- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a good article nomination that was successful. Please do not modify it.
Jauxson
- Nominated by: ~ SavageBob 05:47, October 23, 2010 (UTC)
- Nomination comments: Yep. He's a Gotal.
(4 ACs/2 Users/6 Total)
Support
- Damn right he's a Gotal! Menkooroo 13:49, October 24, 2010 (UTC)
Grand Moff Tranner 
(Comlink) 19:28, October 26, 2010 (UTC)- 1358 (Talk) 07:41, November 7, 2010 (UTC)
- Nice. Darth Xadún(Consult the Holocron) 15:56, November 15, 2010 (UTC)
Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 20:02, November 17, 2010 (UTC)- Very nice. Toprawa and Ralltiir 21:49, November 17, 2010 (UTC)
Object
Moffship
Jauxson should be established as being a Gotal male earlier in the bio.- That's all. However, I would ask you to go through the article once more to ensure everything is accurate - before my copyedit, the infobox had listed "Mahk'khar" as his name, for example - and to watch your linking in the future. Grand Moff Tranner (Comlink) 17:13, October 23, 2010 (UTC)
- Whoops. Thanks for the copy edit, and your other objection should be addressed. ~ SavageBob 17:30, October 23, 2010 (UTC)
Xd1358
"Jauxson eventually gained control of his own gang…" He finally gained control over his own gang? You mean he wasn't able to control them before?"After tiring of Jauxson's predations[1] at some point during the Galactic Civil War,[2] two Bith citizens of Buerhoz hired a group of spacers to help them gather a small army to fight off the Gotal and his bandits to free the city.[1]" That contradicts the introduction, which says that "the Bith of the city", not just two, hired the gang. Also, perhaps reorganize the sentence a bit so that you don't need to have [1][2][1], like "At some point during the GCW,[2]…"?"When a raiding band met this resistance, they returned to their camp to gather reinforcements.[4] Jauxson and his crew returned with a larger force…" Returned used twice; sounds like Jauxson returned to the camp with a larger force.The two first sentences of the P&T don't really fit there. They would suit better in the bio, IMO, since they are mainly about his gang, not his traits. Whaddaya think?Same applies for the "Once inside…" sentence.- Less species, more characters, please! :P 1358 (Talk) 19:38, November 6, 2010 (UTC)
- I've addressed all of these objections but the P&T ones. I'm always a bit confused about how P&T should be treated. To me, these sentences you've questioned reflect Jauxson's MO and are thus more suited to P&T than bio. Am I missing something, though? Precisely because I don't GA or FA more character articles, I'm a bit out of my element. :) ~ SavageBob 19:55, November 6, 2010 (UTC)
- IMHO, the P&T of a character should be about how the character behaves and so on. It shouldn't be about his gang or how the gang does and so on. For example, the twenty underling thing could be moved up to the bio, where you introduce Jauxson's gang. And if the rest of the not-so-relevant info in the P&T isn't relevant to the bio, remove it. 1358 (Talk) 21:02, November 6, 2010 (UTC)
- The adventure seed says that Jauxson accompanies his underlings on raids, so the description of their behavior seems relevant to me, as it describes his behavior as well. At any rate, I've reworded things to explicitly center this section on Jauxson. How's that look? ~ SavageBob 01:21, November 7, 2010 (UTC)
- IMHO, the P&T of a character should be about how the character behaves and so on. It shouldn't be about his gang or how the gang does and so on. For example, the twenty underling thing could be moved up to the bio, where you introduce Jauxson's gang. And if the rest of the not-so-relevant info in the P&T isn't relevant to the bio, remove it. 1358 (Talk) 21:02, November 6, 2010 (UTC)
- I've addressed all of these objections but the P&T ones. I'm always a bit confused about how P&T should be treated. To me, these sentences you've questioned reflect Jauxson's MO and are thus more suited to P&T than bio. Am I missing something, though? Precisely because I don't GA or FA more character articles, I'm a bit out of my element. :) ~ SavageBob 19:55, November 6, 2010 (UTC)
Jujiggum
I think it would be better to state a little sooner that Jauxson's gang raided spacelanes, before you say that they relocated to Clak'dor VIIWhy do you leave the fact that they targeted three domes cities and "negotiated entry into the cities by threatening to destroy their domes, thus exposing the citizens to the harsh atmosphere of their world" out of the bio? That sounds like a very relevant event within Jauxson's life; and it is much more relevant to the bio than the P&TI think some other information in the P&T could also be stated in the bio; there's some info in there that's just as relevant to his life as a whole as it is to his personality. I'm particularly looking at the number of pirates in his gang (not sure how that's related to his personality at all), the aforementioned tactic of threatening to destroy the dome, how they operated (i.e. spending 2 weeks at camp then attacking on speeders/swoops—not sure how this is relevant to the P&T at all, either) and at least some mention of what they did and what they took once inside the domes- Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 16:09, November 7, 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how it's not relevant to P&T, since they speak to Jauxson's MO. I guess I didn't realize that P&T was so strictly limited to just personality traits. Why doesn't in include personal style, too? In other words, none of those things you single out is a singular event, they are things he did over and over (except perhaps the 20 member gang). If a character has a habit of smoking cigars and then singing show tunes, I'd say that fits P&T, so I'm not sure why this doesn't fit too. (Not trying to be obdurate here; I'm legitimately confused! :) ~ SavageBob 16:27, November 7, 2010 (UTC)
- In the meantime, I've addressed the 20-member gang thing and the chronology of raiding the spacelanes. ~ SavageBob 16:34, November 7, 2010 (UTC)
- Haha no problem :), this can be confusing, so here's my reasoning behind the objection: some habits are indeed relevant to the P&T, but only if they say something about the character's personality. For something to fit in the P&T, you have to be able to draw some conclusion about the character's personality or traits from the action/event. For example, the tactic of threatening to destroy the dome does show some things about his personality; however, it would be better to move that info to the bio (because it is also an important part of his life as a whole) and keep personality-specific information in the P&T, saying something like: "Jauxson often threatened innocent civilian lives in order to get into the Bith cities; [this shows his ruthlessness in this tactic] he and his gang demanded entrance to the cities, lest they destroy the dome and expose the citizens to the toxic atmosphere outside. [and this gives an example of how he threatened the civilians]" As for the way and frequency with which they operated; I don't see how to draw any conclusion of his personality from these choices. It is a habit, yes, but it provides no insight as to his personality or traits. It would fit better in the bio, where you describe his life's actions. And as for what they did once inside the domes—you can draw plenty of conclusions about his personality/traits, but this is also information about how they operated, and thus it belongs in the section regarding the events of his life, as well as the P&T. The basic way to decide what does and doesn't go in the P&T is: if you can draw a solid conclusion about the character's personality and/or traits from the information present, then it belongs; if not, then it doesn't. And when presenting information in the P&T, don't state it in the same manner that you would bio information; instead, present it so that it focuses solely on the personality/traits aspect; make sure that you focus first on drawing that conclusion about the character's personality/trait, and then back it up with an example as apporpriate. Apologies for so lengthy a reply here, but I wanted to really clarify my thoughts and position on this. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 16:51, November 7, 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, been busy. I guess I'm still having a problem with this because, in my opinion, habits and standard operating procedures are traits. You seem to be arguing that "personality and traits" is only personality; what then is a "trait"? Again, I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm still trying to parse all this. :) What is the difference between "personality" and "trait" in this section? (I'll get there. Just give me time. :) ) ~ SavageBob 18:37, November 11, 2010 (UTC)
- No problem at all, I've been busy lately, too. Here's how I've been interpreting the LG: the "traits" in "personality and traits" is meant more as a synonym for personality than anything else. According to the LG: "Personality and traits describes personality traits evident in the source material and how these influence the character's behavior." A habit per se isn't what I'd call a personality trait within this definition. If the habit is just a repeated action carried out during the character's life, and if we can't glean any information directly related to the character's personality from the action, then I don't think it belongs in the P&T. However, if the habit does make clear something evident about the character's personality—in other words, if it gives us a clear insight as to an aspect of the character's personality—then it can be placed in the P&T. So if we can glean some information about the character's personality from the habit, then you should present the information about the personality trait itself, and, only if needed, provide a brief mention of the habit as an example of evidence that the character possesses that particular personality trait. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 19:17, November 11, 2010 (UTC)
- OK, although I think the site's concept of "Personality and traits" is way too narrow, I acquiesce. :) Thanks for your helpful explanations of all this. Please take a look at my attempt to address the issue. ~ SavageBob 04:49, November 13, 2010 (UTC)
- No problem at all, thanks for working through this with me in such a civil way. :)
I have just one more thing: does the source actually call him "ruthless?" If the source doesn't call him that, is there a different word we can use here that is less subjective?Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 01:05, November 15, 2010 (UTC)- Well, it says he does stuff "ruthlessly," so I'm not sure if it's inappropriate. At any rate, it flat out calls him fierce, so I've changed the word to that. ~ SavageBob 22:33, November 15, 2010 (UTC)
- No problem at all, thanks for working through this with me in such a civil way. :)
- OK, although I think the site's concept of "Personality and traits" is way too narrow, I acquiesce. :) Thanks for your helpful explanations of all this. Please take a look at my attempt to address the issue. ~ SavageBob 04:49, November 13, 2010 (UTC)
- No problem at all, I've been busy lately, too. Here's how I've been interpreting the LG: the "traits" in "personality and traits" is meant more as a synonym for personality than anything else. According to the LG: "Personality and traits describes personality traits evident in the source material and how these influence the character's behavior." A habit per se isn't what I'd call a personality trait within this definition. If the habit is just a repeated action carried out during the character's life, and if we can't glean any information directly related to the character's personality from the action, then I don't think it belongs in the P&T. However, if the habit does make clear something evident about the character's personality—in other words, if it gives us a clear insight as to an aspect of the character's personality—then it can be placed in the P&T. So if we can glean some information about the character's personality from the habit, then you should present the information about the personality trait itself, and, only if needed, provide a brief mention of the habit as an example of evidence that the character possesses that particular personality trait. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 19:17, November 11, 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, been busy. I guess I'm still having a problem with this because, in my opinion, habits and standard operating procedures are traits. You seem to be arguing that "personality and traits" is only personality; what then is a "trait"? Again, I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm still trying to parse all this. :) What is the difference between "personality" and "trait" in this section? (I'll get there. Just give me time. :) ) ~ SavageBob 18:37, November 11, 2010 (UTC)
- Haha no problem :), this can be confusing, so here's my reasoning behind the objection: some habits are indeed relevant to the P&T, but only if they say something about the character's personality. For something to fit in the P&T, you have to be able to draw some conclusion about the character's personality or traits from the action/event. For example, the tactic of threatening to destroy the dome does show some things about his personality; however, it would be better to move that info to the bio (because it is also an important part of his life as a whole) and keep personality-specific information in the P&T, saying something like: "Jauxson often threatened innocent civilian lives in order to get into the Bith cities; [this shows his ruthlessness in this tactic] he and his gang demanded entrance to the cities, lest they destroy the dome and expose the citizens to the toxic atmosphere outside. [and this gives an example of how he threatened the civilians]" As for the way and frequency with which they operated; I don't see how to draw any conclusion of his personality from these choices. It is a habit, yes, but it provides no insight as to his personality or traits. It would fit better in the bio, where you describe his life's actions. And as for what they did once inside the domes—you can draw plenty of conclusions about his personality/traits, but this is also information about how they operated, and thus it belongs in the section regarding the events of his life, as well as the P&T. The basic way to decide what does and doesn't go in the P&T is: if you can draw a solid conclusion about the character's personality and/or traits from the information present, then it belongs; if not, then it doesn't. And when presenting information in the P&T, don't state it in the same manner that you would bio information; instead, present it so that it focuses solely on the personality/traits aspect; make sure that you focus first on drawing that conclusion about the character's personality/trait, and then back it up with an example as apporpriate. Apologies for so lengthy a reply here, but I wanted to really clarify my thoughts and position on this. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 16:51, November 7, 2010 (UTC)
Toprawa
Two minor things. Firstly, would it be appropriate to use the RPG template in the bio or some variation thereof? The explanation of the customizable variations in the BTS makes me curious.Secondly, for the CSWE citation template in the Sources list, might I suggest only filling out the page-number field for actual reference notes, if only for consistency since we typically don't include page numbers in Apps/Source lists with any other material? It would look like this, essentially: The Complete Star Wars Encyclopedia, Vol. II ("Jauxson")Toprawa and Ralltiir 19:23, November 17, 2010 (UTC)- I was on the fence about the RPG template, since the CSWE seems to show that the adventure went as it was supposed to. The variant stuff only affects the way it happens, and the CSWE being true doesn't negate the fact that these other things could have happened. But it doesn't hurt to add the templates either, so I've done so. As for the CSWE template, I had no idea that was an option. Thanks for the suggestion! ~ SavageBob 21:41, November 17, 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm not sure myself on the RPG template. I've encountered similar situations with other articles where CSWE ended up canonizing the path or outcome of an RPG adventure, and we ended up not having to use the template, so if you decide it's not necessary feel free to nix it. Thanks for making the changes. Toprawa and Ralltiir 21:49, November 17, 2010 (UTC)
- I was on the fence about the RPG template, since the CSWE seems to show that the adventure went as it was supposed to. The variant stuff only affects the way it happens, and the CSWE being true doesn't negate the fact that these other things could have happened. But it doesn't hurt to add the templates either, so I've done so. As for the CSWE template, I had no idea that was an option. Thanks for the suggestion! ~ SavageBob 21:41, November 17, 2010 (UTC)
Comments
Approved as a Good article by AgriCorps 21:49, November 17, 2010 (UTC)