- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a good article nomination that was successful. Please do not modify it.
Unidentified tree-dwelling creature
- Nominated by: —Axinal Convocation Chamber 18:43, April 20, 2011 (UTC)
- Nomination comments:
(4 ACs/1 Users/5 Total)
Support
Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 00:53, April 25, 2011 (UTC)- Four eyes! ~Savage
00:56, April 25, 2011 (UTC) - Grand Moff Tranner
(Comlink) 18:57, April 25, 2011 (UTC) - Actually gave me a chuckle. Kilson(Let's have a chat) 23:14, April 25, 2011 (UTC)
- 1358 (Talk) 19:41, April 27, 2011 (UTC)
Object
Jujiggum
Just a couple minor things: first, could we get a tiny bit of context on the Travelling Jindas?- Added
Also, much of the History section seems to be centered around the Duloks' point of view. I think you could reword it a bit to reflect the tree-dwelling creature more centrally than the Duloks.Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 19:03, April 20, 2011 (UTC)- Sure; I wanted to make it clear why the Duloks were in the tree in the first place, so it was necessary to give a little background on them, but I've done some rewording so it focuses a little more on the creature. What do you think?—Axinal Convocation Chamber 19:10, April 20, 2011 (UTC)
One more quick thing: I don't think I'm quite following the "only" here: "X, in the darkness, was only able to see two sets of eyes…" He was only with one other Dulok; shouldn't he have been expecting to see one other set of eyes? Shouldn't have the additional set of eyes been a surprise? Why do you say "only?"Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 22:50, April 24, 2011 (UTC)- Yes, he should have been able to see O's eyes; the "only" comes in because he couldn't see anything else besides the two sets of eyes. He saw two sets of eyes (and nothing else), was not surprised at first, then realized he should only be seeing one set. I've reworded "only able to see two sets of eyes" to "two sets of eyes, and nothing else..." Better? Thanks for the review!—Axinal Convocation Chamber 00:31, April 25, 2011 (UTC)
- Works for me. Good work. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 00:53, April 25, 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, he should have been able to see O's eyes; the "only" comes in because he couldn't see anything else besides the two sets of eyes. He saw two sets of eyes (and nothing else), was not surprised at first, then realized he should only be seeing one set. I've reworded "only able to see two sets of eyes" to "two sets of eyes, and nothing else..." Better? Thanks for the review!—Axinal Convocation Chamber 00:31, April 25, 2011 (UTC)
Prepare to be savaged…
One thing for now: As X and O are conjectural names for unnamed Duloks, you'll need to rephrase a bit. You could instead describe them as two Duloks from Gorneesh's tribe, one of whom had a yellow X painted on his fur, and the other who had an O." Wordy, but whatcha gonna do? ~Savage 22:43, April 24, 2011 (UTC)- Hmm, that is an unfortunate problem. I've reworded it a bit. What do you think? Thanks!—Axinal Convocation Chamber 00:36, April 25, 2011 (UTC)
- I fixed a couple of other instances, but it looks fine now. :) ~Savage 00:56, April 25, 2011 (UTC)
- I fixed a couple of other instances, but it looks fine now. :) ~Savage
- Hmm, that is an unfortunate problem. I've reworded it a bit. What do you think? Thanks!—Axinal Convocation Chamber 00:36, April 25, 2011 (UTC)
Comments
Approved as a Good article by AgriCorps 19:41, April 27, 2011 (UTC)