- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a good article nomination that was successful. Please do not modify it.
Darth Tenebrous's Sith Master
- Nominated by: —Jedi Kasra ("Indeed.") 12:02, March 15, 2013 (UTC)
- Nomination comments: Ugh… dat succession box…
(3 ACs/2 Users/5 Total)
Support
- 501st dogma(talk) 22:36, March 15, 2013 (UTC)
- —MJ— Council Chambers 20:37, March 16, 2013 (UTC)
Assuming Floyd's objections are met. - Sir Cavalier of One
(Squadron channel) 21:29, March 20, 2013 (UTC)- IFYLOFD (Floyd's crib) 02:43, March 23, 2013 (UTC)
Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 21:08, March 25, 2013 (UTC)
Object
501st
The Rule of two is not mentioned at all in the bio, while it is in the intro."...Tenebrous determined to use a variation of the essence transfer Force technique at the moment of the individual's birth, thus becoming the Chosen One." The grammer's weird here. Also, is Tenebrous trying to be the chosen one, or am I readig it wrong?There's no category for Individuals of unidentified gender. It should be the category unidentified gender instead.- Good work otherwise. 501st dogma(talk) 22:10, March 15, 2013 (UTC)
- All taken care of. Please let me know if the second objection needs some more rewording.—Jedi Kasra ("Indeed.") 22:23, March 15, 2013 (UTC)
From the Council Chambers:
I have to object to the reference used for the 167 BBY date. Per the current reference, the quote used is "More than a century before". Not "a century before", but "more than a century before". That means, based on that alone, it could be referring to (give me a minute to pull a random number out of my head) 193 BBY, for example, in which case the Master could have been killed that year. On the flip side, it could have been 146 BBY as well. Therefore, the statement currently used has a large margin of error. A better way to reference it would be to remove everything about The Tenebrous Way and replace it with a reference to page 60 of the Darth Plagueis novel itself, which uses an exact "One hundred years earlier" to refer to the wound being opened in the Force. You could then remove the "c." from the date, since 167 BBY would now be an exact date.- Please try it.—Jedi Kasra ("Indeed.") 04:34, March 16, 2013 (UTC)
- I simply cannot stand having my signature on the same line as an objection. :P —MJ— Holocomm 04:10, March 16, 2013 (UTC)
- XD.—Jedi Kasra ("Indeed.") 04:34, March 16, 2013 (UTC)
One more: Is "between" really necessary in the succession box? It seems to me that the dash fulfills that purpose, and "between" is grammatically incorrect without being accompanied by the word "and".- Omitted.
- Just a note, but please read WP:DASH, particularly the instructions on spacing in relation to "c.", and look at the two changes I've made with a WP:DASH edit summary. In the future, I may object to this issue instead of applying sofixit. —MJ— War Room 05:18, March 16, 2013 (UTC)
- Alright, thanks for the review.—Jedi Kasra ("Indeed.") 05:21, March 16, 2013 (UTC)
Floyd
In the intro, context on Bane and the Rule of Two."The duo followed the lineage of Darth Bane, adhering to its Rule of Two" Does the "its" refer to the lineage? It would make more sense as a "his" referring to Bane."a Twi'lek was sensitive to the Force, eventually ascending to the rank of Dark Lord of the Sith as part of the Order of the Sith Lords." I really don't like how you introduce this here. It goes from "he was Force-sensitive" directly to Dark Lord. Something about him joining the Sith has to come in between there.- IFYLOFD (Floyd's crib) 04:46, March 19, 2013 (UTC)
- All taken care of.—Jedi Kasra ("Indeed.") 14:09, March 19, 2013 (UTC)
Attack of the Clone
Before I jump in, am I correct in saying that 167 BBY is a year within this individual's reign as Dark Lord (with Tenebrous)? i.e. it could have ended in 167 BBY (or even started and ended in that year, for all we know), but that's really the only confirmed year we have? I'm trying to think about how the succession box can be reworded, because the "years" field is a bit unwieldy at the moment. I realize that the current version is the most specific as possible, but sometimes there can be a thing as being too specific when it comes to dates. I have maybe a suggestion or two once the 167 BBY question is confirmed.CC7567 (talk) 15:57, March 23, 2013 (UTC)- The date of 167 BBY was calculated using simple math from the information given on p. 60 of the novel. 67 BBY is the only dates that are explicitly mentioned in the novel that has to do with this character, since Tenebrous' death occurs in that year, and Plagueis notes that Master opened the rift in the Force 100 years prior to the events of Tenebrous' death. I am open to suggestions.—Jedi Kasra ("Indeed.") 17:03, March 23, 2013 (UTC)
- I'm on the verge of suggesting just "167 BBY," since that's the only date we know, but I'm not sure that would be entirely correct since there might be other years included within that. How would "By 167 BBY" sound? That would date the beginning of his reign and leave the end date (which we don't know) open. CC7567 (talk) 17:48, March 23, 2013 (UTC)
- The problem is that the story The Tenebrous Way indicates that the Master was the lead Sith Lord before 167 BBY, since it says "More than a century before, when Tenebrous had been but a Sith apprentice himself…" So he was the Dark Lord before 167 BBY, but whether Tenebrous killed him during that year or after is unknown, just that it probably occurred during that period.—Jedi Kasra ("Indeed.") 18:49, March 23, 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps "Prior to 167 BBY—" (or Pre–167 BBY—) then? That hanging em dash would mean that it would conclude at an unidentified date, which seems to be the case here. CC7567 (talk) 19:10, March 23, 2013 (UTC)
- That works, makes it less clunky. Thanks for the suggestion.—Jedi Kasra ("Indeed.") 19:28, March 23, 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps "Prior to 167 BBY—" (or Pre–167 BBY—) then? That hanging em dash would mean that it would conclude at an unidentified date, which seems to be the case here. CC7567 (talk) 19:10, March 23, 2013 (UTC)
- The problem is that the story The Tenebrous Way indicates that the Master was the lead Sith Lord before 167 BBY, since it says "More than a century before, when Tenebrous had been but a Sith apprentice himself…" So he was the Dark Lord before 167 BBY, but whether Tenebrous killed him during that year or after is unknown, just that it probably occurred during that period.—Jedi Kasra ("Indeed.") 18:49, March 23, 2013 (UTC)
- I'm on the verge of suggesting just "167 BBY," since that's the only date we know, but I'm not sure that would be entirely correct since there might be other years included within that. How would "By 167 BBY" sound? That would date the beginning of his reign and leave the end date (which we don't know) open. CC7567 (talk) 17:48, March 23, 2013 (UTC)
- The date of 167 BBY was calculated using simple math from the information given on p. 60 of the novel. 67 BBY is the only dates that are explicitly mentioned in the novel that has to do with this character, since Tenebrous' death occurs in that year, and Plagueis notes that Master opened the rift in the Force 100 years prior to the events of Tenebrous' death. I am open to suggestions.—Jedi Kasra ("Indeed.") 17:03, March 23, 2013 (UTC)
Might I suggest something similar for the "after-years" field? "—67 BBY" should suffice while still reflecting all known facts.CC7567 (talk) 19:31, March 23, 2013 (UTC)- Done.—Jedi Kasra ("Indeed.") 19:37, March 23, 2013 (UTC)
Toprawa
Preliminary referencing bits: I find his infobox death field information to be too speculatory for our purposes. Unless the source actually implies "During or post," we should clean that up by just saying "c. 167 BBY"Also, in the succession box, please format the reference notes in numerical order. Ex: [1][4], not [4][1].Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 19:35, March 25, 2013 (UTC)- Done. Regarding the second objection, I guess the term "circa" cover the during or around part, hopefully.—Jedi Kasra ("Indeed.") 20:36, March 25, 2013 (UTC)
Comments
Approved as a Good article by AgriCorps 21:08, March 25, 2013 (UTC)