Wookieepedia:Good article nominations/Thannik

< 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.

Thannik

(+5)

Support

  1. To go with my FA, Tirog. —Silly Dan (talk) 03:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  2. Pretty well written! Purplegethos 22:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  3. Glad to get this one hatched out. :) Toprawa and Ralltiir 22:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  4. Gotta love WEG. - Cavalier One(Squadron channel) 09:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  5. --This article is actually just over 1,000 words, so could be a FA nom Eyrezer 03:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Toprawa:
    • Please expand the introduction a little bit. It should be a paragraph of some kind
      • I'll see what I can do. —Silly Dan (talk) 22:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Added a couple of sentences. If there's anything specific you think should be added, please let me know (or try adding it yourself.) —Silly Dan (talk) 23:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
          • I would still prefer a little bit more, but it's ok.
            • Like I say, he's not a very complicated man. —Silly Dan (talk) 12:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The "Skills and abilities" section really should be the "Personality and traits." Recommended that you rename it as such
      • No, those are his skills (good pilot, good marksman) rather than personality traits (likes to fight...that's the only one he seems to have, which is why I didn't write one.) —Silly Dan (talk) 11:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Nevertheless, I added a P&T paragraph based on this one trait. —Silly Dan (talk) 23:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
    • This is kinda OR-ish. Does the source say this exactly? "and more generally knowledgeable than the average bounty hunter."
      • It says he increased his "knowledge" attribute. —Silly Dan (talk) 11:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
        • I'm not sure that necessarily means he's "smarter than the average bear." What if you said something like, "he grew wiser because of his experiences" or something?
          • It's not that he "grew wiser", it's that all his academic-type skills went up a bit. Any increase in common sense or wisdom would have come through in personality changes over time. Since he has little personality or chronological biography, we can't say that. —Silly Dan (talk) 12:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
            • Well, I don't think that means he's smarter than the average bounty hunter. That would definitely be OR to assume that. I invite you to discuss this with me in IRC. Toprawa and Ralltiir 06:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
              • You're right, that would assume his starting Knowledge attribute represented general intelligence equal to or greater than the average bounty hunter. Game mechanically, it is, but treating that as objective fact is stretching it. How about just "more generally knowledgeable than he was as a rookie"? —Silly Dan (talk) 00:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The last three sentences of the Equipment section gets kind of listy, just spewing facts. Try to "prosify" it a bit more
      • Do you refer to the description of his arsenal or the speculative sentences which I removed? —Silly Dan (talk) 22:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
        • This here. I feel like I'm literally reading his RPG stats out of the book: "Thannik wore a protective vest and a jetpack. Thannik carried about 1000 credits with him. In case of emergency, he also carried two medpacs."
    • This is really heavy speculation and needs to be rewritten to more appropriately fit tone. If this cannot be done, this needs to be removed, or perhaps moved into a "speculation section" in the BTS: "Thannik's ship may have been Thannik's Thunder, a class 720 freighter which Thannik's associate Rhen is known to have flown. If Thannik's Thunder was the hunter's ship, Thannik may have been present when Rhen flew the freighter against pirates flying Z-95 Headhunters or against Imperial TIE fighters. He may also have been on board when Thannik's Thunder was captured by the tractor beams of an Imperial I-class Star Destroyer."
      • If his friend flies a ship named after him, which is of the same class as a ship he is known to have owned, I think the first sentence doesn't go beyond reasonable speculation. —Silly Dan (talk) 11:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
        • If it can't be rewritten to avoid speculation and is otherwise "solid speculation," it should be put in the BTS somewhere, instead of speculating within the article. Anything you removed can still be salvaged and put in the BTS. Toprawa and Ralltiir 03:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
          • I'm going to ask for a second opinion on this. I don't think it goes beyond an unacceptable level of speculation. —Silly Dan (talk) 12:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
            • Ok...? This isn't really a debate. We don't add speculation to articles. It's kind of our rule. As such, we've made it an accepted practice to add hypothetical things like this to the BTS so as not to ignore them entirely. Toprawa and Ralltiir 18:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
              • We put in speculation all the time, it's just that it's usually put in articles no one tries running by Inquisitors. (Here's a random article with speculation in the lead, but you can probably find others.) Though I can think of clear-cut cases where I'd allow very limited speculation, I am perhaps being too lenient here. I'll move it to BtS unless someone tells me to move it back. —Silly Dan (talk) 19:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
                • I've replaced the rest of that text that you removed. It's all perfect BTS material. Toprawa and Ralltiir 22:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The BTS quote should be formatted to Quote format, not Dialogue, per our quote "policy"
      • Please refresh my memory: I don't see that in the Manual of Style or the Layout Guide. —Silly Dan (talk) 22:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Supposedly we have one, per a conversation I've had in IRC. I can't find it at the moment, but you might ask Hydro. Toprawa and Ralltiir 03:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
          • To weigh in on this, the CT is here. I've also added a link to it on the MOS page so future reference. There was still some debate over quotes for more than two people, but we seem to be settled on using the <br /> for two lines only. --Eyrezer 13:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
    • This doesn't read well. I'm not sure if this is even a sentence. Please rewrite: "These include from examples of group play," Toprawa and Ralltiir 04:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
      • It is a sentence, just one with an extraneous word (from). Easily fixed. —Silly Dan (talk) 11:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • I know there's no "Personality" section. Unlike Tirog, there's not all that much "in-character" dialog for Thannik, so there's not all that much I could think of to say. —Silly Dan (talk) 03:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Does not it need an infobox? Domlith 15:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I tend not to add them when I can't fill out more than a handful of fields. Anyway, there's one now. —Silly Dan (talk) 22:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)