- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a good article nomination that was successful. Please do not modify it.
Snow monster
- Nominated by: —Axinal Convocation Chamber 02:35, April 12, 2011 (UTC)
- Nomination comments: Another Ewoks creature
(5 ACs/2 Users/7 Total)
Support
- Grrr! Er, Brrr! ~Savage
19:40, April 12, 2011 (UTC) 
Not exactly sure what Bob is saying. :P Kilson Likes PIE(The Bakery) 20:44, April 12, 2011 (UTC)- Toprawa and Ralltiir 23:20, April 14, 2011 (UTC)
—Tommy 9281 Friday, April 15, 2011, 02:42 UTC- Cavalier One(Squadron channel) 12:14, April 15, 2011 (UTC)
- Well...Ummm okGTQ 21:46, April 16, 2011 (UTC)
- 1358 (Talk) 15:55, April 17, 2011 (UTC)
Object
Return of the PIE
I'm a little confused on whether you're writing about the snow monster species or this specific snow monster. You start off the intro by saying, "A snow monster lived on the Forest Moon of Endor," suggesting you are talking about the single snow monster, but later on you say, "...after the moon's surface was turned to snow and ice by the Snow King, one of these creatures was encountered by the Ewoks..." suggesting you are talking about the species in general. Please clear this up.Kilson Likes PIE(The Bakery) 03:03, April 12, 2011 (UTC)- I am writing this as a species article, not about the individual. I am trying to write with the same style with which I wrote this good article. Do you think something like "a species of snow monster" might be better?—Axinal Convocation Chamber 03:21, April 12, 2011 (UTC)
- I've gone ahead and changed it, as I actually thought that sounded better. Let me know what you think. Thanks!—Axinal Convocation Chamber 03:28, April 12, 2011 (UTC)
- Much better, nice jobe. Kilson Likes PIE(The Bakery) 14:49, April 12, 2011 (UTC)
- I've gone ahead and changed it, as I actually thought that sounded better. Let me know what you think. Thanks!—Axinal Convocation Chamber 03:28, April 12, 2011 (UTC)
- I am writing this as a species article, not about the individual. I am trying to write with the same style with which I wrote this good article. Do you think something like "a species of snow monster" might be better?—Axinal Convocation Chamber 03:21, April 12, 2011 (UTC)
Prepare to be savaged…
Context on the Snow King in both the lead and the body. He's apparently a "Force-wielding wizard" according to "Castaways of Endor", though it's probably enough to say "a powerful being known as the Snow King" and just source it to the episode itself.- Added
Ditto the Leaf Queen.- Added
Context on the Sun Palace. ~Savage 15:12, April 12, 2011 (UTC)- Added. Thanks for the review!—Axinal Convocation Chamber 16:48, April 12, 2011 (UTC)
Toprawa
I'm kind of iffy on the opening wording of the intro: "A species of snow monster..." I'm no sentientologist, but it just sort of seems like it carries the connotation that there are other species of a creature called "snow monster," when this is really just our own conjectural title for one specific beast. For example, you might say a "species of frog," when referring to one of the many frog species variations. I don't exactly have a recommended change, but I think the article would do good to try and tweak that somehow.- As you probably read in Kilson's objections, I wrote it this way to avoid confusion as to whether the article is written about the individual or the species as a whole. I do see your point, though, and I have rewritten it. Take a look and let me know if this is to your liking.
- Your recent revision here actually creates a new question for me. If there was only one snow monster in the source material, which I'm understanding to be the case, I find it a bit misleading to refer to the species as plural, "Snow monsters were a species..." Since, theoretically, there may have only been one such beast. I think it would be best to try and word the article to keep with the singular reference. Maybe, "A snow monster species lived on...," which is actually closer to what you had originally. There's also one instance in the bio referring to "monsters," which I think could be revised simply enough. Toprawa and Ralltiir 23:14, April 14, 2011 (UTC)
- How's that?—Axinal Convocation Chamber 23:17, April 14, 2011 (UTC)
- Perfect, sorry for dragging that one out. :) Toprawa and Ralltiir 23:20, April 14, 2011 (UTC)
- How's that?—Axinal Convocation Chamber 23:17, April 14, 2011 (UTC)
- Your recent revision here actually creates a new question for me. If there was only one snow monster in the source material, which I'm understanding to be the case, I find it a bit misleading to refer to the species as plural, "Snow monsters were a species..." Since, theoretically, there may have only been one such beast. I think it would be best to try and word the article to keep with the singular reference. Maybe, "A snow monster species lived on...," which is actually closer to what you had originally. There's also one instance in the bio referring to "monsters," which I think could be revised simply enough. Toprawa and Ralltiir 23:14, April 14, 2011 (UTC)
- As you probably read in Kilson's objections, I wrote it this way to avoid confusion as to whether the article is written about the individual or the species as a whole. I do see your point, though, and I have rewritten it. Take a look and let me know if this is to your liking.
This is kind of nitpicky, but I feel like sometimes we as writers go overboard with the semicolon, where it just becomes cumbersome to look at and read. Can we try and revise the punctuation in this sentence at all? Maybe create two separate sentences here: "The Iceheads and the monster fell to the surface below and were momentarily buried in snow; when the Iceheads emerged, they discovered that the monster was behind them; as they retreated, the monster chased after them."Toprawa and Ralltiir 17:24, April 14, 2011 (UTC)- Semicolons FTW; but you're right; the article does use them a bit excessively; I have removed one; thank you for your review! :P—Axinal Convocation Chamber 23:07, April 14, 2011 (UTC)
Comments
Approved as a Good article by AgriCorps 15:55, April 17, 2011 (UTC)