Wookieepedia:Good article nominations/Critokian

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

Critokian

• Nominated by: Thefourdotelipsis 11:29, August 30, 2011 (UTC)
• Nomination comments:

(3 ACs/2 Users/5 Total)

Support

1. Excellent BtS. I enjoyed that more than the article proper.—Tommy 9281 Sunday, October 9, 2011, 18:25 UTC
2. Don't Critoki, Argentina... ~Savage 13:49, October 10, 2011 (UTC)
3. QuiGonJinn ^(Talk) 11:05, October 22, 2011 (UTC)
4. --Eyrezer 09:15, October 26, 2011 (UTC)
5. Grand Moff Tranner ^(Comlink) 16:10, November 1, 2011 (UTC)

Object

Prepare to be savaged…

• Infobox tweaks in recent months require a reload of the template.
  • Done.
• With this one, it seems that the later source (the Atlas and Companion) have tried to establish their homeworld as Critoki, and not Yavin 4. For that reason, I'd suggest perhaps only listing Critoki as homeworld, and beginning the narration with Critoki and then noting that they had populations on Yavin 4 as well.
  • Done.
• That said, I'm suspicious of our article Critoki, since the Atlas shows systems, not planets. I'd check to be absolutely sure that there is a planet by that name mentioned; otherwise, all we can say is they originally hailed from the Critoki system.
  • Well, based on my convo with Fry on JCF, I mentioned Critoki specifically has a "homeworld", and his response tended to indicate that was the case, having derived the name from the alien. Is that enough to go on? If not, I'll just switch it all to system.
    • I can go along with that interpretation, but you should add a citation after Critoki to Fry's post, rather than to the Atlas, which only lists the system, just to be thorough. ~Savage 16:43, September 6, 2011 (UTC)
• Since they're arachnids, yet only have four limbs, it's probably worth mentioning this number somewhere to avoid reader confusion.
  • Done.
• Similarly to above, in the "S&C" section, it's perhaps best to mention Critoki (system) first, and then describe the Yavin-based ones.
  • Yes indeedy.
• The Atlas should provide at least a bit of context on their history. For instance, is Critoki in the Outer Rim? In the Negs? Also, find where the Critoki system is located, then see where that map fell during various conflicts. While we have no idea whether the Critokians were affected by any particular conflict, at least after their world becomes part of the known galaxy (based on the "Galactic Explorations" map), it's often useful context to add.
• Was it possible for a Critokian to own a pet, or does the source say there was a Critokian who owned a pet at that show? If the latter, I'd give that random dude an article (Unidentified Critokian pet owner?). And was this pet-owner a bounty hunter? It kind of reads that way currently.
  • The book only provides the Critokian as a hypothetical, ergo "...it wasn't unusual to encounter an arachnoid Critokian..." I've tweaked it ever so slightly so that it doesn't seem that the two are connected, does that work?
• In the BTS, again, be sure it's the world Critoki that was established, and not just the system. Good stuff. ~Savage 13:09, August 30, 2011 (UTC)
• One last thing: Should their black coloring be mentioned either under "hair" or "skin" in the infobox? ~Savage 16:43, September 6, 2011 (UTC)

Moffship

• "They used large claws to hunt prey on the jungle world, and several of their number made their way off-world..." - which world are you referring to here: Critoki or Yavin 4?
  • Yavin, which is now specified. Thefourdotelipsis 04:05, October 25, 2011 (UTC)
• I'd like to see the History section condensed to include only information relevant to the species. It's unfortunate that this section in certain other species articles has become dominated by facts pertaining only to the planet on which a species originated.
• That's all for now. Interesting stuff. Grand Moff Tranner ^(Comlink) 20:05, October 10, 2011 (UTC)
  • The history thing was me. I think it's pertinent to know what was going on around them at any given time. If their homeworld fell within some empire or another, that is relevant info to the species. That's what the Atlas was created for, as a way to give a lot of history in a relatively small book. ~Savage 21:13, October 10, 2011 (UTC)
    • If the species was somehow involved with one of these governments (i.e., subjugation, conflict, diplomacy), then the information on the planet would also be relevant to the species. And while we're on the subject, this article presents an interesting question - if Critoki is going to be detailed in such depth, what about Yavin 4, since so many Critokians lived there? Does this mean that the article needs to provide a history of Yavin 4's allegiances over the centuries as well? Grand Moff Tranner ^(Comlink) 22:48, October 10, 2011 (UTC)
      • I understand your concern, but there are two considerations that sway me in the other direction. The first is that the homeworld and the species that lives there are intricately linked, and this information would be expected in the Critoki article. By parallel, an article on the American people cannot get away from the wars and whatnot of the American country, say, and one on the Korean people (as opposed to Korea) should probably note that Japan colonized Korea from 1910 to 1945. Here we have the disadvantage of not knowing for certain whether Critoki ever felt the Clone Wars or Zsinj's empire, but it's still good context to have to know they were in that sphere of influence. Secondly, the dates of when it was in various spheres of influence are important, in my opinion, as they give context to the authors who use Wookieepedia for their research. It's helpful information to have to know that Critoki was within the known galaxy by such and such a date and that the Critokians were within Zsinj's empire, say. The downside is that with an article that otherwise would have no history section, all this contextual stuff is all we have. It melds better with articles that have much larger histories to go through (like Jenet). But it is still important, in my opinion. As for Yavin IV, there are two further considerations: first, we don't know when they migrated there, so we can't say anything about the context of that world. Second, precedent is not to include colony worlds among what we consider from the Atlas. That may be wrongheaded, but that's the way we've been doing things at WP:A. I hope this explains things a bit better; sorry for being longwinded! ~Savage 01:03, October 11, 2011 (UTC)
        • I still fail to see why one needs to include this amount of information on a species's homeworld in the species's article. Context is one thing; this is something else entirely. The History section is nothing more than a condensed version of the Critoki article, to which this article links. Anyone looking for details on the planet can simply read that article. Only the first sentence of the History section contains information directly relevant to the species - everything else is simply mentioning in which area of space Critoki happened to fall during a series of wars in which the species, to our knowledge, played no part. I'm sorry, but this is something I cannot back down on again. It is my opinion that the vast majority of the section is fluff, and that said information does not belong in this article. Grand Moff Tranner ^(Comlink) 01:59, October 11, 2011 (UTC)
          • I still think context is important, and the items I added are just as relevant to the species as they are to the planet. At any rate, we seem to be at an impasse, because if the information is removed, I will have to drop from support to oppose due to the deviation from precedent. :( How should we proceed? ~Savage 02:42, October 11, 2011 (UTC)
            • The fact still remains that the paragraph is largely a history not of the Critokians, but of their homeworld. All I'm asking is for the information to be condensed to an acceptable level. I believe I am being more than fair here, since I never called for the information to be outright removed from the article, despite my feelings on this matter. Grand Moff Tranner ^(Comlink) 18:12, October 11, 2011 (UTC)
              • Oh, I hope I never came off as insinuating that you were being unreasonable; I honestly believe that we just have a fundamental difference of opinion. Take a look; I trimmed the section up a bit while not losing the information I feel is relevant. Is that better? ~Savage 18:29, October 11, 2011 (UTC)
                • Might as well wait to see what Fourdot has to say about all of this before I do anything further. However, this is certainly much better. Grand Moff Tranner ^(Comlink) 00:43, October 12, 2011 (UTC)
                  • I'm very old fashioned and anti-context, so my opinion probably isn't all that valuable, but I think what's there is pretty good, since both sentences are actually tied to the Critokians themselves. That should probably be the line, in my opinion - if you've got sentences that are disconnected from the subject, it's probably extraneous. What's there now is good. And thanks Bob, for doing that. Thefourdotelipsis 04:05, October 25, 2011 (UTC)

Exiled Jedi

• The article describes the species as "arachnid" and "arachnoid". Which one is the correct wording?
• I believe that their presence on Yavin 4 should be briefly mentioned in the history section.
• "...where it was possible for one of the arachnoid Critokians to own a bipedal ornuk as a pet." Could this be reworded slightly to have it make more sense? I can't really understand what to point of having "possible" in the sentence is. It seems rather awkward.--Exiled Jedi (Greetings) 22:05, October 28, 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• To whomever this involves: an objection remains unaddressed since August 30, which if not addressed soon will result in a removal vote for the nomination. CC7567 ^(talk) 21:37, October 8, 2011 (UTC)
  • I went ahead and sofixit'ed everything. Fourdot is welcome to change anything I changed or added, of course. ~Savage 13:49, October 10, 2011 (UTC)

Vote to remove nomination (AC only)

1. Idle objections. Toprawa and Ralltiir 06:46, November 13, 2011 (UTC)
2. —Tommy 9281 Sunday, November 13, 2011, 06:51 UTC
3. 1358 ^(Talk) 08:14, November 13, 2011 (UTC)