- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a good article nomination that was successful. Please do not modify it.
Groggin
- Nominated by: Toprawa and Ralltiir 21:32, October 11, 2010 (UTC)
- Nomination comments: ESB goodness, Sithy stuff, and even some clone crap. Something for everyone!
(5 ACs/2 Users/7 Total)
Support
Fantastic article and character. Poor shmuck should have gone out out a bit more often :P Cylka-talk- 18:47, October 12, 2010 (UTC)
Xicer9
(Combadge) 03:20, October 13, 2010 (UTC)
Grunny (talk) 04:38, October 13, 2010 (UTC)- Let's not forget, Vader was good on the inside. But of course, if he was good on the outside, we wouldn't have nice peices like this... Darth Xadún(Consult the Holocron) 12:14, October 13, 2010 (UTC)
- Very well-done. Chack Jadson (Talk) 15:16, October 13, 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed, very interesting. Clone Commander Lee Talk 18:00, October 13, 2010 (UTC)
- Schnowball. 1358 (Talk) 18:16, October 18, 2010 (UTC)
Object
Toprawa and Ralltiir?!
Both the intro and the body should give some context on Luke and Vader. Even simple descriptors like "Jedi in training" and "Sith Lord" would do the trick. This is particularly true when the article later notes the significance of the situation --- without context on who Vader is, the reader is ignorant of the significance, too.- I don't think that's really necessary in this instance. I'm a proponent of the context thing, but not when they're the two most well-known characters in the entire franchise in an article as brief as this. That the reader is left "ignorant" is wishful thinking.
- I've seen the "Everyone should know the big three" argument asserted before, and I couldn't disagree with it more strongly. What that does is limit the accessibility of this encyclopedia, which is definitely not what we should be striving to do. A whole new generation of fans are growing up with The Clone Wars as the only SW they know. In my opinion, we should never assume what they are or aren't already familiar with.
- Very well. Descriptors added. Toprawa and Ralltiir 02:18, October 13, 2010 (UTC)
- I've seen the "Everyone should know the big three" argument asserted before, and I couldn't disagree with it more strongly. What that does is limit the accessibility of this encyclopedia, which is definitely not what we should be striving to do. A whole new generation of fans are growing up with The Clone Wars as the only SW they know. In my opinion, we should never assume what they are or aren't already familiar with.
- I don't think that's really necessary in this instance. I'm a proponent of the context thing, but not when they're the two most well-known characters in the entire franchise in an article as brief as this. That the reader is left "ignorant" is wishful thinking.
Can you change up one of the "demanding/demanded" that are used in close succession in the intro?- I'm afraid the sentence would lose some of its meaning if it was removed or reworded. The double usage is intentional and is qualified by the preceding "instead" to provide the emphasis on the counter-demands going on in the situation. I think it works fine.
- Yeah, you're right. Good call.
- I'm afraid the sentence would lose some of its meaning if it was removed or reworded. The double usage is intentional and is qualified by the preceding "instead" to provide the emphasis on the counter-demands going on in the situation. I think it works fine.
"where apparently the piece of debris had been retrieved..." Is that "apparently" meant to be from Groggin's POV? It kinda reads like speculation, maybe "he believed" or something might fit better.- That's what the source and the sentence is asserting. It's obviously meant to be from Groggin's POV, which is easily gathered from the structure of the sentence. It doesn't matter if it "kinda" reads like speculation if it's not speculation to begin with. There's a difference there.
- That's fair.
- That's what the source and the sentence is asserting. It's obviously meant to be from Groggin's POV, which is easily gathered from the structure of the sentence. It doesn't matter if it "kinda" reads like speculation if it's not speculation to begin with. There's a difference there.
The article should be written from the POV of an omniscient narrator. After it identifies the cylinder as a lightsaber, it shouldn't keep referring to it as an odd or strange cylinder. Other things like "a menacing figure" read like they're from Groggin's POV, too.- The article's POV is fine. It's perfectly acceptable to tell a story from a certain character's POV, often the protagonist, without infringing upon the positive-negative pretenses of NPOV. This article is describing the events as Groggin, the main subject of this article, is experiencing them, in perfectly neutral vernacular.
- "It's perfectly acceptable to tell a story from a certain character's POV" --- the problem with that statement is that we're writing encyclopedia articles, which are by definition more formal and rigid than a loosely-defined "story". I also strongly disagree with the assertion that it's acceptable to write an article from a character's POV, at least to the extent that this article has. Again, these are encyclopedia articles... they don't have protagonists. They have subjects.
- I'm sorry you disagree with it, but the article doesn't violate the positive-negative pretenses of NPOV policy, as I've noted, and that's all that matters for the sake of an objection. The NPOV policy doesn't require a rigid omniscient writing style, nor should it. This article is written with neutral, unbiased description from the perspective of how Groggin experiences the events, which is the whole point of this article, and which is the only perspective described in the story. I'm going to have to ask you to please cite specially how this article violates the GAN rules, or this objection must be considered invalid. Toprawa and Ralltiir 02:18, October 13, 2010 (UTC)
- Eh, I think I've come around on this one.
- I'm sorry you disagree with it, but the article doesn't violate the positive-negative pretenses of NPOV policy, as I've noted, and that's all that matters for the sake of an objection. The NPOV policy doesn't require a rigid omniscient writing style, nor should it. This article is written with neutral, unbiased description from the perspective of how Groggin experiences the events, which is the whole point of this article, and which is the only perspective described in the story. I'm going to have to ask you to please cite specially how this article violates the GAN rules, or this objection must be considered invalid. Toprawa and Ralltiir 02:18, October 13, 2010 (UTC)
- "It's perfectly acceptable to tell a story from a certain character's POV" --- the problem with that statement is that we're writing encyclopedia articles, which are by definition more formal and rigid than a loosely-defined "story". I also strongly disagree with the assertion that it's acceptable to write an article from a character's POV, at least to the extent that this article has. Again, these are encyclopedia articles... they don't have protagonists. They have subjects.
- The article's POV is fine. It's perfectly acceptable to tell a story from a certain character's POV, often the protagonist, without infringing upon the positive-negative pretenses of NPOV. This article is describing the events as Groggin, the main subject of this article, is experiencing them, in perfectly neutral vernacular.
There's a bunch of extraneous detail that reads like play-by-play and often isn't even about Groggin. " Momentarily taken aback at such blatant insolence, Vader, with emphasized threat, once more demanded the hand and lightsaber", "and with a flick of his wrist, the hand and lightsaber floated to the Dark Lord", "even though, as Groggin again noted, it wasn't worth much" are getting into way too much detail. If the dude only appeared in a single-scene short story, then it's OK for the article to saliently reflect that, ya know?- No, I'm afraid I don't know. All of this detail is exceptionally relevant to the resolution of the story and Groggin's fate, particularly in regards to how he refused to surrender the hand and lightsaber and then paid the price for it. The article would be losing vital detail if this were to be removed.
- I don't really think that "Momentarily taken aback at such blatant insolence," "with emphasized threat," "and with a flick of his wrist," et al, are vital details to Groggin's character. This level of detail and description would fit well in a story, but in an encyclopedia article, it's just fluff.
- It's not fluff. Each part is directly relevant to the Groggin character and for the sake of telling the story. It describes how Groggin is behaving and how specifically Vader seizes the hand and lightsaber from Groggin, which is implicitly necessary to the reader's understanding of the story. GAN Rule 1 requires that articles "be well-written and detailed," and Groggin's story cannot be told comprehensively without these details. Toprawa and Ralltiir 02:18, October 13, 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree with the assertion that Groggin's story can't be told without these details. Stating that extraneous detail counts as "well-written and detailed" information and thus follows GAN Rule 1 is a dangerous precedent to set, in my opinion, which could in the future allow for play-by-play galore, as long as it's "well-written and detailed" play-by-play. I'm not comfortable striking this objection when the article recounts, in great detail, every action and line of dialogue between Groggin and Vader (and then some). I feel like some sort of attempt at salience should be made.
- I'm really not sure where to start with this response, since there are so many places to go with this one, so I'm just going to explain, individually for each, why they are relevant and necessary:
- You object to Momentarily taken aback at such blatant insolence. Why this is necessary: It explains Groggin's disrespect for Vader, which the story notes as an unexpected response to a demand from Vader (as one might expect). This is unique information to the Groggin character. Removing it would compromise the article's comprehensiveness. Suggested rewording: taken aback at Groggin's blatant insolence.
- Go for the suggested rewording and we'll call it a deal. It's a bit less... theatrical.
- You realize we're just rewording things for the sake of rewording them, right? Changing "such" to "Groggin's" is supposed to make it less theatrical? Whatever. The change is made. Toprawa and Ralltiir 06:40, October 13, 2010 (UTC)
- Go for the suggested rewording and we'll call it a deal. It's a bit less... theatrical.
- You object to with emphasized threat. Why this is necessary: Vader isn't asking that Groggin hand it over. He's demanding it, and the emphasized threat implies to the reader that he won't be asking again. It helps set the stage for Groggin's final refusal to hand it over. How else does the reader comprehend the scene if he doesn't understand that Groggin is tying his own noose if he refuses again?
- This one is fine.
- You object to and with a flick of his wrist. Why is this necessary? Well, Groggin must have relinquished possession of the hand and lightsaber somehow. Vader didn't walk over and pick it up or catch it with a fishing line. It's fairly minor, but the reader deserves to know how Groggin lost his prize. It makes no sense to just say "and the hand and lightsaber floated to the Dark Lord" without context explaining how it happened. Toprawa and Ralltiir 04:42, October 13, 2010 (UTC)
- It just seems a bit theatrical. I feel like "and with a flick of his wrist, the hand and lightsaber floated to the Dark Lord" could be said with "and used the Force to recall the lightsaber to his hand" and have a lot less... fluff, for lack of a synonym. It's completely my fault for not making this clearer earlier, but it's not just the level of detail that set off flags for me, but the presentation of it. If you disagree, that's fine, but please consider it without defaulting to "There is no policy preventing theatrics". Menkooroo 05:52, October 13, 2010 (UTC)
- It's supposed to be theatrical. That's what a story's climax is. It's dramatic. You're not going to make it any less theatrical by changing a few words around. But anyway, I've changed "flick" to "motion." Hopefully that's less theatrical for you. Any other rewording options would require the double redundant use of "Force" in that sentence, which doesn't sound very good. This should be an optimal compromise. I just hope you understand that this kind of objection is very subjective. You're not the first person on this wiki to have philosophical problems with "flowery" language. It's a matter of writing style. Toprawa and Ralltiir 06:40, October 13, 2010 (UTC)
- An encyclopedia article is not a story with a climax. An encyclopedia article should not be theatrical. Menkooroo 06:47, October 13, 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for your opinion. You have five years' worth of Wookieepedia article writing contradicting you. It took us 10 hours to change two words. I hope you're feeling better about the article. Toprawa and Ralltiir 06:58, October 13, 2010 (UTC)
- An encyclopedia article is not a story with a climax. An encyclopedia article should not be theatrical. Menkooroo 06:47, October 13, 2010 (UTC)
- It's supposed to be theatrical. That's what a story's climax is. It's dramatic. You're not going to make it any less theatrical by changing a few words around. But anyway, I've changed "flick" to "motion." Hopefully that's less theatrical for you. Any other rewording options would require the double redundant use of "Force" in that sentence, which doesn't sound very good. This should be an optimal compromise. I just hope you understand that this kind of objection is very subjective. You're not the first person on this wiki to have philosophical problems with "flowery" language. It's a matter of writing style. Toprawa and Ralltiir 06:40, October 13, 2010 (UTC)
- It just seems a bit theatrical. I feel like "and with a flick of his wrist, the hand and lightsaber floated to the Dark Lord" could be said with "and used the Force to recall the lightsaber to his hand" and have a lot less... fluff, for lack of a synonym. It's completely my fault for not making this clearer earlier, but it's not just the level of detail that set off flags for me, but the presentation of it. If you disagree, that's fine, but please consider it without defaulting to "There is no policy preventing theatrics". Menkooroo 05:52, October 13, 2010 (UTC)
- You object to Momentarily taken aback at such blatant insolence. Why this is necessary: It explains Groggin's disrespect for Vader, which the story notes as an unexpected response to a demand from Vader (as one might expect). This is unique information to the Groggin character. Removing it would compromise the article's comprehensiveness. Suggested rewording: taken aback at Groggin's blatant insolence.
- I'm really not sure where to start with this response, since there are so many places to go with this one, so I'm just going to explain, individually for each, why they are relevant and necessary:
- I disagree with the assertion that Groggin's story can't be told without these details. Stating that extraneous detail counts as "well-written and detailed" information and thus follows GAN Rule 1 is a dangerous precedent to set, in my opinion, which could in the future allow for play-by-play galore, as long as it's "well-written and detailed" play-by-play. I'm not comfortable striking this objection when the article recounts, in great detail, every action and line of dialogue between Groggin and Vader (and then some). I feel like some sort of attempt at salience should be made.
- It's not fluff. Each part is directly relevant to the Groggin character and for the sake of telling the story. It describes how Groggin is behaving and how specifically Vader seizes the hand and lightsaber from Groggin, which is implicitly necessary to the reader's understanding of the story. GAN Rule 1 requires that articles "be well-written and detailed," and Groggin's story cannot be told comprehensively without these details. Toprawa and Ralltiir 02:18, October 13, 2010 (UTC)
- I don't really think that "Momentarily taken aback at such blatant insolence," "with emphasized threat," "and with a flick of his wrist," et al, are vital details to Groggin's character. This level of detail and description would fit well in a story, but in an encyclopedia article, it's just fluff.
- No, I'm afraid I don't know. All of this detail is exceptionally relevant to the resolution of the story and Groggin's fate, particularly in regards to how he refused to surrender the hand and lightsaber and then paid the price for it. The article would be losing vital detail if this were to be removed.
"As Groggin again noted, it wasn't worth much" indicates that the helmet is definitely not worth much. Things like this should be noted to be from Groggin's POV or jettisoned.- No, I'm afraid you're mistaken. That's the very type of writing tactic we use to explain something without infringing upon NPOV. It's clearly described, according to Groggin, as not being worth much. That's very straightforward. If you can't discern that meaning from the sentence, I'm afraid you'll need to work on your interpretation and definition of what NPOV is. If need be, I'll be glad to get a second, third, or even fourth opinion on this supporting my point.
- Go for it. It just seems to me that NPOV's "All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one" isn't being followed here --- where is Vader's POV? The only value of the hand mentioned in the article is Groggin's POV of it. Even if it's not your intention to assert the definite value of the hand, the article reads like that's the case. It's confusing, is all.
- Our goal as writers is to tell the events of an article in as comprehensive detail as possible without bias or choosing sides by saying something is better than something else or someone is more right than someone else, which is what NPOV means. There is nothing to tell about Vader's POV here, because there is nothing regarding that in this canon story. Though I suspect if there was and I detailed that in this article, you would tell me it was extraneous fluff. The canon story is told only from Groggin's perspective, so that is the only information available for the article to discuss. This sentence explains simply that Groggin remarked to Vader that he believed his helmet wasn't worth much. That is not NPOV violation. An example of NPOV violation in this instance would be for the article to state, for example, "Groggin suggested they negotiate for Vader's helmet, which wasn't worth much." You can see how that example takes a more editorial tone. The article only states what Groggin said/believed. It's not choosing a non-neutral perspective. I really don't know how else to explain that more clearly. As the article reads, it doesn't violate the NPOV policy. Toprawa and Ralltiir 02:18, October 13, 2010 (UTC)
- Eh.
- Our goal as writers is to tell the events of an article in as comprehensive detail as possible without bias or choosing sides by saying something is better than something else or someone is more right than someone else, which is what NPOV means. There is nothing to tell about Vader's POV here, because there is nothing regarding that in this canon story. Though I suspect if there was and I detailed that in this article, you would tell me it was extraneous fluff. The canon story is told only from Groggin's perspective, so that is the only information available for the article to discuss. This sentence explains simply that Groggin remarked to Vader that he believed his helmet wasn't worth much. That is not NPOV violation. An example of NPOV violation in this instance would be for the article to state, for example, "Groggin suggested they negotiate for Vader's helmet, which wasn't worth much." You can see how that example takes a more editorial tone. The article only states what Groggin said/believed. It's not choosing a non-neutral perspective. I really don't know how else to explain that more clearly. As the article reads, it doesn't violate the NPOV policy. Toprawa and Ralltiir 02:18, October 13, 2010 (UTC)
- Go for it. It just seems to me that NPOV's "All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one" isn't being followed here --- where is Vader's POV? The only value of the hand mentioned in the article is Groggin's POV of it. Even if it's not your intention to assert the definite value of the hand, the article reads like that's the case. It's confusing, is all.
- No, I'm afraid you're mistaken. That's the very type of writing tactic we use to explain something without infringing upon NPOV. It's clearly described, according to Groggin, as not being worth much. That's very straightforward. If you can't discern that meaning from the sentence, I'm afraid you'll need to work on your interpretation and definition of what NPOV is. If need be, I'll be glad to get a second, third, or even fourth opinion on this supporting my point.
"Groggin's peers later professed, if it was at all possible to tell, that Vader actually radiated black pleasure at that moment" is extraneous detail that isn't even about Groggin to boot.- I'm open to possibly changing this, but I disagree that it's extraneous detail. My interpretation of the story was that Vader, in the moment and act of killing Groggin, radiated black pleasure. It then becomes relevant to Groggin.
- That's fair, but I think it should be reworded to be mentioned at the time of his death, in order to tie it more directly into narrative about Groggin.
- Well, the sentence already says "at that moment." What else needs to be said? Toprawa and Ralltiir 02:18, October 13, 2010 (UTC)
- That's fair, but I think it should be reworded to be mentioned at the time of his death, in order to tie it more directly into narrative about Groggin.
- I'm open to possibly changing this, but I disagree that it's extraneous detail. My interpretation of the story was that Vader, in the moment and act of killing Groggin, radiated black pleasure. It then becomes relevant to Groggin.
In an effort to avoid one-sentence paragraphs, can you merge the final paragraph of the bio with the previous one? They're both pretty short, anyway.- I don't think that would be appropriate in this instance. One-sentence paragraphs are not ideal, but this sentence has nothing to do with the previous paragraph. It's the optimum place for a paragraph break, and there's nothing more that should be added to that sentence without adding extraneous detail.
- Sounds good.
- I don't think that would be appropriate in this instance. One-sentence paragraphs are not ideal, but this sentence has nothing to do with the previous paragraph. It's the optimum place for a paragraph break, and there's nothing more that should be added to that sentence without adding extraneous detail.
The same story shouldn't be listed twice in the "Appearances" section, even if it was reprinted.Menkooroo 09:30, October 12, 2010 (UTC)- Why not? We list sourcebooks and reference books in the Sources list even when much of the content is exactly identical, and this is no different. This really isn't a valid objection.
- Sources and appearances are different, though. What you've done here would be like listing Or Die Trying thrice in Jaina Solo's appearances section --- once from Star Wars Insider 75, once from Star Wars Magazine UK 59, and once from Hyperspace. It would also, in my opinion, be like listing both an individual comic and its trade paperback in an appearances section.
- Regardless of your opinion, this article violates no policy or GAN rule regarding this, so I'm sorry to say it is invalid. GAN Rule 3 states that articles must "be sourced with all available sources and appearances," which this article is. For what it's worth, I'll direct you to this article as an example of how repeat Appearances are listed for the sake of comprehensiveness. In this instance, the nominator opted to use a "Republished" tag. Toprawa and Ralltiir 02:18, October 13, 2010 (UTC)
- Truthfully, this seems like WP:Common sense to me. Appearances shouldn't be listed twice. Do you have any response to my specific examples above?
- I have no further response regarding this objection other than reasserting the fact that there is no policy supporting this objection, certainly no such thing as WP:Common Sense, and it is therefore invalid, so I'm going to ask you to please strike it to move this nomination along. If you want my opinion, I don't see why articles shouldn't be as comprehensive as possible. If that means listing a few duplicate reprints so the reader knows precisely where a subject appears, that's a bonus, not a detraction. Toprawa and Ralltiir 04:42, October 13, 2010 (UTC)
- No response to the specific examples I gave that (in my opinion) demonstrate the fallacy involved in listing an appearance twice? Sorry, but "Please strike this objection because I'm stubborn" isn't going to prompt me to strike it. Keep in mind that some things aren't policy precisely because they're common sense. Menkooroo 05:21, October 13, 2010 (UTC)
- I've struck this one as a show of good faith, and with the hope that there will be no bad blood between us in the future. However, I won't support the article, due to a belief that a POV story with a protagonist and a climax doesn't represent the best that Wookieepedia has to offer. I don't say that maliciously or in an effort to bait you, but rather because after this whole... fiasco, I feel like I owe you an explanation if I'm not going to support. I hope that we can let bygones be bygones in the future and interact civilly, and I hope that neither of us will be deterred from reviewing each other's articles. In the future, though, please have more of an open mind regarding the peer review process (particularly regaring the merits of objections that don't note a violation of a specific rule or policy), and please respond to objections in a more polite and less confrontational manner. The peer review process is pointless without humility. Cheers. Menkooroo 05:30, October 14, 2010 (UTC)
- I will continue to respond to objections as I have since first joining this wiki, and as every Wookieepedian who participates in the article nomination process is expected to, according to site procedure and policy. Regardless of whether you choose to recognize this procedure or not, it still remains that objections that do not fall under specific nomination rules or site policy are considered invalid, according to the clearly established nomination process rules. This is not me being "uncivil" or "confrontational." This is me upholding my responsibilities to this wiki as a general user and elected member of the three reviewing bodies. As long as this nomination procedure exists, no nominator will ever be required to entertain an objection from any other user based on nothing else but their personal opinion of how an article should be formatted. If you find that you can't review an article without leaving these sorts of opinion-based objections, then I am forced to remind you that it then becomes the individual reviewing panel's responsibility to deem that objection invalid. Moreover, if you find that you can't review nominations from myself without leaving these sorts of opinion-based objections, then I would leave you with the same recommendation I would leave any user in your place, that it would probably be best if you refrained from reviewing that nominator's articles in the future. On a more personal note, Menkooroo, you're going to find, if you haven't already, that much of this wiki's day-to-day operations revolve around mutual respect between individual users. If you want another user to entertain your opinions on article formatting, for example, that is best achieved through calm, interpersonal discussion, where mutual respect is fostered, not by forcing it down their throat through the formal review process. I personally find it extremely difficult to have respect for any user who chooses the latter. I look forward to the opportunity of working with you in the future on article reviews under the context of respect for and understanding of Wookieepedia's rules. I would ask that if you feel you have anything further to add to this discussion to please seek me out on my talk page rather than us perpetuating this disruption of the GAN page. Thank you. Toprawa and Ralltiir 07:44, October 14, 2010 (UTC)
- For the record, our discussion was calm and interpersonal until this comment was written: "If I didn't know better, I would think this review had some intent behind it, because it seems very, is egregious the best word to use here?" If you think that that's not confrontational, and that calmly making suggestions on how to improve an article is "shoving my opinions down your throat", then I honestly think that you have no place to remind me of courtesy of respect. Menkooroo 09:31, October 14, 2010 (UTC)
- I will continue to respond to objections as I have since first joining this wiki, and as every Wookieepedian who participates in the article nomination process is expected to, according to site procedure and policy. Regardless of whether you choose to recognize this procedure or not, it still remains that objections that do not fall under specific nomination rules or site policy are considered invalid, according to the clearly established nomination process rules. This is not me being "uncivil" or "confrontational." This is me upholding my responsibilities to this wiki as a general user and elected member of the three reviewing bodies. As long as this nomination procedure exists, no nominator will ever be required to entertain an objection from any other user based on nothing else but their personal opinion of how an article should be formatted. If you find that you can't review an article without leaving these sorts of opinion-based objections, then I am forced to remind you that it then becomes the individual reviewing panel's responsibility to deem that objection invalid. Moreover, if you find that you can't review nominations from myself without leaving these sorts of opinion-based objections, then I would leave you with the same recommendation I would leave any user in your place, that it would probably be best if you refrained from reviewing that nominator's articles in the future. On a more personal note, Menkooroo, you're going to find, if you haven't already, that much of this wiki's day-to-day operations revolve around mutual respect between individual users. If you want another user to entertain your opinions on article formatting, for example, that is best achieved through calm, interpersonal discussion, where mutual respect is fostered, not by forcing it down their throat through the formal review process. I personally find it extremely difficult to have respect for any user who chooses the latter. I look forward to the opportunity of working with you in the future on article reviews under the context of respect for and understanding of Wookieepedia's rules. I would ask that if you feel you have anything further to add to this discussion to please seek me out on my talk page rather than us perpetuating this disruption of the GAN page. Thank you. Toprawa and Ralltiir 07:44, October 14, 2010 (UTC)
- I've struck this one as a show of good faith, and with the hope that there will be no bad blood between us in the future. However, I won't support the article, due to a belief that a POV story with a protagonist and a climax doesn't represent the best that Wookieepedia has to offer. I don't say that maliciously or in an effort to bait you, but rather because after this whole... fiasco, I feel like I owe you an explanation if I'm not going to support. I hope that we can let bygones be bygones in the future and interact civilly, and I hope that neither of us will be deterred from reviewing each other's articles. In the future, though, please have more of an open mind regarding the peer review process (particularly regaring the merits of objections that don't note a violation of a specific rule or policy), and please respond to objections in a more polite and less confrontational manner. The peer review process is pointless without humility. Cheers. Menkooroo 05:30, October 14, 2010 (UTC)
- No response to the specific examples I gave that (in my opinion) demonstrate the fallacy involved in listing an appearance twice? Sorry, but "Please strike this objection because I'm stubborn" isn't going to prompt me to strike it. Keep in mind that some things aren't policy precisely because they're common sense. Menkooroo 05:21, October 13, 2010 (UTC)
- I have no further response regarding this objection other than reasserting the fact that there is no policy supporting this objection, certainly no such thing as WP:Common Sense, and it is therefore invalid, so I'm going to ask you to please strike it to move this nomination along. If you want my opinion, I don't see why articles shouldn't be as comprehensive as possible. If that means listing a few duplicate reprints so the reader knows precisely where a subject appears, that's a bonus, not a detraction. Toprawa and Ralltiir 04:42, October 13, 2010 (UTC)
- Truthfully, this seems like WP:Common sense to me. Appearances shouldn't be listed twice. Do you have any response to my specific examples above?
- Regardless of your opinion, this article violates no policy or GAN rule regarding this, so I'm sorry to say it is invalid. GAN Rule 3 states that articles must "be sourced with all available sources and appearances," which this article is. For what it's worth, I'll direct you to this article as an example of how repeat Appearances are listed for the sake of comprehensiveness. In this instance, the nominator opted to use a "Republished" tag. Toprawa and Ralltiir 02:18, October 13, 2010 (UTC)
- Sources and appearances are different, though. What you've done here would be like listing Or Die Trying thrice in Jaina Solo's appearances section --- once from Star Wars Insider 75, once from Star Wars Magazine UK 59, and once from Hyperspace. It would also, in my opinion, be like listing both an individual comic and its trade paperback in an appearances section.
- Respectfully speaking, Menkooroo, I find the majority of these objections either ridiculously nitpicky or completely missing the point of the peer review. If I didn't know better, I would think this review had some intent behind it, because it seems very, is egregious the best word to use here? I don't mean to discourage you from reviewing my or other nominations in the future, but it certainly concerns me as a user when I find your definitions of article POV and extraneous detail to be so far from what the community has established as the norm. And I say that as someone who has been part of this wiki's foremost reviewing panels for nearly three years and who feels he has a pretty solid grasp of how articles should be written and structured. I say this constructively, Menkooroo, but I really think you need to work on these points of your reviewing. If you would like to discuss this or any of these objections with me more directly, I'm frequently on IRC. Toprawa and Ralltiir 17:50, October 12, 2010 (UTC)
- You'll have to forgive me if I see unencyclopedic fluff as extraneous detail. My objections are perfectly valid, and if you're not even going to consider addressing them, then I'm not going to strike them. In the future, it might be advisable to approach reviews to your noms with a touch less paranoia and a touch more humility. Menkooroo 00:32, October 13, 2010 (UTC)
- Very few of your objections, in fact, are valid, in terms of what policy and the GAN rules state. I'm certainly not accusing you of anything directly, but I've been through the game of users jumping on a nomination and leaving an obnoxiously long list of subjective objections for the sake of making a point, and that has no place on this wiki. This has less to do with humility than it does with asking that reviewers leave their feelings and predispositions of other users at the door and simply give a fair review. Toprawa and Ralltiir 02:18, October 13, 2010 (UTC)
- I'll get back to you on the other objections, but regarding this one --- you may not be directly accusing me of something, but your indirect and unwarranted accusations that I have some sort of vendetta against you and am trying to prove a point are, in my opinion, unbefitting of an administrator and bordering on personal attacks. I have no predispositions toward you, and I gave you the same fair review I give every article.
Objections do not have to be solely based on the exact wording of policy and the GAN rules --- if they did, then even the most extreme amount of play-by-play would be acceptable (after all, it's comprehensive and detailed), and objections such as "This is unclear" would be invalid. The peer review process is additionally a forum for peers to give suggestions on how to improve an article, and you're giving the impression that you're unprepared to accept even the slightest bit of constructive criticism. That's not an accusation, but rather me letting you know that that's how your actions are coming off. I'm willing to calmly and respectfully continue this discussion with you, so please let me know if you're willing to do the same. Menkooroo 02:50, October 13, 2010 (UTC)- As I said, I didn't, nor am I, accusing you of anything outside of, according to GAN rules, an overall poorly subjective review, which I find unwarranted and a bit out of character from you, Menkooroo. None of my comments on this page were made with anything but a calm and respectful tone, so please don't accuse me of incivility or administrative impropriety. I didn't say you have a vendetta, you did. Though considering the combative nature in which you declare you're "not going to strike" your objections if I don't change them to your liking and your defensive response to everything I've said, I have no choice but to question your attitude. Maybe take a step back for a second, look at the size of this review page, and maybe you'll see how ridiculous this entire thing is. That's where I come off wondering whether this isn't done contemptuously. And to respond to your second paragraph, objections are required to fall under specific rule violations, or the reviewing panel is obligated to declare them invalid. If you have an issue with an article but it doesn't fall under specific site policy or rules, you may ask the nominator to change the issue for you, but they are by no means required to do so. I just ask that you keep your objections within the confines of the GAN rules. Thank you. Toprawa and Ralltiir 03:23, October 13, 2010 (UTC)
- You're mistaken if you think that I'm leaving the objections unstruck because you're not changing them to my liking; I stated that I would leave them unstruck because they were seemingly brushed over with little to no consideration that they might have some merit. As each objection has been further discussed now, that's in the past at this point. However, if you think that I've been the one being defensive, you should probably read the conversation again --- I gave objections, then later expanded on why I thought they were valid, while you responded in a reactionary and confrontational manner, outright calling my review poor, accusing me of missing the point of the peer review process, and heavily implying if not outright stating that I had some sort of malicious intent in trying to improve the article. Yes, the length of this discussion is pretty ridiculous, but are you seriously trying to lay the blame for that solely at my feet? Your rigid ideas of the peer review process and your lack of an open mind have turned what were intended to be harmless objections on my part into a fiasco. There was no reason for this discussion to draw on the way that it has, and, quite frankly, if you had responded to my objections in a more humble manner and had left out the completely unnecessary and defensive final paragraph, it wouldn't have. Menkooroo 03:49, October 13, 2010 (UTC)
- I really have nothing more to contribute here, since it's not helping advance this nomination. If you're interested in a response, you know how to find me on IRC. Toprawa and Ralltiir 04:42, October 13, 2010 (UTC)
- You're mistaken if you think that I'm leaving the objections unstruck because you're not changing them to my liking; I stated that I would leave them unstruck because they were seemingly brushed over with little to no consideration that they might have some merit. As each objection has been further discussed now, that's in the past at this point. However, if you think that I've been the one being defensive, you should probably read the conversation again --- I gave objections, then later expanded on why I thought they were valid, while you responded in a reactionary and confrontational manner, outright calling my review poor, accusing me of missing the point of the peer review process, and heavily implying if not outright stating that I had some sort of malicious intent in trying to improve the article. Yes, the length of this discussion is pretty ridiculous, but are you seriously trying to lay the blame for that solely at my feet? Your rigid ideas of the peer review process and your lack of an open mind have turned what were intended to be harmless objections on my part into a fiasco. There was no reason for this discussion to draw on the way that it has, and, quite frankly, if you had responded to my objections in a more humble manner and had left out the completely unnecessary and defensive final paragraph, it wouldn't have. Menkooroo 03:49, October 13, 2010 (UTC)
- As I said, I didn't, nor am I, accusing you of anything outside of, according to GAN rules, an overall poorly subjective review, which I find unwarranted and a bit out of character from you, Menkooroo. None of my comments on this page were made with anything but a calm and respectful tone, so please don't accuse me of incivility or administrative impropriety. I didn't say you have a vendetta, you did. Though considering the combative nature in which you declare you're "not going to strike" your objections if I don't change them to your liking and your defensive response to everything I've said, I have no choice but to question your attitude. Maybe take a step back for a second, look at the size of this review page, and maybe you'll see how ridiculous this entire thing is. That's where I come off wondering whether this isn't done contemptuously. And to respond to your second paragraph, objections are required to fall under specific rule violations, or the reviewing panel is obligated to declare them invalid. If you have an issue with an article but it doesn't fall under specific site policy or rules, you may ask the nominator to change the issue for you, but they are by no means required to do so. I just ask that you keep your objections within the confines of the GAN rules. Thank you. Toprawa and Ralltiir 03:23, October 13, 2010 (UTC)
- I'll get back to you on the other objections, but regarding this one --- you may not be directly accusing me of something, but your indirect and unwarranted accusations that I have some sort of vendetta against you and am trying to prove a point are, in my opinion, unbefitting of an administrator and bordering on personal attacks. I have no predispositions toward you, and I gave you the same fair review I give every article.
- Very few of your objections, in fact, are valid, in terms of what policy and the GAN rules state. I'm certainly not accusing you of anything directly, but I've been through the game of users jumping on a nomination and leaving an obnoxiously long list of subjective objections for the sake of making a point, and that has no place on this wiki. This has less to do with humility than it does with asking that reviewers leave their feelings and predispositions of other users at the door and simply give a fair review. Toprawa and Ralltiir 02:18, October 13, 2010 (UTC)
- You'll have to forgive me if I see unencyclopedic fluff as extraneous detail. My objections are perfectly valid, and if you're not even going to consider addressing them, then I'm not going to strike them. In the future, it might be advisable to approach reviews to your noms with a touch less paranoia and a touch more humility. Menkooroo 00:32, October 13, 2010 (UTC)
- Why not? We list sourcebooks and reference books in the Sources list even when much of the content is exactly identical, and this is no different. This really isn't a valid objection.
Comments
Approved as a Good article by AgriCorps 18:16, October 18, 2010 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, I wanted to explain why a reprint in a TPB is different from a reprint in a sourcebook/supplement. Let's start with a TPB in regards to comics. The TPB is simply a collection of stories, usually one story arc or a few story arcs, that are printed in a book format instead of a comic book format. You can liken it to the difference between a hardcover and paperback format of a novel. However, this isn't the case with IU stories first published in a sourcebook or supplement. For example, Clone B-2332-54 was first published in The Last Command Sourcebook, but not everything from The Last Command was republished in The Thrawn Trilogy Sourcebook. The authors were picking and choosing. Even the image of Vader choking Groggin didn't make it into The Thrawn Trilogy. Another example is The Politics of Contraband. The adventures of that supplement were republished in Classic Adventures, along with The Abduction adventures. Neither of these adventures have anything to do with each other. They can be likened to a "Greatest Hits" cd of a musical band. This is why many, if not most, of us believe that reprints should be listed as a separate appearance. Cylka-talk- 11:27, October 13, 2010 (UTC)
- What about stories that have been reprinted on Hyperspace? The idea of including Or Die Trying (an example used above) thrice in Jaina's appearances section seems counterintuitive to me. Or of including Mist Encounter four times in Thrawn's (Star Wars Adventure Journal 7, Outbound Flight (novel), Setkání v mlze, Hyperspace). If the reader wants to know where they can find a story, they can just click the link and go to its article --- call me crazy, but the idea that we should only include a story once in Appearances seems like common sense to me. I appreciate the reasoned arguments to the contrary that you're presenting, though, Cylka. Menkooroo 11:55, October 13, 2010 (UTC)