- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a good article nomination that was unsuccessful. Please do not modify it.
Jedi Order (+2)
Support
- Jediknight19bby 20:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
AdmirableAckbar 21:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)(temporarily (see below))- Jedimca0 (Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 11:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- School of Thrawn 101 08:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
π = 3
(Talk to me, babe.) 01:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Oppose
It has no references (requirement 2a). --Jedimca0 (Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 20:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)For now. See my comments below. Greyman(Paratus) 19:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)- The main body of the article still needs to be sourced per guidelines. The list of appearances needs to be completed, as well as the sources. It also has many people missing from the notable members bit in the infobox, ie anybody before the Clone Wars—it is as if TOTJ and KOTOR never happened. Greyman(Paratus) 18:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Per Greyman. The Revan and Malak business (KOTOR) is not referenced at all. And the line "Treachery is the way of the Sith" that appears somewhere in the Jedi vs. Sith, Darth Bane time frame needs to be deleted. It isn't all that professional. If I get the chance, I'll read it over completely. Overall though, the referencing is most definitely substandard. Hobbes15(Tiger Headquarters) 00:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Coments
- What do they mean by 'references'?Jediknight19bby 22:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Okay. I learned to do references, and I did a couple. I might be working on it later. Any other help is appreciated. Jediknight19bby 17:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- I think that there is a nice oppurtunity here to make this a good article by expanding the Timeline of major events in Jedi history. Specifically, expanding each event that is listed there into its own sub-section, which would essentially explain the Jedi's role in those respective conflicts and events. Also, I believe that the different branchs of the Order should be examined in the article as well, ex. The Agricultural Corps. Greyman(Paratus) 19:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Okay. I did it, except for the sub-section part. If you have time on your hands to complain, then you do to work on the page. Jediknight19bby 21:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Greyman wasn't complaining. he's trying to help you make the article better. AdmirableAckbar 21:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks AdmirableAckbar, you're right—I wasn't complaining. Jediknight19bby, firstly you had some questions about how to reference, and I pointed you (on your talk page) in the right direction, so that way you could take a look over it and see why Wookieepedia wants us to source articles. From the looks of it, you managed to look at the Sourcing article and put it to good use, nice job! Secondly, above I gave you some points about the article from which you can expand upon, it's completely up to you if you want to pay attention to them or not. However, since you're the one who nominated this article, be prepared to do some work—that's what nominating GA's and FA's is all about. Anytime you nominate or post anything on this wiki, be prepared for constructive critisim. Anyways, I look forward to see the direction that you take this article. Cheers, Greyman(Paratus) 22:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry about that. Jediknight19bby 23:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks AdmirableAckbar, you're right—I wasn't complaining. Jediknight19bby, firstly you had some questions about how to reference, and I pointed you (on your talk page) in the right direction, so that way you could take a look over it and see why Wookieepedia wants us to source articles. From the looks of it, you managed to look at the Sourcing article and put it to good use, nice job! Secondly, above I gave you some points about the article from which you can expand upon, it's completely up to you if you want to pay attention to them or not. However, since you're the one who nominated this article, be prepared to do some work—that's what nominating GA's and FA's is all about. Anytime you nominate or post anything on this wiki, be prepared for constructive critisim. Anyways, I look forward to see the direction that you take this article. Cheers, Greyman(Paratus) 22:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Greyman wasn't complaining. he's trying to help you make the article better. AdmirableAckbar 21:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'd like to point out that you shouldn't nominate articles that are a work in progress. Both GA and FA are places for articles that are virtually finished products. This article should be longer than the New Jedi Order article when it is done, and at the moment it is not even close. --Eyrezer 03:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- I find the GA/FA nom process to be an entirely useful method for pushing a slightly good article into good or great territory. --School of Thrawn 101 10:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- yeah, when I nominated Ephant Mon for FA it was an OK article, but after countless suggestions and tips, it's looking really good at the moment. AdmirableAckbar 10:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- I find the GA/FA nom process to be an entirely useful method for pushing a slightly good article into good or great territory. --School of Thrawn 101 10:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- All pics are sourced. There's sufficient reference material. The timeline subsections, AgriCorps and Medical Corps section is completed. Anything else you guys want me to do, because I've run out of things to check. Use your imagination, and it can be a good article soon.
- The Timeline subsections still need some expansion, try to explain what happened during those periods. The Old Sith Wars are described as a series of problems, it was a war, it was actually multiple wars, name a few notable battles, Jedi, Sith. And I'd like to read a bit more about the Clone wars and the fact that many Jedi died during the war and that most Jedi were hunted down and killed by the Empire and Darth Vader/Anakin Skywalker. I'd help you if I had time, but unfortunately I don't. I'll see what I can do about it later today or tomorrow. If you need help improving this article, just ask. --Jedimca0 (Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 09:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Even though I've struck my obj, I agree with Eyrezer and what he said above—that this article should be longer than the New Jedi Order article when it is done. Greyman(Paratus) 00:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see why it would be. There are infinitely more resources for information on the New Jedi Order than for the Old Order. Personally, I'm about ready to support this nomination. I'll be checking over it within the next couple of days before I cast my vote, but I think it's a well-written article that fulfills all of the GA requirements. Obviously, as more information for the Old Order becomes published, especially information in the KOTOR era, this article will get longer --School of Thrawn 101 05:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- This is supposed to have 5 votes for a week per nominations instructions above. That's to give people time to vote against or for it. -Fnlayson 18:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- i've temporarily struck my vote. The reason for this is the sourcing (or lack thereof). The referencing is far too sparse and limited. An article of this size should have far more than 14 notes. As soon as it is properly sourced, I will unstrike my vote. I'll see what I can do, but don't count on me for too much help.
TheOne&OnlyAdmirableAckbar (It's A Trap!) 18:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Not part of the objection, but close behind it, I think that the "Origins and brief history of the Order" should be changed to the "History of the Order" and then merged with the "Timeline of major events in Jedi history". Either way, it needs to be properly sourced.Greyman(Paratus) 18:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not entirely sure this should have been put back here since the rule is to have five or more votes after having been nominated for at least a week, which this has. However, since it now has an objection again, I'm going to remove its GA status until this is fixed. Green Tentacle (Talk) 18:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- It only received that 5th vote earlier today. That's why I brought it back. I understand the rule as to have 5 or more votes for a week. -Fnlayson 18:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Nope. It's the same as FA, it has to have been nominated for at least a week and got five or more votes. There's nothing wrong with the vote closing as soon as it gets the fifth vote if a week has past since the first. Although, I would request that people don't close the votes unless they follow the instructions properly and archive the vote. Green Tentacle (Talk) 18:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- That's fine but the wording above says nothing about after nomination. I asked about that on the talk page a while back and that's how it was explained. Edit the note above to what it should be then.. -Fnlayson 20:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Nope. It's the same as FA, it has to have been nominated for at least a week and got five or more votes. There's nothing wrong with the vote closing as soon as it gets the fifth vote if a week has past since the first. Although, I would request that people don't close the votes unless they follow the instructions properly and archive the vote. Green Tentacle (Talk) 18:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- It only received that 5th vote earlier today. That's why I brought it back. I understand the rule as to have 5 or more votes for a week. -Fnlayson 18:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not entirely sure this should have been put back here since the rule is to have five or more votes after having been nominated for at least a week, which this has. However, since it now has an objection again, I'm going to remove its GA status until this is fixed. Green Tentacle (Talk) 18:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Not part of the objection, but close behind it, I think that the "Origins and brief history of the Order" should be changed to the "History of the Order" and then merged with the "Timeline of major events in Jedi history". Either way, it needs to be properly sourced.Greyman(Paratus) 18:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- i've temporarily struck my vote. The reason for this is the sourcing (or lack thereof). The referencing is far too sparse and limited. An article of this size should have far more than 14 notes. As soon as it is properly sourced, I will unstrike my vote. I'll see what I can do, but don't count on me for too much help.
- Either way, the new complaints are valid, for the most part. It won't take too much effort to notate more of the body text, and the listing of members shouldn't be incredibly difficult, either, considering the convenient category for them. The formatting, on the other hand, that Greyman mentioned...that's another beastie altogether. --School of Thrawn 101 09:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- I've sourced as much as I could, including the Kotor sections. Some sections I have very little knowledge of so I left them alone. I also expanded the appearances, removed the "treachery is the way of the Sith" line and fixe a couple of spelling errors. Oh, and I added some kotor & TOTJ Jedi into the notable members section of the infobox, removing Shaak-Ti and Qui-Gon Jinn as I felt they weren't notable enough. The article still needs some attention, but I think I've improved it a fair bit, particularly the referencing. TheOne&OnlyAdmirableAckbar (It's A Trap!) 23:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks so much for the help. Jediknight19bby (Jedi High Council Chambers!) 17:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
