Wookieepedia:Good article nominations/Unidentified Sith (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.

Unidentified Sith (Sacking of Coruscant)

(3 ACs/5 Users/8 Total)

Support

  1. ...and then the other! Objections dealt with in IRC. Jonjedigrandmaster (Jujiggum) 23:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  2. ACvote Chack Jadson (Talk) 22:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  3. ACvote CC7567 (talk) 23:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  4. Awesome job fleshing out a great article with a very limited amount of information. - JMAS Hey, it's me! 23:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  5. SoresuMakashi(Everything I tell you is the truth) 10:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  6. Again, good job. Not so sure if this dude's gonna be ID'd.--Jedi Kasra (talk) 15:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  7. Sources good - no runoffs seen. The Flash {talk} 05:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  8. ACvote Grunny (Talk) 13:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Object

  1. Does the trailer specifically identify there as being 25 Sith? I've watched it and don't recall specifics for the number involved. Chack Jadson (Talk) 01:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Count the red lightsabers. There are 27, so I changed the wording to say "...at least twenty-five..." - JMAS Hey, it's me! 05:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
      • With all due respect, this is my nomination, and I'm capable of handling any objections. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 12:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
        • With all due respect, you expanded the article and put it up for GAN, yes. But I created the article, and it was me who put the number "twenty-five" in the article before you started working on it. I thought it was encouraged for others to help with minor things like this, and as I saw no {{inuse}} tag at the top of the article, I thought helping overcome an objection would be welcomed. That clearly isn't the case on your noms, so feel free to revert the edit. - JMAS Hey, it's me! 19:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
          • All right, let's let this end right here. The article currently reads "at least twenty-five Sith" and I think it's best that way. Tranner, if you want to change it, I'd appreciate it if you could please discuss it with me in IRC first. Chack Jadson (Talk) 22:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
            • We've both apologized and settled this privately, but I'm sorry for my reactionary and harsh statement. - JMAS Hey, it's me! 02:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
              • Wait... wait. "There are 27, so I changed the wording to say "...at least twenty-five...""? O_o! SoresuMakashi(Everything I tell you is a lie) 09:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
                • It seems that every time someone watches the trailer, they come away with a different number. :p So to avoid any potential future edit wars over this, I think JMAS's solution is best. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 13:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  2. Soresu
    • Apparently, Cylka once found "an obscure CT that states that we shouldn't have links in the bolded titles in in-article titles". This goes for your other nom too.
    • long believed to have been destroyed over a thousand years earlier. Either long or a thousand years earlier is redundant.
    • Soon he engaged the Jedi who had originally stood in his way. You haven't established that any singular Jedi had originally stood in his way, so it seems as if Jedi is being used as a plural.
    • and disgracing their Order in the eyes of the Republic. What source di that come from?
      • It's from the Timeline 1 trailer, and it's the reason why the Order moved to Tython then. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 13:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
    • A number of things in the trailer description can be added to the article, such as: he is one of the "strongest Sith Warriors", and his mission was to "to destroy the planet’s defense grid mainframe hidden in the heart of the Jedi Temple." SoresuMakashi(Everything I tell you is a lie) 10:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Good catch. I suppose I was so focused on the events themselves that I forgot to read the description. :p Done. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 13:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  3. Can slightly better wording be applied to the last sentence of the intro? I know that it's grammatically fine, but I think it could be made clearer of the Sith's success during the Sacking of Coruscant vs. the actions that they accomplished (destroying the Temple, killing half the Council, etc.). Also, for "their Order", I realize that you mean the Jedi, but the subject of the sentence itself is the Sith, so it's a bit unclear. CC7567 (talk) 22:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  4. JMAS
    • Same as the Jedi objection. "As the Jedi died, the Sith told him how the Jedi had been deceived—and now that the Sith had returned, the Republic would fall." Do we have some official confirmation whose voice is providing the narration? It could be the Sith Emperor for we know, but there really is no evidence that the Sith told him that. - JMAS Hey, it's me! 22:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments