Wookieepedia:Good article nominations/K-16 Bryar Pistol

< 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.

K-16 Bryar Pistol

  • Nominated by: TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 02:51, October 14, 2018 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: Digging into Battlefront weapons lately.

(3 ACs/3 Users/6 Total)

Support

  1. Good job pumping these out so quickly. Fan26 (Talk) 21:06, October 14, 2018 (UTC)
  2. QuiGonJinn Senate seal(Talk) 14:01, October 16, 2018 (UTC)
  3. AV-6R7Crew Pit 02:12, October 17, 2018 (UTC)
  4. ACvote Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 20:11, November 12, 2018 (UTC)
  5. ACvote Imperators II(Talk) 01:17, November 15, 2018 (UTC)
  6. ACvote Well, keep digging. MasterFredCommerce Guild(Whatever) 04:33, November 15, 2018 (UTC)

Object

Fan26
  • Does File:K-16 Bryar stats.png really belong in an in-universe section of the article considering it's from the player weapon selection screen? I'm not sure myself-I've just noticed that most if not all of your prior weapon noms have those images in the BtS section. Fan26 (Talk) 15:03, October 14, 2018 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I guess you are right. I just wanted to keep it since there is not room for two images in Bts, but the concept art that shows the blaster from different angles is probably more important that the in-game stats. Changed the image. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 20:58, October 14, 2018 (UTC)
QGJ
  • I'm not sure what this means. Was the modified power unit some sort of secret feature that was unknown to the majority of the blaster's wielders? Did the makers of the weapon keep this feature secret on purpose? Concealed within the design of a fairly ordinary pistol, the K-16 possessed a modified power unit that could be discovered upon closer inspection by a suitable mercenary.
    • Deceptive by design, the K-16 Bryar Pistol appears at first to be a fairly ordinary blaster pistol. The right mercenary, however, will discover upon closer inspection a modified power unit capable of discharging the entire heat source in one powerful blast. This is the blaster's description in Battlefront, and it is pretty much everything we know, so it doesn't specify if it is intentional or not. I just tried to reword it for the article. Do you think the current sentence makes the reader think it is intentional, or the opposite? TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 07:42, October 15, 2018 (UTC)
      • Personally, when reading that sentence, I got off the vibe that the feature was intentionally hidden/undocumented by the manufacturer and only certain individuals found out about it. I'd recommend simplifying that sentence, removing the whole part about "the right mercenary discovering stuff." Just say that while the weapon appeared to be regular on the outside, it actually had a modified power unit. QuiGonJinn Senate seal(Talk) 06:58, October 16, 2018 (UTC)
  • Same as the TL-50. If the article is listed in the Concussive weapons category, this needs to be mentioned in the infobox and linked in the body. QuiGonJinn Senate seal(Talk) 07:14, October 15, 2018 (UTC)
    • Actually, no source uses the word "concussion" for this weapon's secondary fire, so I've removed the category to avoid any speculation. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 07:42, October 15, 2018 (UTC)
Toprawa
  • I'm finding the following types of descriptions that I see popping up in your latest batch of blaster nominations to be quite strange/unnecessary:
    • Saying the blaster "was in the shape of a thick, elliptical prism" is just odd, and I really don't even know what that's supposed to mean when I read it. You're much better off just describing these weapons in the most basic manner possible, using the most simplistic language for readers to understand. All blasters are essentially the same shape, so you don't need to describe that kind of thing, particularly when it requires you to use such strange wording.
    • Just mention its capabilities and components, like scopes and cooling vents. Even this kind of thing is really just unnecessary, because we don't know what these unspecified protrusions are supposed to be, so it's not adding any extra meaning to the article: "there was a gray, smaller, circular protrusion. The K-16 also possessed a rectangular, protruding part on the left side of the body, over the trigger."
    • Every blaster pistol by definition has a grip that enables the wielder to fire it with one hand. Adding that description to an article about a blaster pistol is extremely superfluous and unnecessary. The only time you ever really need to mention a blaster's grip, and this goes for rifles too, is if there's some kind of unique quality to it, such as with the EE-4, which has two grips, which not every rifle necessarily has. Or, as in the case of Boiler rifle, if you're including the mention of the grip and other basic components like its trigger within the mention of the weapon's overall color.
    • Overall, I'd like to see the Description section rewritten keeping these things in mind before proceeding further with this nomination. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 18:20, November 9, 2018 (UTC)
      • Check out The New Essential Guide to Weapons and Technology to see how that book describes blasters, and use that example as your model for how to write these articles (there's even a Bryar pistol entry in there). You'll notice that on some level, these types of descriptions rely on a basic understanding of what a gun is as well as the image of the subject provided without necessarily having to mention every minute physical detail of the weapon. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 18:34, November 9, 2018 (UTC)

Comments

Approved as a Good article by AgriCorps 04:33, November 15, 2018 (UTC)