Wookieepedia:Good article nominations/Sacking of Coruscant

< 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.

Sacking of Coruscant

(3 ACs/5 Users/8 Total)

Support

--Gbadude3 02:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC) (Vote stricken per policy)
  1. IFYLOFD (You will pay the price for your lack of vision!) 02:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  2. ACvote CC7567 (talk) 23:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  3. SoresuMakashi(Everything I tell you is the truth) 00:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
  4. Great1(Talk) 00:45, 20 June 2009 (EST)
  5. Very good work!--Jedi Kasra (talk) 14:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  6. Reviewed yesterday, forgot to support. --Darth tom Imperial Emblem (Imperial Intelligence) 15:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  7. ACvote Cavalier OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 09:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  8. ACvote Chack Jadson (Talk) 00:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Object

  1. Floyd makes his return to the GAN:
    • "Although members of the Jedi Order and Republic Special Forces attempted to defend their capital, the Sith forces overwhelmed them, and by the time the fighting had ended, the Jedi Temple had been reduced to rubble, with six members of the Jedi Council killed, along with the Supreme Chancellor of the Republic." Overly long sentence with too many commas. Break it up and/or reword.
      • Split and reworded.
    • "The treaty was highly unfair for the Republic, calling for the immediate withdrawal of all Republic forces and Jedi from all battlefronts." Uses "all" twice. Vary up your word choice.
      • Addressed...kinda. It sounds weird to me. Thoughts?
        • No, it's good now.
    • I've noticed that your prose has an overabundance of commas. Try to reduce this.
      • I've removed a few. Not a ton but a few. Need more?
    • Other than that, very good work. IFYLOFD (You will pay the price for your lack of vision!) 21:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
  2. The clone doesn't know why he's in this era either
    • Can you get the date in the intro and the body instead of just keeping it in the infobox?
      • It's in the body prelude. Want more or is that bueno?
        • Oops, didn't catch that. CC7567 (talk) 07:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
    • The intro includes a bit much about the Treaty of Coruscant, when all it is is the aftermath of the battle. I would recommend reducing it to a sentence or so; I understand that the Sacking had a great effect on it, but in the interest of an intro including only information directly related to the article, it can be reduced.
      • I think I got it.
        • I think it can be slimmed down a little more into one sentence; leaving it at "controversial Treaty, which stopped the war" will be fine here. CC7567 (talk) 07:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
          • K, I removed the Treaty's terms but left in the Cold War mention. Is that okay?
    • "In the centuries following the Great Hyperspace War, several members of the Republic's Jedi Order would take up the mantle of the Sith and ignite galactic conflicts, such as the Exar Kun War and the Jedi Civil War." The future tense thing here is unnecessary; it's talking from a reminiscent perspective that isn't appropriate in the prelude of the actual battle.
      • Taken care of I believe.
    • Both the first two paragraphs of the prelude start with "After"; can one be reworded?
      • Yes sir.
    • "Unbeknownst to the Republic, the Jedi, and these new Sith, a faction of the original Sith had survived the destruction of the Empire after being led into the Unknown Regions of the galaxy by a mysterious Dark Lord who would become the Emperor of the surviving Sith." Rather long-winded; try to break this one up and reword.
      • Splt.
    • "The Jedi and Sith fought viciously while the bounty hunter engaged Temple Security with rockets and a flame thrower." This sentence needs to be reworded; whether intentionally or not, it's a null comparison that's comparing the Jedi and Sith's fighting intensity to the bounty hunter's methods of attack.
      • Changed the "while" to "as" so it's more of a note of simultaneous action than differing action. Does that help?
    • "During the melee, the Sith's Twi'lek aide was incapacitated after being thrown with the Force into a column by one of the Jedi that had originally confronted her and the Sith." Can that Jedi somehow be mentioned earlier?
      • I attempted to initially, and it repeatedly came off extremely awkward. Other than "one of the Jedi that had originally confronted her" there's no other way to identify him. If I put him in there when I talk about the Jedi encircling her and the Sith, it reads like "...while the Sith and Twi'lek were confronted by several Jedi, including one very special one, in the main entrance hall below." Without a name it's just too awkward.
    • "Angral, the Sith Lord in command of the strike on Coruscant": the "strike on Coruscant" reads a bit awkwardly here. I'm not sure whether you mean the strike on the planet itself or on its surface; please clarify.
      • Changed "on" to "against".
    • Sith Warship or Sith warship? Both are used; please be consistent.
      • Fixed up.
    • The battle part of the article is a bit subsectioned. Can you try perhaps merging the two last sections? However, if this is done, image placement will need to be fixed, so please try to work this out.
      • The problem here is that in the two appearances (Threat of Peace & Deceived) of the battle, there are two distinct portions of the battle that are specified, those being the invasion of the temple and the attack on the Senate. The timeline doesn't go into specifics, however it does give a broad overview of the events during the battle, such as the collapse of the temple and the death of the Jedi Masters. I originally had those mixed in with the other sections, however it looked out of place and awkward. With two paragraphs worth of information, I reasoned it was enough for a section, however if you have any other suggestions, they would be welcome.
    • When you refer to the Jedi Temple without the "Jedi", is it Temple or temple? You use both throughout the article.
      • Waiting on this one per IRC.
        • I'll check this again when I get the chance. CC7567 (talk) 07:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
    • "reducing the assembly's numbers by half": it needs to be either "by half of <something>", or it needs to be reworded.
      • I mixed up the wording but it seems reallllly strange to me now. Would you prefer going simple and saying "During the fighting, half of the Jedi High Council was killed."?
        • Yeah, I think that would be best. CC7567 (talk) 07:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
          • Taken care of.
    • Same subsectioning issue for the Aftermath; two short paragraphs don't really constitute a section. Please try to merge them. New image placement will also need to be applied here.
      • Same situation as above, however I could merge the Occupation with the Republic's losses, however the occupation was really part of the aftermath, not during the sacking itself. Thoughts? (Also keep in mind that with the rate that information being released, all of these sections will grow quickly and be more fit to stand on their own.)
    • For both "Repercussion" paragraphs, both start with "With". Can one be reworded?
      • Yes sir.
    • {{1st}} needs to be used in Appearances where appropriate.
      • Done.
    • Overall, the article is quite solid for an event from so recently released appearances. Good work. CC7567 (talk) 05:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  3. Soresu
  4. Cav

Comments

  • Like the Treaty of Coruscant, this article will obviously require updating as time goes on, and like the Treaty, I intend on doing just that. But at the moment, it's in the GA range. And I have no plans to go for anything higher until it's stable. Darth Trayus Sith Emblem (Trayus Academy) 21:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
  1. Fixed quite a few spelling errors in my 1st copyedit, also removed unnecessary {{Ref|}} tags in the body. JangFett Talk 01:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I was almost certain i didn't catch all of them. Darth Trayus Sith Emblem (Trayus Academy) 01:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I reworded a couple things related to the objections.--Gbadude3 02:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


Approved as a Good article by AgriCorps 00:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)