Wookieepedia:Good article nominations/Skirmish in the Crustai system

< 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.

Skirmish in the Crustai system

  • Nominated by: - PrincessEra-impGLG 22:31, March 24, 2012 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: My first GA attempt

(3 ACs/2 Users/5 Total)

Support

  1. Clone Commander Lee Talk 11:28, March 31, 2012 (UTC)
  2. ACvote Keep up the hard work. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 14:28, April 27, 2012 (UTC)
  3. ACvote IFYLOFD (Floyd's crib) 03:20, May 7, 2012 (UTC)
  4. 501st dogma(talk) 23:08, May 10, 2012 (UTC)
  5. Inqvote Menkooroo 02:18, May 11, 2012 (UTC)

Object

Lee's charge
  • In 27 BBY a skirmish occurred between the Springhawk, a vessel of the Chiss Ascendancy: Picket Force Two, and a Vagaari plunder ship along with its two fighter escorts.: Why is there a colon?
  • I do not think that you have to split the Chiss up in the infobox. Chiss Espansionary Defense Force should be enough.
  • Context for Thrawn (his rank) and the Springhawk (class of the ship) in the infobox.
  • The two Vaagari fighters are missing in the casualties section.
  • Soon the fighters were destroyed and the Springhawk turned to the plunder ship.: Please make it a little bit clearer that the Springhawk destroyed them.
  • Thrawn had the plunder ship transported back to the Crustai base. Dubrak Qennto helped Thrawn take an inventory of the treasure on the ship and choose some treasure for himself as payment. : To play by play. Also context for Qennto.
  • Mitth'raw'nuruodo, better known as Thrawn, commander of the Crustai base, then boarded the ship with his crew : Mention his rank and that he is a Chiss.
  • That's all for now, I'll continue with the body once you fixed these.Clone Commander Lee Talk 15:47, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks so much!- PrincessEra-impGLG 17:56, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
  • Prelude: A date is missing.
  • Prelude: Context for the Springhawk.
  • Prelude: Qennto, Maris and Car'das were standing at the back of the Springhawk's bridge while it was flying through a small asteroid field. Thrawn came over to them and pointed out a large, wobbly asteroid with a slow rotation which, he explained, was the Crustai base where they would land.: Could you cut down this a bit? It's too much stuff that has nothing to do with the engagement.
  • Also, please change all mention of Maris into Ferasi.
  • All for now. Please take a look at the article and shorten the stuff that has nothing to do with the battle itself. Clone Commander Lee Talk 13:42, March 26, 2012 (UTC)
  • That the Chiss killed all Vagaari aboard the ship is intro-exclusive.
    • Removed.
  • Plus: Who are the Vagaari? A little bit context at their first mention would be good.
    • Added.
  • Please watch out for linking and to much Play-By-Play writing. Otherwiese that should be all. Clone Commander Lee Talk 08:20, March 31, 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the review!- Princess GLG 11:25, March 31, 2012 (UTC)
Jujiggum
  • You're missing a ref tag in the infobox.
    • Fixed
  • Refresh my memory: Do we know for a fact that the Chiss suffered no casualties? If so, then you can put "None" in the infobox. And if we know that they did, then you can put "Several" or somesuch.
    • We don't know.
  • Could you make it a bit more clear in the intro that Thrawn was commander of the Springhawk?
    • Clarified
      • Better, but please remove the redundancy left over. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 22:13, April 11, 2012 (UTC)
        • Fixed
  • I think, in the intro, you can just cut Quennto's context to "smuggler"; the bit about Thrawn having impounded his ship is unnecessary, and will likely make the reader wonder why they're working together if Thrawn had done so.
    • Condensed.
  • First sentence of the Prelude is a run-on and uses other incorrect phrases.
    • I reworded the whole first paragraph. I think it runs a bit more smoothly now.
      • Much better; why do you put "captives" in quotation marks? Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 22:13, April 11, 2012 (UTC)
        • They were his captives but he treated them more like honored guests. Quotation marks removed.
  • In the intro you call Quennto a smuggler, but in the Prelude you just say he had a "smuggler crew"; could you more specifically call him a smuggler, so that that information isn't intro-only?
    • I think this was taken care of when I reworded the paragraph.
  • Why do you use the past perfect throughout the whole first paragrph of the Prelude? A bunch of those "had been"s are not really necessary.
    • Fixed.
  • "…Crustai base, the base of Picket Force Two." Was Crustai in fact the Force's only base? If we can't say that for certain, then this should be reworded. (And either way, it should probably be reworded to avoid the redundancy of saying "base" twice in a row.)
    • Reworded.
  • In the Prelude: why was Thrawn called away? Was he called specifically to perform the micro-jump? If we just don't know, then is this bit of information really necessary? Or is there a better way to reword it?
    • Removed.
  • From the skirmish's lead quote, it sounds like Thrawn was the one personally firing the Springhawk's weapons; why don't you say as much in the article text?
    • We don't know if he fired the weapons or just ordered others to do it.
      • "I was able to fire back" sounds pretty decisive to me. You don't say "I was firing" if you had just ordered your gunner to fire. You'd say: "I had my gunner fire back" or something similar. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 22:13, April 11, 2012 (UTC)
        • Okay, added.
  • Also, why don't you mention in the article that the Vagaari's firing came in a pattern, something which led to Thrawn being able to defeat them?
    • Added.
      • I think it would be better if you could mention this more chronologically. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 22:13, April 11, 2012 (UTC)
        • Moved.
  • Does the book say the plunder ship was actually hiding, or was it just hanging back while the fighters battled the cruiser?
    • Changed.
  • All of the "them"s/"they"s in the last paragraph of the skirmish make it hard to follow who's doing what.
    • Fixed.
  • "…they helped them by tracking the Vagaari combatants…" I assume you mean the Vagaari aboard the plunder ship. Could you specify this?
    • Clarified.
  • Do we know who called Ferasi, Quennto, and Car'das to board the ship?
    • We don't know who originally gave the order. We only know that one of the Chiss warriors came with instructions to bring them aboard.
      • Then you can shorten this instead to say that they were just brought aboard. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 22:13, April 11, 2012 (UTC)
        • Condensed.
  • "They were led through the dead bodies and other carnage to Thrawn." The dead bodies—were they corpses from both sides, or just one? Also, who led them?
    • We don't know about the corpses. I added that a Chiss warrior led them. I believe this info was removed earlier when I was trying to condense the Aftermath.
  • "Thrawn told them who the intruders were…" I don't think "intruders" is a good word here, because technically the Chiss forces intruded the plunder ship.
    • Changed.
  • "Thrawn told them who the intruders were, explaining that they were slavers and pirates." Also, this is another one of those pbp sentences: this could easily be shortened to something like: "Thrawn told them that the Vagaari were slavers and pirates"
  • Could you be more specific than "various things"?
    • The bins were filled with "rectangular packages" and we don't know what was in the cabinets. Is it okay to just say "various things" if that's all we know?
      • Sounds to me like we don't even know that "various things" were in there—if all we know is that they had packages, then how do you know the packages weren't all filled with the same thing? It's best to just not say what might be in them if we have no idea. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 22:13, April 11, 2012 (UTC)
        • Removed.
  • Grammatically, you currently imply that all of the pieces of artwork were in the bins as well. Was that the case?
  • Do we know that the "administrative matters" were? And either way, can you use your own words here, instead of having to take a phrase verbatim from the source?
    • Added.
  • In the skirmish section, please reword the phrase "only be reputation," as that is verbatim what the book says. Please be extra-careful about this; articles need to be written in your own words, not in phrases used by the source.
    • Reworded. Sorry, I'll be more careful not to copy.
  • In the BTS, please do not use this article's name, which is conjectural, like it's a proper name
    • Changed. (I assume it's okay to use "this" as the BTS is OOU)
  • Watch your linking, and especially be careful about grammar. I still found a lot of missing commas and other incorrect phrasing throughout the article. I'll give it another read once these are addressed. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 19:22, April 10, 2012 (UTC)
    • I've looked it over for missing commas, grammar mistakes, and bad linking several times. I'll look it over again, but I'm afraid I'm not very good with grammar. Thanks for the review and all your previous help.- Princess GLG 18:13, April 11, 2012 (UTC)
      • I'm still seeing a lot of improperly formed sentences and missing commas—a fair number are from the areas of some of the corrections you just made. The best thing to do for this is to read each sentence separately and ensure that they all make perfect sense on their own. And certainly; keep up the hard work. :) Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 22:13, April 11, 2012 (UTC)
        • I went through each sentence separately. I was able to change a few things, but I did not find much. I'm not sure why I can't find them.- Princess GLG 12:21, April 14, 2012 (UTC)
          • You did get some of the problems; check out my copy-edit for some of the smaller things that you missed. Just be aware that we're not going to fix all of your wording for you; per the very first rule of the GAN, we expect every nomination to be "well-written." Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 14:21, April 14, 2012 (UTC)
  • In the intro: you just say he turned to the plunder ship, and then they boarded it. Please mention why/how/what happened here.
    • Added.
  • "In 27 BBY, Chiss Force Commander Mitth'raw'nuruodo of the Chiss Ascendancy's Picket Force Two impounded a light freighter. The freighter was a smuggler ship called the Bargain Hunter which was captained by Dubrak Qennto and crewed by Jorj Car'das and Maris Ferasi." All of this: ". The freighter was a smuggler ship called" could be removed.
    • Condensed.
  • "…and then they were given quarters. Mitth'raw'nuruodo told his captives that they could call him by his core name Thrawn because it was easier for them to pronounce correctly. Ferasi and Car'das started teaching Thrawn Basic in exchange for him teaching them Cheunh, the native language of the Chiss. It was also agreed that he would give them some additional payment." Is any of that relevant at all to the skirmish itself?
    • I was trying to add some background for Qennto, Car'das, and Ferasi. Condensed.
  • "…but the plunder ship could not get away because when it had first arrived a Chiss sentry had disabled its hyperdrive." Why is this not mentioned sooner?
    • We do not know anything about when or how it happened.
      • You say that it happened "when it [the plunder ship] had first arrived," which, according to the article, is before the Springhawk arrived. Is that the case, or is that speculation? Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 14:33, April 17, 2012 (UTC)
        • I looked back at it and that the hyperdrive is disabled at all is hinted at, but it is only speculation between Qennto and Car'das who would not know. Removed.- Princess GLG 10:51, April 19, 2012 (UTC)
          • Please check your sentences in both the intro and the body. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 14:45, April 19, 2012 (UTC)
            • Better?- Princess GLG 15:13, April 19, 2012 (UTC)
              • Check the intro again, please. In the bio, the problem was more with the plunder ship being "unable" to get away. From what you just told me, we don't necessarily know that it was unable to leave; all we know is that it didn't. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 16:58, April 19, 2012 (UTC)
                • Better this time?
  • "Thrawn told Qennto, Ferasi, and Car'das that the three could return to their quarters…" Is this relevant to the skirmish itself? Even if it is, there's probably a better way to word it that would actually tell the reader whether or not they did return to their quarters. This currently just says that Thrawn told them to do so; it doesn't say whether or not they did.
    • Changed.
  • "Even though the bridge crew did not board with the others…" You mean to refer to the Springhawk's bridge crew, right? Not Quennto and co.? A reader who is unfamiliar with the source might be uncertain about what you mean, here.
    • Changed.
  • "…and informing the boarders where they were." Where the boarders were, or where the Vagaari were?
    • Changed.
  • "…Ar'alani arrived with Thrawn's brother, Mitth'ras'safis." Arrived where? At the base?
    • Added.
  • Grammar in the BTS. Missing commas; your current wording also suggests that Timothy Zahn was released in 2006.Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 14:21, April 14, 2012 (UTC)
    • Fixed.- Princess GLG 11:03, April 17, 2012 (UTC)
      • I've stricken the objection, but I didn't intend for you to just remove the release date; that information was perfectly fine in the article. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 14:33, April 17, 2012 (UTC)
        • I could not find a way to fix the sentence so that it ran smoothly and I did not think the release date was necessary.- Princess GLG 10:51, April 19, 2012 (UTC)
          • Of course it's not needed (hence why I struck the objection), but there was absolutely no reason whatsoever for you to remove it, especially since that was not the objection. I asked only that you fix your grammar, and there were myriad ways for you to do so without removing information: "This skirmish was described in Outbound Flight (2006) by Timothy Zahn, but it was not given a name in the novel." "This skirmish, which has yet to be given a canonical name, was described in Timothy Zahn's Outbound Flight, which was released in 2006." "This unnamed skirmish was first described in Timothy Zahn's 2006 novel Outbound Flight." Those are just a couple examples off the top of my head; there are plenty more possibilities. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 14:45, April 19, 2012 (UTC)
            • Okay, so I need to improve my grammar skills. Would you like me to put the date back in?- Princess GLG 15:13, April 19, 2012 (UTC)
              • That's completely up to you; as I said, I struck the objection. The point I'm trying to get at here is: when addressing grammar objections, please don't do so by outright removing information. Instead, try to fix the arrangement of the sentence itself. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 16:58, April 19, 2012 (UTC)
                • Okay, point noted.- Princess GLG 18:02, April 19, 2012 (UTC)
  • Good deal; I'll give this one last go-through asap. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 20:07, April 19, 2012 (UTC)
  • Last round, here we go! First, in the infobox, you list both Skirmish between Progga and the Bargain Hunter and Skirmish between the Chiss and Progga as "Previous"; however, those articles say that the "skirmish between Progga and the Bargain Hunter" actually happened first, which means that the "skirmish between the Chiss and Progga" is the most recent event and should be listed alone in the "previous" field. The same goes for the two "Next" events you currently have listed: Battle near the Crustai base and Battle of Outbound Flight. You should only have multiple events listed in the "prev=" and "next=" fields if they happen concurrently, and the "Battle near the Crustai base" article places itself between this skirmish and the "Battle of Outbound Flight" as opposed to concurrent with the "Battle of Outbound Flight"
    • Fixed.
  • I don't believe you can actually use your current image in the infobox. Correct me if I'm wrong, but from the information we have, we don't actually know whether those fighters are Chiss heavy fighters or Vagaari fighters. And even if we did know, there is absolutely no evidence to confirm that that image is a representation of this particular skirmish.
    • Okay, removed...
  • In the intro: you don't say anything about how Thrawn and Mitth'raw'nuruodo are the same character, so readers may be confused if they don't already know.
    • Oops. I meant to call him Metth'raw'nuruodo all through the intro, thinking it would be better than explaining at that point that he is also Thrawn. If I just call him Mitth'raw'nuruodo all through the intro would that be okay?
  • I feel like the second paragraph of the Prelude is mostly unnecessary. Why do you mention that he pointed out the asteroid to the crew? It has nothing to do with the skirmish.
    • Removed/condensed. I believe part of that was added for context.
  • "better known by his core name Thrawn." Better known by whom? The Chiss knew him best by his full name, and at this point in his life, he wasn't really well known to anyone else.
    • Added.
  • "The Vagaari ship fired four salvos of missiles which the Chiss vaporized in midflight, but it did not get away." This phrasing is a bit confusing. The "it" is a bit awkward, since you've mentioned two other subjects since you last mentioned the "it" to which you're referring. Also, it's a bit confusing as to why the Vagaari would be trying to "get away," especially since they were the ones to open fire. From what you've told me, we don't actually even know for certain that the Vagaari were trying to get away, so this statement is also misleading.
    • Reworded.
  • "He led them into a storage room filled with treasure of all kinds: ingots, coins, gems, artwork, bins, and cabinets." Please rephrase; this suggests that bins and cabinets are treasure. :P
    • Rephrased.
  • You don't mention anywhere in the article that "Many Vagaari" died—information you have in the infobox.
    • Added.
      • Do we know for certain that all of the Vagaari died? Does the book actually say so? If so, then that needs to be said in the infobox. If not, then this needs to be rephrased. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 20:55, April 24, 2012 (UTC)
        • The book does not specifically say that all the Vagaari died although that is implied. Will it work if I just say they killed "the Vagaari on board" instead of saying "all of the Vagaari on board"?
          • Technically, that still infers that all of them on board died; if the book doesn't say that all of them on board died, then neither can you. Out of curiosity, how exactly does it imply that they were all killed without actually stating as much? Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 03:02, April 27, 2012 (UTC)
            • Qennto, Ferasi, and Car'das walk through piles of dead bodies on the ship, no survivors are mentioned, and there are several places later in the book where survivors would have been mentioned. (especially when Thrawn is telling other Chiss what happened.) Technically it doesn't imply it. I changed it so it says "many Vagaari".
  • (This is especially if you remove the current infobox image)—The article could probably benefit from the addition of at least one image; I would suggest one of Thrawn, but do what you think would fit best.
    • I agree one of Thrawn would be best. In fact, I believe I had one in the article but it was removed at some point. I think this one would be good. Should I add it in the infobox or as a thumbnail?
      • Yes, I think that one works well. Please put it in the body as a thumb; images only go in the infobox if they depict the actual subject itself. (As per its usage on the cover of Outbound Flight, this image does depict Thrawn generally during the time of the novel, but we don't know whether or not this image depicts him specifically during this particular skirmish. If it did, then it would be okay to use in the infobox.) Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 20:55, April 24, 2012 (UTC)
        • Okay that's what I thought. Added. (I will check the book about the number of Vagaari killed asap.)- Princess GLG 01:43, April 25, 2012 (UTC)
  • And… that's all from me. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 16:38, April 24, 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks!- Princess GLG 20:30, April 24, 2012 (UTC)
    • I finally found where in the book it says that the hyperdrive was disabled by a Chiss sentry. (I knew it said so, I just could not find where.) I added that info.- Princess GLG 12:08, April 26, 2012 (UTC)
One thing:
  • "He shot the Springhawk's weapons, hitting the port from which the fighter's missiles were just about to launch" This makes it sound like he fired at the Springhawk. Please reword. IFYLOFD (Floyd's crib) 23:44, May 1, 2012 (UTC)
Thrawn
  • Chiss Expansionary Defense Force is only linked to in the infobox. Can we get it in the intro and body? The infobox mentions Chiss Expansionary Defense Force Picket Force Two, but the intro and body don't mention the CEDF and attribute Picket Force Two only to the Chiss Ascendancy.
    • Better?
  • Just to clarify: Does the novel state or imply that Thrawn intended to make the micro-jump in order to confront the Vagaari ships? If so, can the article mention his intention? Currently, the micro-jump isn't really explained. If the novel doesn't explain it, it's all good. Menkooroo 03:08, May 10, 2012 (UTC)
    • It does imply it, but it is hard to say as the Chiss and Thrawn speak in Cheunh and you are seeing it all from Qennto, Faresi, and Car'das' perspectives. Faresi and Car'das who know a little Cheunh pick out the words 'stranger', 'run', and 'near'. Thrawn is abruptly interrupted in his conversation with them, and it says he replies 'sharply' and goes to his command chair immediately. The ship was about to land at the base and there would have been no other for them to leave. All together it seems to me like that is why the micro-jump was made. Should I add that to the article?- Princess GLG 12:10, May 10, 2012 (UTC)
      • Yeah, that sounds good. At the very least, you could say that Thrawn was alerted to the fact that a stranger was near. Menkooroo 21:57, May 10, 2012 (UTC)
501st
  • Just a quick thing. Could you add some context to Outbound Flight in the BtS such as date of publishing and author?
    • It already has the author, but I added the date of publication.
  • Good work. 501st dogma(talk) 20:57, May 10, 2012 (UTC)

Comments

Approved as a Good article by AgriCorps 02:21, May 11, 2012 (UTC)


  • Just an FYI, the "play-by-play" writing Lee was referring to is the same as what I called the "narrative style" of writing. You've come a long way on this article. Keep up the good work! MasterFredCommerce Guild(Whatever) 14:13, April 4, 2012 (UTC)