Wookieepedia:Good article nominations/Guanta/Legends

< 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.

Guanta

  • Nominated by: ~SavageBOB sig 04:43, May 9, 2011 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: Ugliest Wookiee I ever seen, and one of the three dudes from our welcome message.

(4 ACs/1 Users/5 Total)

Support

  1. ACvote Kilson(Let's have a chat) 18:37, May 11, 2011 (UTC)
  2. ACvote --Eyrezer 22:41, May 13, 2011 (UTC)
  3. Inqvote Menkooroo 04:35, May 14, 2011 (UTC)
  4. ACvote 1358 (Talk) 17:47, May 23, 2011 (UTC)
  5. JangFett (Talk) 02:56, May 24, 2011 (UTC)

Object

Kilson
  • "As Confederate battle droids stormed the beach near the town, Merumeru stood behind Merumeru and alongside other warriors..." Um....what?
  • "As the droids approached, the Wookiee leader stood atop the barricades and growled for the Wookiees to charge into battle. Guanta then loyally followed Merumeru into battle." These two sentences are a bit repetitive. Please try to fix this.
  • Just a suggestion, but I believe you can add another image to the Bts section. You could always use the promotional image Guanta was in.
  • There is apparently relevant info you need to add to the Bts about Guanta from Dark Lord: The Rise of Darth Vader. Take a look at Guania's Bts for help.
  • Otherwise, looks good. Kilson(Let's have a chat) 04:45, May 11, 2011 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the review; all are taken care of but the BTS image. I'll add one soon, but I want to try to lift something new from the ROTS DVD. Stay tuned! ~SavageBOB sig 15:16, May 11, 2011 (UTC)
      • Cool. Staying tuned. :P
Moffship
  • Is the reference to the -unta suffix appropriate, considering this particular Wookiee's name is Guanta, not Gunta? I would understand if the Gamer article had been published after Revenge of the Sith, but it was written before Guanta was created.
  • Unless I'm mistaken, the Illustrated Screenplay is not an appearance.
  • I'm a bit confused by this uncertainty regarding Guanta's placement in the group of Wookiees. In the bio, you say he is in the front row, yet in the BTS, you make it seem as if his position is completely unknown.
  • Possibly more to come later. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 20:09, May 13, 2011 (UTC)
    • Whoops; the "unta" was a typo; I've fixed it to "anta." As for the screenplay, I'm not sure how it's not an appearance, since it tells the same story of the film in dialogue form. Finally, the BTS notes that Guanta is in the front row, just that we don't know which one of the front-row Wookiees is him. Do you think it needs clarification? Thanks for taking a look! ~SavageBOB sig 22:02, May 13, 2011 (UTC)
      • FWIW, I've checked four different articles, including one former GA, and all those treat Illustrated Screenplay as a source. 1358 (Talk) 22:11, May 13, 2011 (UTC)
        • That doesn't make it right. ;P what is the reasoning for not counting it as an appearance? ~SavageBOB sig 00:55, May 14, 2011 (UTC)
          • While I'm not familiar with the source itself, if it contains the script of the film as its title implies, it would be treated the same way as the Annotated Screenplays. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 01:05, May 14, 2011 (UTC)
            • The difference as I see it is that the Annotated Screenplays are at least equal parts in-universe and out-of-universe. With the Illustrated Screenplays, it's 99% in-universe (the script) and a short introduction marking the only OOU info to be found. ~SavageBOB sig 03:54, May 14, 2011 (UTC)
              • Yet anything containing a script is OOU, not IU. Therefore, the Illustrated Screenplay is a source, not an appearance. This is how it has been treated on the site for a while; I still can't understand why others have started using it as an appearance. I'm afraid I cannot strike this objection until you make the necessary change. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 13:07, May 14, 2011 (UTC)
                • Why is anything containing a script OOU? I don't understand why it's treated as anything other than an IU narrative; it's just like a novel, except everything is written in script format. I'm not trying to be a jerk, I just honestly don't understand how a script is somehow OOU but the film and novel are IU. ~SavageBOB sig 16:51, May 14, 2011 (UTC)
                  • A script is nothing like a novel. A script is a framework for something else; in this case, it's a skeleton of the film. Essentially, it's behind-the-scenes information, which is OOU material. Now, I've been patient with this up to now, but I have no desire to continue debate over something so trivial. This is a simple fix that takes less than a minute to do - move one link from the Appearances to the Sources, and you're done. If you refuse to do that, then that's your decision, but I won't strike my objection. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 18:27, May 15, 2011 (UTC)
                    • Please don't misunderstand me; I'm not trying to cause a stir. I disagree with your interpretation, though. A script is a story, a narrative, and it's in-universe for the most part. I've started a Senate Hall thread, because the distinction between Appearance and Source is not at all clear as it should be; the thread is here. Without some firm consensus one way or the other, I'm not sure what to do. At the moment, our interpretations are conflicting, and there is no firm policy (which is why I started the SH thread), so if that tanks the nom, I can always renominate when there's consensus. ~SavageBOB sig 19:18, May 15, 2011 (UTC)
I Guanta pony for Christmas
  • Both of the images used in the article show up really small, to the point where you can't really see what's going on in them --- there's definitely room for them to be bigger; I think that you should choose a size for them rather than sticking with the default thumb size. I gave 300px a try in preview-mode and it looked great. Give it a look!
    • I'm usually loth to specify image sizes, as it prevents users form specifying their own choices in their prefs, but I think you're right on these counts. Changed!
  • As the Visual Dictionary doesn't actually say anything about his missing teeth, isn't "betrayed his years of combat" in the intro speculation? For all we know, it could just be bad dental habits that they betray.
  • Along the same lines, who was he imposing to? "Imposing" is kind of a POV word; I like, however, what you have in the p & t (stocky and well-muscled). Maybe a more neutral word is in order?
    • O, how neutrality kills the poetry of our language! Changed anyway. :P
  • Merumeru is consistently referred to as a commander; all the sources I found refer to him as a Captain (such as his DB entry and Chronicles: The Prequels) --- did you find any that call him "Commander?"
    • My bad. Fixed.
  • This one may seem like a ridiculous objection, but I don't think that "growl" is an accurate descriptor of the sound that Merumeru makes when he calls the warriors into battle. :P Whereas growling is usually low and guttural, his sound is more of a high-pitched roar. :D
    • Roar, growl, it's all Shyriiwook to me.
  • I'm a bit confused by the sentence beginning with "The suit had two main parts", as it goes on to use "and" twice and to seemingly describe three different main parts (lower body suit, outer body suit, face and hands). Can you make it clearer which parts belong to what?
    • Tried to clarify. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the head, feet, and hands are separate pieces from the rest of it.
  • Just wanna make sure that you're familiar with how to properly link to Wikipedia articles: [[Wikipedia:Sydney|Sydney]] will produce Sydney. No need to type [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney Sydney]. I've corrected it, but definitely take a note.
    • Ah, nice trick. Thanks for the tip!
  • A question for ya: As The Illustrated Screenplay came out over a month before the film, I have it listed as Lachichuk's first appearance. However, I'm thinking that (First pictured) might be more appropriate, since the Wookiees only appear in an image and not in any of the dialogue. Not really sure. What do you think? Depending on the outcome of your convo with Tranner above, that is, and assuming that it's an appearance rather than a source.
    • Hmm. Well, as we know he's in that image based on other sources, and because we're dealing with an in-uni narrative, I think 1st appearance would work. 1stp is only supposed to be used with "sources," the way I understand it. If we decide TIS is a source, 1stp would be appropriate.
  • Are there any applicable quotes for Behind the scenes? From Chronicles, Making of, The Wookiees are Back --- anything?
    • Got it.
  • All from me. Good work! Menkooroo 02:34, May 14, 2011 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the review! ~SavageBOB sig 04:10, May 14, 2011 (UTC)
Ecks Dee
  • "As the droids approached, the Wookiee leader stood atop the barricades and roared for his comrades to charge into battle. Guanta was among the throng who did so." Can these two, very related sentences be merged? The second sentence is just bad flowing as it is currently.
    • I have to confess that I liked the way those sentences worked together, but I've given a go at rephrasing things. I had a hard time rewording it, so please do take another look and let me know if it's any better.
  • Per Forum:SH:Project_Wookiee:_Wookieepedia's_First_Barn-burner!#Name_of_the_ROTS_battle, could you avoid using "Battle of Kashyyyk"? "The combined force of Wookiees and clone troopers bested the Separatist war machine and won the Battle of Kashyyyk." Same for P&T.
    • I've changed it to Battle of Kachirho. Is that the preferred form?
      • Seems to be one mention in the introduction remaining. 1358 (Talk) 15:18, May 23, 2011 (UTC)
  • "The suffice -anta in his name meant "judge" and "leader" in his native language, Shyriiwook." Shouldn't it be "suffix"?
  • That's all, provided Tranner's objection above is resolved. 1358 (Talk) 19:59, May 18, 2011 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the review! I'm still not sure what to do about the screenplay thing. If someone else wants to back Tranner up, I'd be happy to change it, provided the matter gets sorted in SH/CT eventually. ~SavageBOB sig 21:19, May 19, 2011 (UTC)
      • I think it might be best if you move it to "Sources" now. I'll be happy to help you nail out specifics in the SH thread. It may be that this is revisited later, but for now, I say go with "sources." The article is of excellent quality regardless. :) Menkooroo 15:12, May 23, 2011 (UTC)
        • Per Menkooroo; I for one have no clue whether it is an appearance or a source. It's just not a good idea to prevent this article from passing—this can and should be resolved more diligently in an SH thread. 1358 (Talk) 15:18, May 23, 2011 (UTC)
          • I've moved it, pending some sort of consensus in either the Senate Hall or Consensus Track. Thanks for the review, Xd! ~SavageBOB sig 15:37, May 23, 2011 (UTC)
            • Still one objection remaining. 1358 (Talk) 15:44, May 23, 2011 (UTC)
              • Oops; got it. ~SavageBOB sig 15:49, May 23, 2011 (UTC)

Comments

Approved as a Good article by AgriCorps 03:14, May 24, 2011 (UTC)


  • MS Word tells me this is 998 words long; the online Word Count Tool gives me 984. Is there anything missing that would push him over the edge? ~SavageBOB sig 04:13, May 14, 2011 (UTC)