Wookieepedia:Good article nominations/Kooib-s Guvar

< 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.

Contents

  • 1 Kooib-s Guvar
    • 1.1 (3 ACs/2 Users/5 Total)
      • 1.1.1 Support
      • 1.1.2 Object
        • 1.1.2.1 Wok142
      • 1.1.3 Comments

Kooib-s Guvar

  • Nominated by: —spookywillowwtalk 20:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments:
  • Date Archived: 19:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Final word count: 797 words (159 introduction, 545 body, 93 behind the scenes)
  • Word count at nomination time: 795 words (158 introduction, 544 body, 93 behind the scenes)
  • WookieeProject (optional): WP:NOVELSWP:WOMENWP:PRIDE

(3 ACs/2 Users/5 Total)

(Votes required: No additional votes required to pass, please consider reviewing another article.)

Support

  1. Zed42 (talk) 22:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
  2. ACvote Lewisr (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
  3. ACvote Objection handled via Discord. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 23:57, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
  4. ACvote So long as Wok's objections are satisfied. Master FredceriqueCommerce Guild(talk) (he/him) 05:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
  5. Wok142 (talk) 18:25, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Object

Wok142
  • To make the "were" in the sentence "Guvar sat down with Sabé in a booth at Dex's Diner and were served cups of caf" refer to both of them, instead say: "Guvar sat down with Sabé in a booth at Dex's Diner, and the two were served cups of caf" Wok142 (talk) 07:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
  • This is nitpicky, but in the second sentence of P&T, maybe say "appreciated earning additional credits" instead of "enjoyed" just because you used enjoyed in the previous sentence. Wok142 (talk) 07:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
    • Addressed both.—spookywillowwtalk 15:28, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Comments

  • A tldr of why this has the project tag but not the IU category is that she doesn't flirt back and instead deflects to Tonra. It's so brief, and the BtS does explain it out, but I'm reasonably confident it's not quite strong enough to place in the IU category without assuming, especially given the IU framing. It'll have a decent note on the scope page however, explaining that it may/may not have been intended but that ultimately wasn't reciprocal in the final version of the text.—spookywillowwtalk 20:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Approved as a Good article by AgriCorps 19:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC)