Wookieepedia:Good article nominations/Sith cave

< 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.

Sith cave

  • Nominated by: TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders AnilSerifoglu (talk) 06:20, November 5, 2017 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: What a great backstory for Darth Vader's castle!

(3 ACs/2 Users/5 Total)

Support

  1. ACvote You'd better keep an eye out for that "more to come" :P Ayrehead02 (talk) 10:12, November 5, 2017 (UTC)
  2. This is definitely appearing in upcoming issues of the Vader series --Lewisr (talk) 12:55, November 5, 2017 (UTC)
  3. Jinzler (talk) 22:54, January 13, 2018 (UTC)
  4. ACvote Nice work. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 06:39, January 24, 2018 (UTC)
  5. ACvote Imperators II(Talk) 10:03, January 24, 2018 (UTC)

Object

Toprawa
  • There really isn't enough room for two images in the article body. I would suggest removing the one of Vader's castle. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 01:00, December 31, 2017 (UTC)
    • I have replaced the image to the behind the scenes section, but feel free to remove it completely if you want. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders AnilSerifoglu (talk) 05:27, December 31, 2017 (UTC)
      • That should probably be ok. We might play around with the alignment of all the images as we work through this. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 18:40, December 31, 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm a bit confused by how the article handles Palpatine's quote about Mustafar housing a dark-side locus, which I understood from the application of the lead quote to refer to this Sith cave, and I reworked the intro to reflect this. But after reading the Description section just now, it seems that you have other ideas. Am I wrong to interpret this Sith cave as being this locus? Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 18:44, December 31, 2017 (UTC)
    • I personally thought that the cave is a place that one can use the power of this locus, but it is not the locus itself. Palpatine's this quote made me think it is actually inside the planet and not the cave on its surface: Deep beneath its surface rests a locus for the dark side of the Force. I might be wrong and I can make the necessary changes to the article body if you think so. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders AnilSerifoglu (talk) 15:14, January 1, 2018 (UTC)
      • I'm comfortable with your interpretation and have replaced the intro back to that wording. However, I would then suggest using a new quote for the intro. The intro quote is meant to be by or about the article subject, so by using this one, it carries the connotation that this locus is the cave itself, when it's not, which ends up being misleading. With this understanding, I think switching the intro and History quotes is probably the way to go, unless there's some other better quote about the cave itself? Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 20:08, January 2, 2018 (UTC)
        • Unfortunately, these two are the only ones about the cave itself. I have switched the two as you suggested, and have added a third quote for the history section. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders AnilSerifoglu (talk) 04:50, January 3, 2018 (UTC)
  • The article body needs to give a time frame for Vader traveling to Mustafar. The intro properly explains that this takes place shortly after the Empire's formation, but the History section provides no such detail. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 05:14, January 3, 2018 (UTC)
    • I thought the "newly-christened Sith Lord" and "19 BBY" should suffice for time frame, but I have added that it takes place shortly after the formation of Empire. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders AnilSerifoglu (talk) 21:47, January 3, 2018 (UTC)
      • Never rely on the assumption that your reader knows anything about Star Wars. You're presuming that just because you call Darth Vader a "newly-christened Sith Lord" that someone is going to automatically be able to tie that to the events of Episode III -- don't. It's our job to provide proper context so that someone who hasn't necessarily seen all there is to see of Star Wars will understand what he's reading. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 19:03, January 4, 2018 (UTC)
  • Now that you've added the time frame context with regards to the previous objection, look at this sentence: By order of his Master, Darth Sidious, the newly-christened Sith Lord Darth Vader traveled to Mustafar—where he lost his remaining limbs and suffered severe burns all over his body as a result of his duel against his old Jedi master Obi-Wan Kenobi—after he successfully stole a Jedi's lightsaber shortly after the formation of the Galactic Empire in the year 19 BBY. It's long, ponderous, and difficult to read. It would be better to divide this up into at least two shorter, more concise sentences that will be easier to understand. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 19:03, January 4, 2018 (UTC)
    • I have divided it up into three sentences and included a more specified time frame, please take a look. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders AnilSerifoglu (talk) 01:07, January 7, 2018 (UTC)
  • Reviewing note: Remember for future reference that there's a distinct difference between a Sith Lord and a Dark Lord of the Sith. Every Dark Lord is a Sith Lord, but not every Sith Lord is a Dark Lord. It's more precise to refer to Sidious and Vader as Dark Lords of the Sith. In article writing, you can still call them "Sith Lord," but make sure to pipelink to "Dark Lord of the Sith."
    • I was not completely aware of their difference in the new continuity. Thank you for letting me know. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders AnilSerifoglu (talk) 23:32, January 9, 2018 (UTC)
      • Just to be clear, there is no difference between continuities that I can see. The same has always been true: Per Darth Bane's Rule of Two, there are only ever two Dark Lords of the Sith at any one time, but there are others outside of this order who call themselves Sith Lords but are not true Dark Lords. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 18:35, January 10, 2018 (UTC)
  • Why is this bit necessary for inclusion in this article? It seems completely extraneous, and the section it's in can be understood just as well without it: "After a successful mission on the river moon of Al'doleem..." Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 19:30, January 7, 2018 (UTC)
    • I wanted to reference that Vader indeed stole a Jedi's lightsaber as his master ordered, but I see your point. I have replaced that line with this if you prefer: "After obtaining Jedi Master Kirak Infil'a's lightsaber..." TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders AnilSerifoglu (talk) 23:32, January 9, 2018 (UTC)
  • There's some ugly referencing going on in the final paragraph of the History:
    • You have identical reference notes here: "...which was also once a site of an ancient castle full of dark secrets.[9] The massive obsidian tower[9]..." If both of those are indeed correct, the first one should be removed. In addition, it's not necessary to reference page numbers., I would suggest just removing that.
    • Also, there are double references at the end of that paragraph: "...it was divided in the middle to resemble tuning forks and harnessed Mustafar lava for energy.[1][8]" Articles should avoid this when necessary. You should instead place the referencing mid-sentence as necessary to show which parts are coming from which source. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 18:50, January 22, 2018 (UTC)
      • The reference [1] contains all the aforementioned info, so I have removed the other one. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders AnilSerifoglu (talk) 07:11, January 23, 2018 (UTC)
  • I hate to say it, because it works well there as an illustrative piece, but I think the article would ultimately do better to remove the Rogue One image from the bottom of the BTS. I tried playing around with some formatting tricks, but there's really no good way to make that image not indent the Appearances section in Oasis, which just looks bad. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 00:13, January 24, 2018 (UTC)
    • I totally understand your point. I have just make a minor adjustment as one last desperate attempt, but I will remove the image completely if you still feel the article would look better without it. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders AnilSerifoglu (talk) 00:30, January 24, 2018 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I tried doing what you did there too, but it still bleeds into the Appearances section even when aligned right, and it just kind of makes that whole section look cluttered. I would just recommend axing it. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 00:39, January 24, 2018 (UTC)

Comments

  • I agree that Darth Vader's castle will definitely be explored in the future, possibly in the new Darth Vader comic book series. But given the current Inquisitorius arc, it will be at least a few month later that they start another arc. It is also unknown if it will directly effect the "Sith cave" article. So the nomination doesn't violate the FA rule #6 about the article being stable. Not that anyone said that, but just in case :) TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders AnilSerifoglu (talk) 00:09, November 6, 2017 (UTC)

Approved as a Good article by AgriCorps 10:03, January 24, 2018 (UTC)