Wookieepedia:Good article nominations/Ice (duelist)

< Wookieepedia:Good article nominations
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a good article nomination that was unsuccessful. Please do not modify it.

Ice

  • Nominated by:Sol PacificusFirestorm 15:25, October 18, 2016 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: I looked to the featured article Deadeye Duncan for some guidance. I found that article to have more detail than I expected. It was from that article's example that I explained a bit more about the Attack on the Endar Spire that led to the Sith quarantine, but I fear that this isn't relevant enough to Ice's story or her perspective to be explained. One other concern I have is the note in the BtS about how her hair is brown in the Xbox version. I have the Xbox strategy guide where the pictures show her with a head like that of Iceman.

(1 ACs/4 Users/5 Total)

Support

  1. Probably best if you remove the part about Bastila, and merely include the information about the occupation and the blockade. Other than that, all good.--Jace Onasi (talk) 09:55, November 29, 2016 (UTC)
    • Done :). Thank you for reviewing it by the way. This has been up here forever. >_< Sol PacificusFirestorm 17:02, November 29, 2016 (UTC)
  2. Good work! Cevan IMPpress (talk) 01:27, December 4, 2016 (UTC)
  3. Very well done.—Jedi Kasra ("Indeed.") 19:00, February 24, 2017 (UTC)
  4. ACvote I enjoyed reading this. Imperators II(Talk) 18:01, May 21, 2017 (UTC)
  5. MasterFredCommerce Guild(Whatever) 08:41, August 18, 2017 (UTC)

Object

Cevan
  • Just to verify, it's actually stated that Ice is from Taris, correct? Cevan IMPpress (talk) 15:44, December 1, 2016 (UTC)
  • It may be wise to establish that Revan was an amnesiac Sith earlier on, at his first mention. Cevan IMPpress (talk) 15:44, December 1, 2016 (UTC)
    • Done. I have look at past GA reviews for some other KotOR character articles where people have said that that information isn't relevant enough to be included in the first place. I'm guessing we don't have a standardized practice for it? Sol PacificusFirestorm 22:50, December 1, 2016 (UTC)
      • Now that you mention it, you could probably leave out that bit of info. Knowing that Revan is a former Sith isn't really necessary to understanding anything spoken of in this article. Cevan IMPpress (talk) 23:09, December 1, 2016 (UTC)
  • The behind the scenes section will need some tweaking since KOTOR isn't canon. Cevan IMPpress (talk) 15:44, December 1, 2016 (UTC)
    • You mean not canon to Canon right? I removed the mention that she's canonical, but I didn't mention she's from Legends, not sure if it's necessary. Sol PacificusFirestorm 22:50, December 1, 2016 (UTC)
      • If you want to add in that she is a Legends character/KOTOR is a Legends game it wouldn't hurt anything, though I'm not certain if that's necessary—clarifying that may make it a little easier for this next part, however. For the second paragraph of the bts section, about the dark side ending, you may want to rephrase that slightly to make it clear that the "non-canonical" bit refers it being non-canon in the Legends coninuitiy or something to that effect. Cevan IMPpress (talk) 23:09, December 1, 2016 (UTC)
        • Do you think that is necessary given that there is already that tag at the top of the article identifying it as a Legends article? It seems a bit awkward to say "In the dark side outcome that is non-canonical in the Legends continuity" (which seems to suggest that it is canonical in Canon continuity even if it is obvious to us that doesn't make sense). Actually we might want to double-check if we're ever supposed to refer to Canon vs. Legends in articles at all. Sol PacificusFirestorm 07:42, December 2, 2016 (UTC)
          • I've gone ahead and reword the second paragraph in the behind the scenes section a little. You can take a look and see what you think. Cevan IMPpress (talk) 13:57, December 2, 2016 (UTC)
            • I just edited it. I removed the additional line specifying that it's unclear if Revan "canonically" participated in the dueling ring. I think since it has already been noted that we are only assuming 100% completion in the body paragraph, this makes this line in the BtS to be unnecessary, maybe even redundant. It would also cause confusion to have "canonical" in quotation marks. I think we might check up on others later whether it is fine to use the word canon within the Legends continuity. Really, the main reason why I removed the line though is because in light of all these complications, I suppose at the end of the day, we don't really have to say whether it was canonical or not? I did add that the player earns dark side points for it, and I had originally intended to edit the line to say that we are assuming 100% light side choices so that we treat it as non-canonical, but then I recalled that our assumption is only for convenience's sake when writing the body paragraph. It is canon (in Legends) that Revan had the light-side ending, but he might have made a dark side choice here and there along the way, and that's really my main mistake with calling it non-canonical. Anyways, let me know what you think. Sol PacificusFirestorm 01:23, December 4, 2016 (UTC)
              • Looks all right to me. Cevan IMPpress (talk) 01:27, December 4, 2016 (UTC)
Couple things…
  • This article should assume 100% game completion unless stated elsewhere. Please change the article intro to reflect this. It doesn't have to be long, just enough to note that Revan defeated her in the dueling ring.
    • Not sure if I'm allowed to disagree with objections, but I was always under the impression that assumption of 100% completion was only for the convenience of comprehensiveness in the article but not treated as a declaration of what is canonical. This, and the fact that the tag is necessary to clarify this, led me to believe that the introduction should omit extra details that comes with 100% completion because there's no tag that is applied in the introduction or the header for this purpose. Instead, the tag is after all applied in the body paragraph where such details arise. Can we be sure that the community is consistent on this? Sol PacificusFirestorm 19:33, February 17, 2017 (UTC)
    • Wait... did I misread, were you not talking about the introduction? Because the body paragraph already specifies that Revan defeated her in the dueling ring. "After beating Deadeye Duncan and Gerlon Two-Fingers, he fought Ice and emerged victorious, winning 300 credits." Sol PacificusFirestorm 19:36, February 17, 2017 (UTC)
      • The way we used to do it when I was more active before was that we put a brief summary of everything in the intro.—Jedi Kasra ("Indeed.") 12:23, February 20, 2017 (UTC)
        • That's not what I'm asking. I'm asking if that information should be included under the notion of "brief summary of everything" considering that it's not content that has been verified to be canonical. We assume 100% game completion for the ease and convenience of article writing—and add a template message clarifying this where the information arises in the body paragraph, but if we include that information in the introduction itself, without a header template specifying that we're assuming 100% game completion, we're essentially presenting it as 100% verified canon. It also diminishes the point of the "Game mechanics" tag in the body paragraph since we don't feel the need to clarify this when it appears at the introduction itself anyways. I have changed it as asked though, but I'm checking this up with the IRC. Sol PacificusFirestorm 19:45, February 20, 2017 (UTC)
          • Please do that, and adjust if I'm incorrect. All I'm going by is the way we used to do it before.—Jedi Kasra ("Indeed.") 19:56, February 20, 2017 (UTC)
            • I have done as you asked nonetheless. Is it sufficient for you to cross this out? Sol PacificusFirestorm 22:50, February 20, 2017 (UTC)
              • Thank you. My apologies for not getting back to this sooner.—Jedi Kasra ("Indeed.") 18:59, February 24, 2017 (UTC)
  • Linking in the quotations isn't necessary unless the subjects in quotation are not mentioned elsewhere in the article.
  • Is Bendak Starkiller's true identity relevant to Ice herself? If so, please provide the proper source for his identity of Gorse Bendak, which is the Knights of the Old Republic Campaign Guide. If not, you should omit any mention of Gorse from the article.
    • Out of curiosity, did you mean to ask if Bendak Starkiller should have been referred to by his alias rather than his real name instead? Or were you asking if his character is relevant to her character? Anyways, I cited the campaign guide as asked. Sol PacificusFirestorm 19:33, February 17, 2017 (UTC)
      • I'm saying Gorse Bendak's past isn't really relevant to Ice herself. Of course, Bendak is relevant, but it's ok to just refer to him by his stage name here, imo.—Jedi Kasra ("Indeed.") 12:33, February 20, 2017 (UTC)
  • Otherwise, very well written. Take care of these and you've my support.—Jedi Kasra ("Indeed.") 16:36, February 17, 2017 (UTC)
Imperators II
  • The sentence sourced to CSWE should be paraphrased a bit, otherwise it's almost copied verbatim.
    • Unfortunately, I actually do not have the CSWE. Pardon me, but I seem to have completely neglected that point when I nominated this article. :-/ I suppose the best I can do is to work with what you tell me from that book. For this line in question, do you think it would be better if I just remove it and incorporate the detail of her hiding her blast in her clothing into the "Equipment" section? The bit about her having earned a "devious reputation" I think is in all intents and purposes already covered and otherwise is just flowery language from the book.
      • The "devious reputation" bit is OK to keep, since I don't really see where else in the article that is covered. The part about the hidden blaster could go under Equipment, but since it already mentions her blaster and her armor, maybe it should better go under a new "Skills and abilities" section, where you could also mention that she was considered a confident and steady fighter by Marl.
        • Done. I have it under Equipment only though. I'm really short on time, so if you want it to go under a "Skill and abilities" instead, I'll have to do that another time. Sol PacificusFirestorm 19:35, May 9, 2017 (UTC)
          • Whoa, whoa, a sword? Are you referring to the vibroblade there? Maybe it's a vibrosword, then? And now you've added info to the Equipment section that I think would definitely be better under Skills and abilities, along with the stuff I mentioned earlier. Imperators II(Talk) 06:52, May 10, 2017 (UTC)
            • I kind of wondered while writing that if you would bring this up, but I would argue that a vibroblade in the series most certainly is long enough to be a sword, being the length of a normal short sword in real-life, with vibroswords being the length of historical long swords. In fact, vibroblades are the exact length of "short swords" in the game and are essentially the "vibro" versions of them, with vibroswords corresponding to the long swords. Sol PacificusFirestorm 07:19, May 10, 2017 (UTC)
  • Hmm... the CSWE entry has some more stuff:
    • The entry refers to Ice as a "gladiator fighter". Do you think you could incorporate this in the article, as well as adding Category:Gladiators?
    • It also specifically says Ice, along with other fighters, were chosen by Ajuur to compete in the dueling ring.
      • Since I don't have the CSWE, I'm not clear on the exact context of that, but I noted that she was personally recruited by Ajuur, which I believe means the same thing? Sol PacificusFirestorm 05:12, April 27, 2017 (UTC)
        • I don't think that technically "to choose" and "to personally recruit" mean the same thing.
          • Well do you have the book? Can you give me the exact quote? Sol PacificusFirestorm 21:09, April 27, 2017 (UTC)
            • The entry has just these two sentences: "One of the many gladiator fighters chosen by Ajuur the Hutt to compete in his events on Taris during the Great Sith War. Known as a devious fighter, she often hid a blaster inside her clothing in case a bout got out of hand." Imperators II(Talk) 09:32, April 28, 2017 (UTC)
    • The entry, most probably mistakenly, says Ice participated in the fights during the Great Sith War. You could add this to the BTS.
      • I haven't done this yet. Because I don't have the source, I wasn't sure if you meant the entry notes she fought in the Great Sith War, or she participated in fights of the duel ring while the Great Sith War was ongoing. Also, do you think we should say outright that this is an error or that it is most likely an error? Sol PacificusFirestorm 05:12, April 27, 2017 (UTC)
        • Knights of the Old Republic Campaign Guide describes Starkiller's history where he becomes a gladiator after Revan defeats the Mandalorians. Since Ice became a gladiator sometime after that, the CSWE entry must be in error. Imperators II(Talk) 09:32, April 28, 2017 (UTC)
          • Done, but I noted instead that it is likely erroneous because the Great Sith War took place decades before the Jedi Civil War where she is still a young woman. The reason why I didn't mention the reasoning behind Starkiller's history is because that is known to contradict directly with KotOR's own account of Starkiller's history. In KotOR, the death matches were banned around 3966 BBY, meaning Bendak had already spent years garnering his reputation as a gladiator on Taris before that. In the campaign guide, he is said to have been a miner on Vanquo before the Battle of Vanquo in 3964 BBY, and only became a gladiator after the Mandalorian Wars. While the campaign guide, being the newer source, might override KotOR's account, since this is such a major contradiction that was never addressed, I think it's better to avoid mentioning it. Sol PacificusFirestorm 19:35, May 9, 2017 (UTC)
  • Context for Endar Spire needed.
  • Release date for KOTOR should be added.
    • Done. 05:12, April 27, 2017 (UTC)
  • Is there a quote on Ice's introspection about Starkiller's death that could be used for BTS? Imperators II(Talk) 09:10, April 25, 2017 (UTC)
    • Great idea actually, done. Let me know if you think it should be trimmed though, and I wasn't entirely sure of the best way to describe the context of her delivering the quote. Sol PacificusFirestorm 05:12, April 27, 2017 (UTC)
Fred strikes back
  • The second to last sentence in the Bio uses the phrase "cold-heart truth." Is this the exact phrase the game uses? If not, I'm not aware that this is even a real phrase, and I assume it should be "cold, hard truth." MasterFredCommerce Guild(Whatever) 01:03, August 13, 2017 (UTC)

Comments

  • I think I should point out that the featured article of another duelist Deadeye Duncan doesn't bother to say that that is his alias. More notably, in the infobox his name isn't in quotations. I really think that we should be consistent in this. Sol PacificusFirestorm 22:50, December 1, 2016 (UTC)
    • I've gone ahead and removed the quotations from around Ice's name to keep it in-line with Deadeye Duncan. As far as calling it her alias, I'll leave that up to you to decide how you want to handle it. Cevan IMPpress (talk) 23:09, December 1, 2016 (UTC)
  • This is really a minor point, but I kind of disagree with the changing of "the amnesiac former Sith Lord Revan" to "the amnesiac former Dark Lord Revan". Could you explain your reasons for making this change Imperators II? I always found referring to Sith Lords as "Dark Lords" to be colloquial, and the division of the term into an un-linked "Dark" and the linked "Lord" looks awkward to me. I'm also a little unsure about all the instances of doing away with the pronouns, whatever the technical term for that is. In a few cases, I agree they're necessary, but I think you might've overdid it a little and substituted with too little pronouns now. Is there a guideline on how often the subject should be renamed? Finally, I previously changed the first line's "that" to "who" because I have read that the two are interchangeable, only that "who" is more correct if the subject is a person. I'm not too clear on the difference, and I'm still skeptical of that rule, but thus far, that is what I have read when looking up the issue on sites that advise on English grammar. Sol PacificusFirestorm 04:52, April 27, 2017 (UTC)
    • Oh my, I'm so stupid. This whole time, I hadn't re-read the line clearly that the subject being referred to in that clause is the "Taris dueling ring" not Ice, my bad. Sol PacificusFirestorm 04:56, April 27, 2017 (UTC)
      • I don't see how "Dark Lord" is colloquial. It's not wrong to refer to Revan as a Sith Lord, but it's more precise to refer to him as a Dark Lord of the Sith, especially considering how the Sith Empire had many Sith Lords, but only one Dark Lord.
Regarding pronouns, you had whole paragraphs that used nothing but one or two pronouns. It was repetitive, but, more importantly, could potentially cause confusion, like in the first paragraph the pronoun used to refer to Starkiller could also be interpreted as referring to Ajuur. You can never go wrong with alternating pronouns with last names/alternate descriptors/synonyms, and, as I said, it's less repetitive that way. Imperators II(Talk) 09:32, April 28, 2017 (UTC)
  • Yeah, when I had read it over, not through the actual editing window, I realized that you were right on the pronouns. I forgot that Dark Lord refers to the title of Dark Lord of the Sith, but if that's the case, I don't think it's really appropriate to break that into linking to the title "lord" which was also how I got confused. Dark Lord is its own exact title, which, while etymologically derived in part from "lord", isn't actually the same as the title of lord. Sol PacificusFirestorm 12:05, May 1, 2017 (UTC)
  • And yet the Dark Lords were addressed with the title "Lord". Imperators II(Talk) 13:40, May 1, 2017 (UTC)
  • Huh. Always thought that wasn't in reference to "Dark Lord", oops. But are you sure it still doesn't make more sense to link "Dark Lord" to "Dark Lord of the Sith", as you did in the introduction, instead? Sol PacificusFirestorm 23:44, May 1, 2017 (UTC)
  • Oh, it's already linked before. Ehhhhhh, dividing the term up like that looks so wrong to me, but oh well. >_< In a similar vein, I actually don't think that linking the first instant of a pronoun to "sexes" is the best idea grammatically. The pronoun ultimately refers to the subject, the person, not to the sex itself, and I find this awkward as well. Is this standard Wookieepedian practice? Sol PacificusFirestorm 23:46, May 1, 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm surprised no one else caught this earlier, but this nomination clocks in at 1,085 words by my count, which means it's too long for the GAN page. You're welcome to nominate it for FAN instead. I wanted to give you a chance to see this message first before the nomination is procedurally removed by the AgriCorps. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 23:05, August 22, 2017 (UTC)