first floor": the use of "ended" makes it sound like the action abruptly stopped altogether; if this is the case, please make it clearer, but if not, please rephrase.
      • Would "resulted" be a better word choice? If so, done. —Xwing328(Talk) 01:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
    • CC7567 (talk) 05:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Approved as a Good article by AgriCorps 23:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)