- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a good article nomination that was successful. Please do not modify it.
Fnessian
- Nominated by: --Eyrezer 21:18, March 10, 2010 (UTC)
- Nomination comments: Enter a new gender...
(3 ACs/3 Users/6 Total)
Support
- SoresuMakashi(Everything I tell you is the truth) 22:44, March 10, 2010 (UTC)
- Nice. Graestan(Talk) 05:07, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
- Eyestalks! Eyestalks! --Skippy Farlstendoiro 16:59, March 13, 2010 (UTC)
Jonjedigrandmaster (We seed the stars) 17:06, March 13, 2010 (UTC)
CC7567 (talk) 04:41, March 16, 2010 (UTC)
Toprawa and Ralltiir 19:49, March 17, 2010 (UTC)
Object
- Skippy keeping an eyestalk on alien species noms
a "dead or alive" bounty. Can you reword this so as to avoid the inverted commas? Something like "a bounty for either his capture or proof or his death"- I followed your wording. --Eyrezer 00:47, March 13, 2010 (UTC)
You repeatedly say that Th'ronik stole the Morgannier and earned the ire of SoroSuub. Why? Did SoroSuub owned the Morgannier, or had subcontracted the ship?- That connection is never made in the source. It might be implied but it says no more than what I've written unfortunately.
. Nice character but can't it be linked or anything? I mean, it's not obvious that it stands for "credits"; it might mean wupiupi or something.- Of course it stands for credits! :p I'm not sure if I can link it. I'll see. - Done, although not as a blue link.
More info on No Disintegrations if possible: Writer of the part mentioning Fnessians and artist drawing the depiction.- Unfortunately, while it is clear who wrote the various chapters, it doesn't say who wrote the appendix, nor are the artists identified. --Eyrezer 19:54, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
- You do like eyestalks, don't you? Skippy Farlstendoiro 07:35, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
Comments
Approved as a Good article by AgriCorps 23:08, March 17, 2010 (UTC)
- I actually feel that the phrase "Although not necessarily representative of the entire Fnessian species," needs to be there. It is not speculative in the OR sense and it provides a bit of an explanation as to why the following sentence is there. I'd like to put it back in... --Eyrezer 05:42, March 11, 2010 (UTC)