Wookieepedia:Good article nominations/Duel on Mustafar

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

Duel on Mustafar

Nominated by: JangFett ^Talk 15:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Nomination comments: Sources added and fixed up few spelling errors.

(0 ACs/3 Users/3 Total)

Support

All sources are added, great job cleaning up. —Excelsior, The Flash - ^{(Talk to me, talk to me, talk to me bay-bay!)} 15:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Mauser^Comlink 21:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
--Kreivi Wolter 09:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Object

Mauser
- ~~Check the novel, junior novel, comic, video game and LEGO Star Wars: The Video Game for any differences from the movie.~~
  - Addressed a while back
    - Still don't see any mention of comic and junior novel whatsoever in the body. The novel and the video game have way more differences from the movie than misplaced line and an alternate ending.
      - Greatly expanded the bts and added more information on the novel, comics. JangFett ^Talk 18:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- ~~Unsourced sections in the infobox.~~
  - Addressed
    - Previous, concurrent and next battles still need sourcing.
      - Fixed
- ~~Intro could use a big expansion.~~
  - Addressed
    - What you've added, should actually be in the prelude section, albeit reworded and expanded. Intro should mention when and where the duel took place, the combatants and its major affect on the galactic histiry.
      - Ok, thank you for telling me what I need to do unlike what CC had stated. Ill fix it. Done.
        Still way to go. The intro should read like the brief summary of the overall article. And you still fail to mention even the year in both body and the intro, not to mention many other thigs.
        Added year and more content
        Still much work to be done on the intro. It should include summary of the prelude and aftermath sections as well for example.
        The Showdown on Coruscant helped a lot with the rewording of the summary intro.
- I am sure there are way more sources than just those two.</s?>
  Addressed

CC
~~You're still not using the {{Ref}} tags for the infobox, despite being asked to do so for your Malevolence nom.~~
Addressed

~~The events in the infobox need to be sourced.~~
Addressed

~~Yes, the intro needs to be expanded.~~
Reload your browser CC :P
And now, like it was for the Malevolence, the intro is too long. Also, you still need to use last names instead of first names. CC7567 ^(talk) 18:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
It's still on the long side, and lengthening it didn't really help. Only summarize what is directly related to the duel. CC7567 ^(talk) 02:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Addressed
For now, I'm striking; I'll go through this with you again later. CC7567 ^(talk) 03:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

~~The end of the Prelude requires a source, as does the Fall of Vader.~~
Addressed, do you want more sources than just the movie?

~~Pick one quote for the Aftermath. Using two derives from the article's content.~~
Already being addressed, Im actually looking for a better quote.

~~The images throughout the article need to be spaced better. At most, there should only be one image for every three paragraphs or so. Image farms aren't articles.~~
Those images improve the article.
In what way? The article is for writing, not for an image gallery. The images are deriving too much from the content of the article itself. CC7567 ^(talk) 18:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
If I remove those images, the entire article will just be paragraphs. Those images have a meaning within the duel and the overall quality of the article itself. If I remove them, the article will not look good and this is major/important article within the Star Wars community.
I didn't say you had to remove them. I said that you need to reorganize them, as they need to be spaced better. CC7567 ^(talk) 21:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Acknowledged and fixed.
The images of Vader's fall and Palpatine's recovery of Vader are too close. Please see if you can space them better, but if not, I suggest you remove one. Images enhance the article, yes, but they are not meant to be the main focus.
Fixed

~~I understand that the duel is a duel, but the article overall is very play-by-play. Please see if you can shorten the detail in some places.~~
Detail strengthens the quality of the article CC :) Ill try to find a few places that over does it but I feel it is fine the way it is now.
The article needs to flow like a story, not like a script. Please go through the article. CC7567 ^(talk) 22:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
CC point out where this needs to be done. Because your just telling me to go do it without telling me where or what to change.
First of all, the Prelude is simply too lengthy. When deciding if something should stay, as yourself this: Does it directly relate to the duel? If the answer is no, please remove it; petty details such as "with a short smile" need to go, and also Amidala's thoughts. The Prelude section in particular is reading like a summary of the movie or the film's novelization rather than the actual duel itself. I can't comment too much more on this because I'll just be listing things that need to be removed, and once you remove them, you won't learn how to spot them yourself. I can tell you what to look for, but there's only so much I can do, as I want to you to be able to spot them yourself as the nominator of the article. Unless dialogue is related to the duel, it derives from the article itself. Dialogue can be used, but when excessively used, it derives from the flow of events. Please also correct everything into past tense, as there are a lot of unnecessary present-tense items in there. If you still don't know what to remove, I'll tell you, but please try to root out what to remove first. CC7567 ^(talk) 23:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I went through and deleted unnecessary statements and cleaned the section a bit and making few sentences past-tense. If I missed anything, please state them :)
I don't want to list them if I don't have to, as I still want to you to try and find them, but there is still a lot of content that can be reworded or removed. For now, I'm only going to point out Amidala's twins; is that really necessary to the prelude of the duel? CC7567 ^(talk) 00:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Addressed
I'll also be going through this with you in the future; for now, I'm striking. CC7567 ^(talk) 03:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean to be rude, but it only looks like you've done sourcing for the article; the duel seems to have already been in place. Please go through the article and see if you can improve it overall. CC7567 ^(talk) 18:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

ROTS isn't a source for Vader wearing his suit for the rest of his life. CC7567 ^(talk) 22:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
In Darth Vader's armor there are few references that link ROTS to it. Also they showed Vader being transformed into the suit and without it he will die. Return of the Jedi could be another source when Luke commented that Vader will die without his mask on. Post-ROTS work shows Vader wearing that suit all the time.
Yes, but I still don't see your reasoning; the film simply isn't a source for this. CC7567 ^(talk) 02:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Addressed
Please check this again; I'm still not seeing any change. I believe that ROTJ would be fine. CC7567 ^(talk) 21:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

~~Non-cannon appearances requires its own Bts section.~~ CC7567 ^(talk) 02:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Addressed and removed LEGO Star Wars material from BTS. The new section would require more work.
Just because it "requires more work" doesn't mean that it should be removed. It's still needed, and even if there are only slight differences between the LEGO games and the actual duel, it still needs to be mentioned. CC7567 ^(talk) 02:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Fixed
Nevermind; I apologize, the information doesn't seem to constitute enough for its own section. I'll remove it. CC7567 ^(talk) 06:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Attack of the Clone II
~~The second paragraph of the prelude harbors a great deal of dialogue that can be shortened.~~
Addressed

"Vader implied that Obi-Wan had turned Padmé against him and he will not take her away from him. But in reality, it was Vader who had done that." Reads more of an analysis of the events rather than a retelling of the events themselves.
Addressed

The duel section is still very play-by-play. There are too many unnecessary details and actions. Not all actions need to be mentioned when a brief overview will suffice. Instead of saying "Vader kicked Kenobi, Kenobi kicked Vader", it can be shortened to wording such as "they exchanged kicks". If you still encounter problems with this, I'll try to point out all the instances, but I'd still prefer if you develop a sense of this on your own.
I never said for you to point them out CC :) Addressed, noted that I tried to use the "exchanged kicks", but it is better to say "Vader returned it" so the paragraph will flow better.
I'll also get to this with you later; striking for now. CC7567 ^(talk) 03:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

~~Please use past tense throughout the article.~~
Addressed, have been seeing few errors in the duel.
I believe I got most of the remaining ones in my copyedit, but I would suggest doing another check to be sure.

~~There's underlinking throughout the article; each time the subject appears, it needs to be linked, but please be careful not to link after that.~~
Addressed and consider "but please be careful not to link after that" in your new Confederate battle article that is nominated for GA :)

~~Please make sure you consistently use last names throughout the article.~~
Addressed

~~Also, please try to start the prelude better. There needs to be more buildup to the events before the duel is even mentioned.~~
Still remains; please check again. CC7567 ^(talk) 03:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Addressed

Attack of the Clone III
I understand that you have separate views on linking, and while that's fine, I'd like to ask you to consider adding context for subjects in both the intro and body when they first appear. It's not required for everything, but it's personally rather confusing when I'm reading the article; I really only read the intro as a summary, and to be truthful, I forget the intro by the time I'm reading the body. It would make it a bit easier for the reader.
Addressed

~~If you're going to link to another article only once, please be consistent; I'm noticing that several articles are linked twice.~~
Addressed

~~Is there a particular reason Amidala is listed as a participant? I can't find any reason for this; yes, she was present in the prelude, but she wasn't part of the duel itself.~~
I removed her, but someone must have readded her. Ill remove it

~~"Kenobi tried to reason with Vader but failed after Vader claimed Kenobi was his enemy." This sentence is overall a bit choppy; the wording can be changed a little to make it smoother.~~
Addressed
It's still confusing; in saying that Vader "could no longer care for him", it sounds as though Vader was Kenobi's father or something. If it can't be made clearer, you might just want to remove this.
Addressed
Please clarify whether he could not care for their friendship or "no longer wanted to." CC7567 ^(talk) 19:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Addressed
Please check this again; it needs to be said that Vader no longer wanted to care for the friendship. He was perfectly capable of continuing to do so, but he chose not to. CC7567 ^(talk) 18:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Addressed

The intro overall is a bit blatant; it states "the duel continued", "the duel ended" without elaborating at all. I know that I said earlier that it had to be cut down, but it's currently a bit choppy, and it's looking a bit too much at the duel as a whole instead of the separate actions inside of it.
Addressed

~~"Vader, who was constricting with his emotions": unclear; please check this.~~
Forgot to address this.

When you say that Kenobi "severed Vader's remaining organic limbs", it's unclear that he possessed cybernetic ones. It's a bit of an unnecessary detail; you can keep it if you want, but if you do, it needs to be cleared up.
Fixed this a while back but kept it. Ill try to incorporate that he had a cybernetic arm.

~~Context needed for Darth Sidious in the intro, although it can be stated close to the beginning that he was Vader's master.~~
Addressed
Please try to move it up earlier so that it's mentioned first with Palpatine, and it's also unclear that Palpatine and Sidious were the same person. CC7567 ^(talk) 01:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Addressed
"Identified as Darth Sidious" needs to be worded differently, preferably with the use of "alter ego" in there somewhere. CC7567 ^(talk) 18:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Addressed
The confusing "identified as Darth Sidious" is still there; please try to reword it. It's simply not working. CC7567 ^(talk) 21:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Addressed JangFett ^Talk 15:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

~~Where did the security holograms reveal Vader's turn to Kenobi?~~
Addressed

"Kenobi went to the apartment of Amidala, the incumbent senator from Naboo and the secret wife of Vader." This sentence reads strangely, because in the first part of the sentence, the subject is Amidala's apartment, and yet in the next part of the sentence, the subject is Amidala herself. Please try to reword.
Addressed

~~"but was forced to go along with Kenobi": "go along with" needs to be worded less colloquially.~~
Addressed

~~Needs to be stated earlier in the prelude that Amidala's apartment was on Coruscant.~~
Addressed, and reworded to avoid using apartment. Instead saying, "Kenobi went to Padmé Amidala, the incumbent..."

~~Amidala's yacht needs to be linked properly; I'm not sure which one she used during the movie, but please find out.~~
Addressed

"Vader had enough of hearing of Kenobi and that the Jedi turned against him, and he did not want Amidala to turn against him." I would suggest removing this or at least shortening it, because it's dialogue that's detracting from the duel itself. It would be something to mention in character articles, but it has less of a place here. In any case, please make sure that it's worded less colloquially in general.
Addressed
Please check again; I'm not seeing a change. CC7567 ^(talk) 01:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Addressed

"Heart broken, Amidala tearfully wanted Vader to stop and come back because she loved him." "Come back" to where? Also, if Amidala has to "tearfully" do something, it has to be an action of movement (i.e. speaking or moving), not an action as "wanting"; it doesn't fit with the proper use of the word.
Addressed

"Kenobi could not believe that his former apprentice let this dark lord, whom is Emperor Palpatine, mess with his mind." Please check this again; it's just confusing overall, and also uses a present-tense verb.
Addressed

"Vader countered that Kenobi would try, before leaping at his former master." Is it, "Could try, but would not succeed?" It's rather a given that Kenobi would try to stop Vader; please try to fix the wording.
Addressed

"During the battle, R2 was able to record parts of the duel and showed it to Vader's son, Luke Skywalker, in 35 ABY." That needs to be mentioned only in the aftermath; it doesn't have a place in the prelude.
Added that statement due to Mauser's copyedit. Ill remove it if it ruins the flow of the article.

Kenobi and Vader's surroundings at the beginning of the duel need to be clarified; it's unclear that they were on a platform, and therefore it's rather sudden when you state that Vader pushed Kenobi to the edge of it.
Addressed

~~It needs to be made clearer (or stated earlier) that Kenobi's attacks were halfhearted, and why they were halfhearted.~~
Addressed

~~Please remove words like "fortunately"; they're POV-oriented.~~
Addressed

~~It needs to be made clearer earlier that Vader was a Sith Lord.~~
Addressed

Five out of the eight paragraphs of "The duel" section start with "as"; please try to make it less repetitive. Also, at least half of the sentences also start with "as". Please definitely do not start two sentences in a row with "as".
If you remove them without rewording the sentences, more errors are brought up; please be careful to remember to reword the sentences after you've removed the unnecessary "as".
As like the rest of the copyedit, Addressed :)

~~"regain his feet" is unclear; please reword.~~
Addressed

~~Bit unclear what you mean by "clothes-lining"; please try to be more descriptive.~~
efined clotheslining

~~Throughout "The duel" section, I recommend alternating more between different ways of addressing Kenobi and Vader; using their names excessively is rather redundant.~~
Addressed as the duo but not all the time.

~~Details like "with intensity" and "vicious" are on the borderline of being POV-oriented; please go through the article again and omit the unnecessary ones.~~
Addressed

~~"As they neared the end": neared the end of what? If you're saying that they neared the end of their duel, please remove it; stating that would be unnecessary.~~
Addressed

~~"As Kenobi attempted to make it to shore": can be worded a tad less colloquially.~~
Addressed
No, still remains; I'm not seeing much of a change.
Addressed

~~It's a bit confusing of the chronology of Palpatine's events; whether he left Coruscant before he sensed that his Sith apprentice was in danger, or after. Please try to reword to make it clearer.~~
Reread it again CC. "Vader's master, Palpatine, sensed that his new apprentice was in danger, and had left Coruscant after his successful duel with Yoda."
Yes; I understand that he left after his duel with Yoda, but it's not clear when he sensed his apprentice was in danger. CC7567 ^(talk) 19:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Addressed

~~Qui-Gon isn't mentioned until the aftermath, and he lacks context and linking.~~
Addressed

Can the duel on the second Death Star be expanded more? The only detail mentioned is that Vader "apparently learned something from the Duel on Mustafar", but it seems to be a fairly important detail, and it's strange only mentioning that without anything else.
Addressed
Now I think it's too hefty. All it needs to say is that Vader "apparently learned something", that Palpatine was there, and that Skywalker won. And possibly something about Vader being defeated? CC7567 ^(talk) 18:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Addressed :)
When I said that it's "too hefty", I meant that it needs to be severely cut down, not expanded. The duel on the Death Star is related to this one on Mustafar, yes, but there was a very long time span between the two, and the duel on the Death Star wasn't directly related. Please cut it down. CC7567 ^(talk) 21:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
AddressedJangFett ^Talk 15:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

~~Which EU sources mentioned the duel "years before"?~~
Addressed, not in EU but in Episode IV

~~Context needed for the real-world people that appear in the Bts; in what relation were they to the in-universe duel?~~
Addressed
~~Spielberg as well.~~ CC7567 ^(talk) 19:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Addressed

~~"The official ending that appeared in the game also had notable quotes that were mentioned in the game were not in the film." Please check this again; it's a bit confusing.~~
Addressed

Good luck with these. Overall, the duel part itself is looking fairly good; there are just some errors there that need to be corrected. CC7567 ^(talk) 03:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

~~Somehow, it seems that the outcome in the infobox no longer has a source. Please add it back in.~~
Addressed

"Kenobi painfully told Vader that he was the chosen one and his destiny was to destroy the Sith, but instead he joined them": was he the Chosen One (notice capitalization, and please link), or was he prophesied to be it? Please clarify. CC7567 ^(talk) 18:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Linked Chosen One, but Kenobi did believe that Anakin was the chosen one and mentioned it to Windu and Yoda in Episode III, he even said "You Were the Chosen One", after their duel. Ill clarify that Kenobi believed that Anakin was the chosen one.

I don't think Amidala requires a mention in the infobox's outcome or casualties sections; yes, she died, but her injuries from Vader weren't directly related to the duel itself. Also, Kenobi's actions after the duel were a direct effect, so they need to be mentioned. CC7567 ^(talk) 01:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Addressed

In the intro, it's unclear who Palpatine was known as his alter ego to.CC7567 ^(talk) 00:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Addressed JangFett ^Talk 14:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Toprawa:
My apologies if anything I object to here has already been objected to previously, but I'm not going searching through this list. Does any source ever literally call it the "Duel on Mustafar"? If not, a conjecture tag is needed.
George Lucas said "The Duel on Mustafar.." in the documentary Within a Minute. I have addressed it in the sources.
You should explain where this name comes from early in the BTS section. Toprawa and Ralltiir 17:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Addressed

This article's Source list is a great concern, considering how short it is. It would be appropriate to add every single item that ever mentions the fateful battle between Obi-Wan and Anakin. Mind you, this is covering all material dating back to the ROTJ novel in 1983. I cannot possibly believe that those are the only sources ever to make mention of this. Toprawa and Ralltiir 02:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Addressed and added more sources
You've only added one source, and one that is already listed in the Appearances list at that. With all due respect, this is an objection I don't believe will be adequately resolved. It would be necessary to pretty much scour every single Star Wars "source" available. I imagine everything that ever gives a biographical rundown of Vader and/or Obi-Wan will mention this battle. That Source list should in all probability be substantial in size. Toprawa and Ralltiir 17:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, would it be fine to add in "Any source with Vader" or indirect mentioning of the duel. The duel was indirectly mentioned in A New Hope during Vader and Obi-Wan's duel.

Comments

I agree with expanding the Intro. That's the only flaw I can see. —Excelsior, The Flash - ^{(Talk to me, talk to me, talk to me bay-bay!)} 17:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Vote to remove nomination (AC only)

This nom has been up for a long time now, and although there was activity as recently as the 1st of July in regards to objections, there has been one rather major objection sat unsatisfied since the 7th of June. Until the source list can be completed, I don't think this should sit idle on the GAN. Grunny ^(Talk) 06:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

This one still has a fair bit of research to be done before the Apps and Source lists can even begin to approach completion. Until that time, letting it idle on the page is inappropriate. Toprawa and Ralltiir 06:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps next time will go better, but not at the current stage. CC7567 ^(talk) 07:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)