Wookieepedia:Good article nominations/Darth Drear

< 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.

Darth Drear

(3 ACs/2 Users/5 Total)

Support

  1. ACvote Very nice. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 21:49, February 24, 2011 (UTC)
  2. ACvote Toprawa and Ralltiir 23:05, February 24, 2011 (UTC)
  3. Assuming sword mention will end up in the P&A recently produced. Graestan(Talk) 01:24, March 2, 2011 (UTC)
  4. ACvote This was a great book. —Tommy 9281 Wednesday, March 2, 2011, 01:50 UTC
  5. Indeed it was. I really enjoyed the Sith alchemy. Anywho, nothing amiss with the article itself. Trak Nar Ramble on 05:21, March 3, 2011 (UTC)

Object

Twin
  • The explanation in the reftag for his affiliation is unnecessary because the facts are there. You can keep it there if you like, but if you just reff it to the book I doubt anyone would question it.
    • I disagree; the book itself does not specifically mention the Sith Empire. I feel a brief explanation is necessary to clarify the issue for any readers.
      • The prevalence of common sense is what I meant in this instance, but as I said, it is your decision. —Tommy 9281 Saturday, February 26, 2011, 18:12 UTC
        • Considering the general insanity when it comes to Sith leadership and empires, I don't see any reason not to source as much as possible. Furthermore, I don't think it's particularly respectful to make insinuations regarding common sense on the site. Can we keep this to a more civil tone? Graestan(Talk) 01:23, March 2, 2011 (UTC)
  • It was my understanding that Drear's students died delving out the space for the specimens...
    • Yes, that is already mentioned in the article.
      • I misread.
  • In the P&T you don't really talk about his (p)ersonality and (t)raits. Instead, you just recount things he's done. I'd like to read about his indifference to the suffering visited upon his students; his obsession with eternal life, etc.
    • In instances when a character is only mentioned, with little insight into his/her thoughts, I prefer to let the individual's actions speak for themselves, mostly to avoid speculating.
      • There is no speculation. Is it not obvious that Drear cared little for the suffering of the apprentices? Can it not be deduced from the reading that he was obsessed with eternal life? I think so, and suggest you add such duck test conclusions to the P&T.
        • I believe "deduced from the reading" pretty much sums up the site's description of speculation. It kind of falls outside the realm of "straightforward mathematical calculations or logical deductions based on fully attributed data that neither change the significance of the data nor require additional assumptions beyond what is in the source" to say explicitly what someone feels inside based on actions. Graestan(Talk) 01:23, March 2, 2011 (UTC)
          • Pardon my incorrect use of words then. I meant "straightforward mathematical calculations or logical deductions based on fully attributed data," which this was a case of.—Tommy 9281 Wednesday, March 2, 2011, 01:50 UTC
  • You should also mention his sword in the P&T.
    • I don't really see what the sword has to do with his personality or traits; could you please explain?
      • Well there is an absence of a P&A section, presumably because you feel that there isn't enough information to warrant one, which is where I was going with the sword. But I assure you that if I had written this, one would exist, sword included. And as a matter of fact, I believe one should now. We know several significant things about what Drear could do to warrant the inclusion of a P&A.
  • I would also mention in the BtS how there is a chapter specifically named for the character, something not often seen in SW books (where named chapters themselves are rare).
    • Done.
  • Good work. —Tommy 9281 Saturday, February 26, 2011, 14:54 UTC
    • Thanks for the review, Tommy. Just as a note, I undid some of your modifications to the article, as I felt they made some things unclear. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 17:56, February 26, 2011 (UTC)
      • The changes I made that you reverted were to effect the Wookieepedia policy of past tense usage in IU articles, which "ing" words do not always do. —Tommy 9281 Saturday, February 26, 2011, 18:12 UTC
        • I'd like to discuss these objections in detail, preferably in IRC for ease of communication. While I am unavailable to do so at the moment, I will be on IRC later in the day. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 21:35, March 1, 2011 (UTC)
          • I believe there is some misunderstanding as to the tense issues. These are still past-tense, and actually they are correct usage of the imperfect tense. What is typically not acceptable on the site is flagrant use of the imperfect, such as "he was running down the street" as opposed to the simpler "he ran down the street." Mind you, this is a situation in which imperfect tense can and should be easily avoided. Tranner's usage does not seem to hinder the prose whatsoever, while changing everything to perfect tense becomes a bit cumbersome in those places. Graestan(Talk) 01:23, March 2, 2011 (UTC)
  • One more thing: I've looked and can't seem to find an article for the Odacer-Faustin Sith temple, or Darth Drear's Sith temple, or somesuch. If it does exist, it needs to be linked in the article, and if not, the redlink needs to be created. I'll support after that.—Tommy 9281 Wednesday, March 2, 2011, 13:50 UTC

Comments

Approved as a Good article by AgriCorps 05:29, March 3, 2011 (UTC)


  • I originally included a Powers and Abilities section, but I removed it because the information in the section really had nothing to do with powers and/or abilities. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 02:30, February 21, 2011 (UTC)