Wookieepedia:Good article nominations/Leffingite/Legends

< Wookieepedia:Good article nominations | Leffingite
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a good article nomination that was successful. Please do not modify it.

Contents

  • 1 Leffingite
    • 1.1 (5 ACs/0 Users/5 Total)
      • 1.1.1 Support
      • 1.1.2 Object
        • 1.1.2.1 Toprawa
      • 1.1.3 Comments

Leffingite

  • Nominated by: ~SavageBOB sig 06:38, April 17, 2011 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: What the—

(5 ACs/0 Users/5 Total)

Support

  1. ACvote Nice job Bob. Kilson(Let's have a chat) 16:26, April 17, 2011 (UTC)
  2. ACvote IFYLOFD (Floyd's crib) 00:54, April 19, 2011 (UTC)
  3. ACvote Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 00:47, April 20, 2011 (UTC)
  4. ACvote Toprawa and Ralltiir 20:45, April 20, 2011 (UTC)
  5. ACvote 1358 (Talk) 21:08, April 20, 2011 (UTC)

Object

Toprawa
  • I'd recommend finding a different word to use here than "hood." The original source doesn't appear to use that word, and I feel it has a more real-world socioeconomic connotation than anything we're attempting to express IU: "an individual who worked as a small-time hood on Coruscant"
  • Have you checked all of the AOTC adaptations for inclusion of the character/species?
  • I apologize if this is extremely nitpicky, but can we try and tweak this sentence at all? My issue just has to do with the wording of "a film released in 2002." In the world of Star Wars, AOTC is more than just "a film released in 2002," if you get my meaning. It's the film released in 2002. There are only six (seven, kind of) true Star Wars films, and each one is obviously extremely significant. Personally, I would word it to say "the 2002 prequel film AOTC," or something similar: "...appears in Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones, a film released in 2002."
  • Also, as a note, I added the Mo tag to Dex's Diner, which I believe to be correct. Feel free to revise if not. Toprawa and Ralltiir 20:09, April 20, 2011 (UTC)
    • I checked the definition of hood just to be sure, and it means a member of a gang, which is what I was going for, but as that's tagged as informal in my dictionary, I've changed it to crook, as in the other instance of its use in the article. Hoodlum would mean the same and avoid informality, but I think the connotation is off these days, as the word suggests to me young boys. As for the adaptations, I have indeed tried to find ol' Magaloof, with no success (he's not in the script, so i think he was added in post-production and missed the adaptation boat). Film thing changed. And no problem on the Diner thing. Thanks for taking a look! ~SavageBOB sig 20:41, April 20, 2011 (UTC)
      • Good deal. Toprawa and Ralltiir 20:45, April 20, 2011 (UTC)

Comments

Approved as a Good article by AgriCorps 21:08, April 20, 2011 (UTC)