Wookieepedia:Good article nominations/Hakagram Graush

< 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.

Hakagram Graush

  • Nominated by: LelalMekha (talk) 17:51, August 8, 2012 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: Not just your usual weak king: he was the last one, actually.

(3 ACs/4 Users/7 Total)

Support

  1. —MJ— Holocomm Wednesday, August 8, 2012, 18:30 UTC
  2. This should be a FA. Plagueis327 (talk) 04:02, August 10, 2012 (UTC)
  3. Exiled Jedi Oldrepublic crest (Greetings) 03:04, August 15, 2012 (UTC)
  4. 501st dogma(talk) 12:57, September 9, 2012 (UTC)
  5. ACvote Cavalier OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 08:21, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
  6. ACvote IFYLOFD (Floyd's crib) 02:22, September 15, 2012 (UTC)
  7. ACvote Excellent job, Lelal. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 19:02, October 20, 2012 (UTC)

Object

Jangeth
  • Please reload your infobox. You're missing parameters. JangFett (Talk) 22:40, August 11, 2012 (UTC)
Exiled Jedi
  • If his Shadow Hand is an unique individual please create an article for him/her.
  • "Despite the strangers' impressive powers and lightsabers, Graush and his Sith did not immediately hail them as deities when they arrived." Could you provide some context as to why this is important? I don't see why he would, since the Sith species had force users as well.
    • Tried to clarify a bit. Tell me if you think it needs to get even clearer. --LelalMekha (talk) 17:44, August 14, 2012 (UTC)
  • Context on Ziost and perhaps a little on Sorzus Syn.
  • "With Graush's death, Pall usurped the king's throne and the Dark Jedi became Sith Lords themselves, taking Graush's position over the Sith people he once ruled." In the body, you say he became king, but you don't mention that the Dark Jedi became Sith Lords.
  • That's it from me, good work.--Exiled Jedi Oldrepublic crest (Greetings) 16:02, August 14, 2012 (UTC)
Cav
  • Gender to be mentioned in bio.
  • The bio indicates that Graush was the king of the Sith, as in, the only one. The intro calls him a Sith king, and the succession box mentions "numerous self-proclaimed Sith Kings." So which is correct? Additionally, you identify the Sith from issue 2 of The Golden Age of the Sith as Graush, presumably by his description as the last king of the Sith - so if other Sith kings were active, how can this be?
    • "Numerous self-proclaimed Sith King" seems to be the remainder of a previous state of the article. I've checked Evil never ends and it says: "Without Adas'vunifying influence, wars once again raged for rule of the Sith people, with the reigning combatants arrogantly claiming the title of Sith'ari (...) Eventually, almost two-dozen millennia after Adas' death, a proper successor to Adas seemed to come at last." It definitely doesn't say that Graush was a competitor along others. The succession box has been amended. --LelalMekha (talk) 19:27, September 4, 2012 (UTC)
  • Do we know any details about the betrayal instigated by the Shadow Hand? - Cavalier OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 10:49, September 4, 2012 (UTC)
    • Nothing, alas. We only know from Book of Sith that Sorzus Syn and the others learned to "understand the power structure of the Sith culture". --LelalMekha (talk) 19:27, September 4, 2012 (UTC)
501
  • Could you add something to the P&T about not hailing the Exiles as gods?
  • Could you vary the image placement so the last two pictures are not right on top of one another?
  • Good work. 501st dogma(talk) 12:18, September 9, 2012 (UTC)
Floyd
  • In the intro, you call him a "male Sith of the Sith Empire", as well as putting Sith Empire in the affiliation field. But the way I understand it, the Sith Empire wasn't founded until after Pall's rise to power and seizing of the Sith worlds, and Graush obviously wasn't affiliated with that.
    • Well, this has bugged me too, you know. I just removed it from the intro and changed the affiliation link in the infobox to "[Sith (species)|Sith civilization]". I think we lack an article on the pre-Exile Sith government. Insert non-formatted text here
  • In the intro, you use "Sith sorcerer" and "Sith sorcery" in the same sentence. Try to avoid this kind of repetition.
  • Context on Shadow Hand in the intro.
  • Nice work. IFYLOFD (Floyd's crib) 00:45, September 13, 2012 (UTC)
    • N.B. Those answers and corrections were mine, but it seems I had forgotten to log in somehow... --LelalMekha (talk) 09:41, September 13, 2012 (UTC)
Toprawa
  • A minor linking bit. I linked to the first plain mention of the word "Sith" in the Biography but then notice that "Sith" is later pipelinked to "Sith Order" in the Legacy subsection. Might there be a specific Order page to link to Sith Order there instead?
    • In fact, I removed your linking, because "Sith" was intended to mean "Sith Pureblood" here—which I clarified. I guess we should leave the later pipelink though. --LelalMekha (talk) 13:45, October 18, 2012 (UTC)
  • I think it would be best for the BTS to mention specifically that the character first appeared in the second issue of the TOTJ series.
  • I hate to do this, but I disagree with citing Wallace's endnotes for the in-universe assertion that Hakagram was "thought to be" a descendant of Dathka. OOU commentary, even by the author of a given piece of literature, cannot necessarily always be taken at canon face value. Just about everything that goes into a Star Wars publication goes through LFL's approval process, so just because Wallace originally intended for Hakagram to be Dathka's descendant doesn't mean it would necessarily have gone through. Reading Wallace's endnotes, it sounds like he intended his final version to be an unwritten presumption that the reader is supposed to make without it literally being spelled out for him, which is exactly how I think this article should present this. I would recommend tweaking the wording to instead simply say that Hakagram shared his surname with noted Sith sorcerer Dathka Graush, source it to Book of Sith, and leave the presumed connection commentary for the BTS.
  • If Tales of the Jedi Companion and Evil Never Dies in the Sources list don't mention the character by actual name (which they don't) and don't also include an image of him, they should really be tagged with the {{Imo}} tag.
  • The article's referencing is something of a mess right now. Multiple items are given double reference notes unnecessarily, such as Funeral for a Dark Lord, Evil Never Dies, and Korriban: Planet of Lost Souls. All of these should be combined into a single reference note. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 19:47, October 17, 2012 (UTC)
    • Fixed. --LelalMekha (talk) 13:45, October 18, 2012 (UTC)
      • Much better. Taking this one step further now, I believe Korriban can be sourced to a specific article from that article series. If you go here, you'll see the individual articles. The citation template you're currently using for this can be adapted easy enough. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 18:32, October 19, 2012 (UTC)

Comments

Approved as a Good article by AgriCorps 19:02, October 20, 2012 (UTC)


Thanks to Master Jonathan for the copy-edit. --LelalMekha (talk) 17:51, August 8, 2012 (UTC)