Wookieepedia:Good article nominations/EG-9

< 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.

EG-9

  • Nominated by: Imperial Information Office AV-6R7Crew Pit 21:21, August 29, 2017 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: I found writing this article quite enjoyable.

(4 ACs/1 Users/5 Total)

Support

  1. ACvote This was a bit hard to wrap my head around - it's like there's two completely unrelated droids. I guess that's what happens when you recycle art. Imperators II(Talk) 22:36, August 30, 2017 (UTC)
  2. ACvote MasterFredCommerce Guild(Whatever) 04:07, September 18, 2017 (UTC)
  3. ACvote Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 22:09, January 2, 2018 (UTC)
    JangFett (Talk) 21:04, January 3, 2018 (UTC)
  4. ACvote Exiled Jedi (talk) 20:26, January 6, 2018 (UTC)
  5. JangFett (Talk) 04:10, January 10, 2018 (UTC)

Object

Ah, that cool droid
  • I'm not really convinced that EG-9's name being similar to a completely unrelated droid line constitutes a conflict of sources.
    • Your right, of course. I've removed it from the Bts and relegated it to a (glorious!) see also section instead. - Imperial Information Office AV-6R7Crew Pit 22:45, August 29, 2017 (UTC)
      • I agree, knowing this from prior experience, that those See also sections can be pretty invisible. Imperators II(Talk) 11:02, August 30, 2017 (UTC)
  • Databank backup link!
  • Amazon backup link! Imperators II(Talk) 21:55, August 29, 2017 (UTC)
    • Replaced with SW.com article that reveals the international release date was four days before the NA release, with backup link of course. - Imperial Information Office AV-6R7Crew Pit 22:45, August 29, 2017 (UTC)
  • In order to make the intro longer than one sentence, please add a bit to it stating EG-9 was repairing a moisture vaporator in 32 BBY.
  • I want to see some date format consistency in the BTS. Full date for first source, year for the rest; or full format for all; or years for all.
    • Done, barring the film itself. I found differing dates for the Screenplay, so I used the Caro Bay/Barnes and Noble one. - Imperial Information Office AV-6R7Crew Pit 22:17, August 30, 2017 (UTC)
  • Wow, can all those specific ship names really be sourced to Illustrated Screenplay?
  • The last paragraph of BTS is really confusing. "used an image of EG-9 to depict an unidentified droid" — so EG-9 was actually assigned the orange-and-silver appearance before he was made into a Mos Espa droid by the Visual Dictionary? "This droid was later identified as EG-9 in Star Wars: The Phantom Menace: The Expanded Visual Dictionary, making EG-9 canon within the Legends continuity." — this combined with the rest of the paragraph makes me think the Sources list might be missing some helpful {{1stID}}, {{1stp}}, or {{C}} tags. Imperators II(Talk) 11:02, August 30, 2017 (UTC)
    • EG-9 was depicted as being this droid in the "Trash Talking Droids" animatic and the Hyperspace concept art, which seems to only be available in low quality online these days. Strictly speaking, the current tags are accurate. The Screenplay, which we list as a source, also pictured him (or at least a storyboard of him), while Podracimg Tales' was his first IU appearance outside of his deleted scene. I've rewritten the last sentence a bit. - Imperial Information Office AV-6R7Crew Pit 14:10, August 30, 2017 (UTC)
      • I never knew that Hyperspace piece of concept art existed. It's so cool. Imperators II(Talk) 22:36, August 30, 2017 (UTC)
Fred strikes back
  • "fifth degree labor droid" sounds like there are five degrees of labor droids. I'm not sure how to reword that to make it clearer that the degrees apply to droids in general, but I do think it could be easily misunderstood in its current form. MasterFredCommerce Guild(Whatever) 08:33, September 5, 2017 (UTC)
Toprawa
  • Some formatting issues. Firstly, I'd like to see the BTS subsectioned, particularly to partition off the cut content. It looks like the thing to do would be to put the first and third paragraphs in one subsection and the cut content in another.
  • Podracing Tales should use whichever SW.com template is appropriate.
    • I can't seem to find a functioning online backup of the comics, or do you mean something else? - Imperial Information Office AV-6R7Crew Pit 22:33, September 26, 2017 (UTC)
      • The Podracing Tales article says that comic was originally published on SW.com, which means there should be a URL for it and therefore a template (either Hyperspace or the SW.com template) to use with it. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 19:00, September 28, 2017 (UTC)\
        • The thing is, I can find that link. Only those for the individual chapters. - Imperial Information Office AV-6R7Crew Pit 14:27, October 2, 2017 (UTC)
          • Please repeat. It's not clear what you're saying here. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 11:57, November 18, 2017 (UTC)
            • I can’t find the link for a “main” article that could be linked to, only the individual chapters. - Imperial Information Office AV-6R7Crew Pit 18:25, December 3, 2017 (UTC)
              • Though I highly suspect there was some kind of intro article or something, there might not have been a main page. It's possible the comic just opened up to Part 1, and then the StarWars.com picture viewer would have led to the comic's successive parts. In any event, if there was a main page, that URL seems lost to time, so the best thing we can do is use the appropriate template and link to the now-dead Part 1 URL, as we would have normally back then. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 21:12, December 28, 2017 (UTC)
  • The size of the article just isn't big enough to support a body image. It doesn't look good forced in like that between two sections. I'd recommend just removing the body image. And for that matter, rearranging the BTS per the previous objection might allow you move that concept art image out of the Appearances/Sources, which is never ideal, and into the BTS. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 19:50, September 20, 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm assuming the references to Mos Eisley in this article are supposed to be Mos Espa...? Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 00:54, December 31, 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't think the article body needs to mention the fact that EG-9 is a fifth-degree droid, particularly since that information is tangentially related to his character (i.e., from sources that don't even mention him). Stating that he's a labor droid is tantamount to saying he's fifth-degree without needing to say it outright and leaving it for the infobox. It's similar to how we don't need to say, for example, R2-D2 is part of the R-series droid line if we already state he's part of the R2 series, or how we don't need to say a clone trooper is male, because that's understood by saying he's a clone trooper, etc. The infobox field suffices. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 20:01, January 2, 2018 (UTC)
    • Removed. I’ll keep this in mind for future nominations. - Imperial Information Office AV-6R7Crew Pit 20:08, January 2, 2018 (UTC)
  • It just sort of occurred to me that this article should probably treat EG-9's deleted scene as canon. This is a nice, quick summary of Leland's explanation of how he handled deleted scenes for Legends. I don't see anything specific that would compel us to consider this contradictory or anything. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 21:18, January 2, 2018 (UTC)
    • Normally, I’d agree. However, the updated TPM Visual Dictionary states that he’s a Mos Espa mainstay and the movie itself says that the Trade Federation has no presence on the planet. I don’t think this can be reconciled in a satisfactory manner. - Imperial Information Office AV-6R7Crew Pit 21:29, January 2, 2018 (UTC)
      • Yes, that's a fair contradiction. In that case, I've reworked some of the BTS to move portions into the Deleted scenes section, including swapping the images, which is a much more logical way to place everything. I realize you probably intended to write that section purely from an IU perspective, but there's nothing actually requiring articles to do that, so I think this presents much better. I want to ask a few things about this section:
        • Firstly, I notice this section refers to EG-9 by male pronouns. Does anything actually refer to EG-9 as being a male droid in this scene?
          • Yes, he speaks with a masculine voice in the animatic. - Imperial Information Office AV-6R7Crew Pit 21:58, January 2, 2018 (UTC)
        • Is there any certain reason why the Blu-ray reference needs to be used on EG-9's name here? Can that not just be sourced to the Illustrated Screenplay? "EG-9<ref name="The Complete Saga" /> and fellow worker droid [[PK-4/Legends|PK-4]] watched from the hallway to the [[Hangar/Legends|docking bay]].<ref name="Illustrated Screenplay" />" Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 21:52, January 2, 2018 (UTC)

Comments

Approved as a Good article by AgriCorps 05:53, January 10, 2018 (UTC)


Vote to remove nomination (AC only)

  1. ACvote Unaddressed objection more than two weeks old. Imperators II(Talk) 10:09, December 3, 2017 (UTC)
  2. ACvote Exiled Jedi (talk) 16:02, December 3, 2017 (UTC)