Wookieepedia:Good article nominations/Judder Page's father

< 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.

Judder Page's father

  • Nominated by: Menkooroo (talk) 10:18, December 19, 2012 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: My GAnom for the 'burner.

(3 ACs/4 Users/7 Total)

Support

  1. So basically, Judder is just one of those spoiled kids, who goes rebel in his teen years, even though it's his father who's paying all the kid's bills. This must be a real world reference! Winterz (talk) 13:56, December 19, 2012 (UTC)
  2. Odd, indeed.—Jedi Kasra ("Indeed.") 01:51, December 20, 2012 (UTC)
  3. 501st dogma(talk) 19:09, December 22, 2012 (UTC)
  4. ACvote IFYLOFD (Floyd's crib) 04:29, December 26, 2012 (UTC)
  5. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 00:35, December 31, 2012 (UTC)
  6. ACvote CC7567 (talk) 20:06, January 8, 2013 (UTC)
  7. ACvote Cavalier OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 10:43, January 9, 2013 (UTC)

Object

Your turn!
  • I think you should replace the alone "Page" when referring Judder Page. As far as we know, his father may be a Page too, so it gets confusing. Use "Judder" instead.
    • I get where you're coming from, but since the article only ever uses "Page" to refer to the son and uses "the Senator" to refer to the father, it shouldn't be confusing --- assuming that this guy is named Page would be speculation, as obvious as it might seem. I honestly think that the "use last names" policy still applies here.
  • In the P&t, you mention that Judder was training as a soldier but in the Biography section you say that he was using his father's wealth to train in combat and defense techniques, which is slighty different from training to become a soldier. You should reword that.
    • The original source uses both wordings. The bio also mentions that he's training to be a soldier, so it's consistent with the P&T.
      • It's not exactly the same. In the bio you say that he was using his father's wealth to train in combat techniques and years afterwards, his father started assuming Page wanted to be a soldier. In the P&t however, you say that Page was using his father's wealth to train as a soldier, when he could've been training to be Bounty hunter or a Hutt's enforcer, as far as we know. Even if you are right here, I've already evidenced how it may get confusing, and that's why I think it's necessary to reword it.
        • Sounds fair. Changed the P&T wording up. Menkooroo (talk) 13:45, December 19, 2012 (UTC)
  • From what I've been told, the page numbers don't need to be used in the references. Not sure if you wanna fix this or not, do what you think is best. Winterz (talk) 13:00, December 19, 2012 (UTC)
    • There's no rule stating that they need to be used, but they're far more specific and helpful. Definitely not something to object to. ;) Menkooroo (talk) 13:20, December 19, 2012 (UTC)
A picky objection
  • Since you've almost completely sourced the BtS, source that last sentence!
    • I would, but... I think it's unsourceable. The only way I can think of satisfactorily sourcing "This has never been addressed in canon" would be to source everything that's ever been published... :S Any ideas? Menkooroo (talk) 00:40, December 21, 2012 (UTC)
      • I can't think of a way, other then to source it to everything that's ever been published, but that would just be plain ugly, and take forever. 501st dogma(talk) 19:09, December 22, 2012 (UTC)
  • Else then that, you're good to go. 501st dogma(talk) 00:35, December 21, 2012 (UTC)

Comments

Approved as a Good article by AgriCorps 10:43, January 9, 2013 (UTC)


  • Not really an objection, but: Page's relationship to Snopps (or lack thereof). You address the situation, then end with "This discrepancy has never been addressed in Star Wars canon." However, since no name has ever been assigned to the senator it is possible that Snopps is Page's father as the Senator was noted to have sired several children. As such, considering it a discrepancy implies that the information is contradictory, when its really not. Page could be his son, nothing says that it isn't possible. Perhaps a statement saying something like no official source has reconciled this information would be more appropriate? - Cavalier OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 12:13, January 8, 2013 (UTC)
    • I like that idea. I wanted to leave open the possibility that they were the same person without actually mentioning it, which would seem like Original Research, and I think your wording does that better than my did. Changed. Menkooroo (talk) 13:11, January 8, 2013 (UTC)