Wookieepedia:Good article nominations/Worrite

< 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.

Worrite

  • Nominated by: --~ SavageBob 04:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: And W is for Worrite...

(4 ACs/1 Users/5 Total)

Support

  1. W is for vote. --Skippy Farlstendoiro 11:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  2. Inqvote --Eyrezer 04:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  3. Inqvote Big boat comin' my way... Chack Jadson (Talk) 14:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  4. ACvote Toprawa and Ralltiir 04:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  5. ACvote Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 01:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Object

  1. Objections.
    • “Dominated”, where it is now, doesn’t make much sense/isn’t the best word choice, and should be changed.
      • I changed this. Are you OK with the new version? ~ SavageBob 00:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Second paragraph of intro; why’s it notable that he left his homeworld? Was it just that they didn’t travel much, or what?
    • “Frightening” is POV; who saw him as “frightening”?
      • The original source says, "He has made a living as a freelance thug-for-hire, a profession where his frightening appearance is a considerable asset." I'm not sure how else to express it. Ideas? ~ SavageBob 13:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
    • In “Appearance and biology”, roughly equal proportion, as not a definite fact, is unneeded.
      • Why not? "Roughly equal" provides information that removing the line would not, and more information is better than no information in my opinion. ~ SavageBob 13:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
        • It's not majorly encyclopedic and isn't a definite fact, making it unneeded. --Darth tom Imperial Emblem (Imperial Intelligence) 12:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
          • Sorry, I disagree. It's more information than it would be to take it out, so I'd like to keep it. I mean, if they were "roughly" 2/3 insect and 1/3 crustacean, that would be different than being roughly equal parts one and the other, right? ~ SavageBob 00:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
    • “Bumpy”, in same section, is way too colloquial.
    • “In one member of the species, the carapace was colored dark red” – Was this something that was just a normal color, was this unusual or what? Elaborate, please.
      • Well, we only know of one member of the species, and he had a "blood red" carapace. However, I'm uncomfortable generalizing that all Worrites are blood red from one specimen. It's no more appropriate than concluding that all Humans are brown-skinned based on Lando Calrissian's appearance. Thus the extra wording. ~ SavageBob 13:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
    • “They had four arms. Two of these, held close to the body, were small and capable of fine manipulation.” – Could you reword? It doesn’t flow well in the current way.
    • “Closed, these claws were deadly bludgeoning weapons, but when used as pincers, they could easily sever the limbs of most humanoid species.” – Just a bit of a run on.
    • “Quite tall” is too colloquial.
    • Please go through the article and see if you can add any more links; stuff like the sexes needs to be linked to.
    • “At some point before 3 ABY,[ a Worrite named Mazumoda, made it off his homeworld and to the galactic capital, Coruscant.” Kill some of the extra commas. The one after “Mazumoda”, for instance, is unneeded.
    • “He found a niche” is, once again, colloquial.
      • I disagree; no dictionary I've consulted lists niche as colloquial. ~ SavageBob 13:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
    • “Bookie” is too colloquial.
    • In the BtS: “The book provides no statistics for the Worrites in general, however, so the species is not available for players to use for their own characters.” – Cut the “however”, or put it at the beginning of the sentence.
    • Not bad, otherwise. --Darth tom Imperial Emblem (Imperial Intelligence) 07:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the detailed notes! I've tried to address everything you mentioned except for things I've commented on individually above. Let me know what you think! ~ SavageBob 13:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Objection(s) overridden by AgriCorps 00:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  2. Responded to the points above, and another passing one...
    • Reference two; no need for all the words, give a single source. If someone asks, as long as you can justify, it's fine. --Darth tom Imperial Emblem (Imperial Intelligence) 12:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
      • I disagree; I've used some disparate information in the source to make the time designation, and I think it's important to point out how I came to that conclusion. ~ SavageBob 00:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
        • I agree with Bob here. This is a perfectly acceptable use of a reference note. Toprawa and Ralltiir 21:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Objection(s) overridden by AgriCorps 00:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  3. There seems to be quite a deviation from the Layout Guide for sentient species articles. Please adhere to the current policy, which states that the "[species] in the galaxy" section maybe merged into the above sections, but does not mention further merging. Graestan(Talk) 23:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I think there should be room for judgement, but I've asked the opinion of the other Aliens project members about this. ~ SavageBob 00:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
    • OK, as much as I hate one-paragraph sections, I've changed this to adhere to the Layout Guide. I'll try to formulate a Consensus Track sometime soon about this kind of thing, but for now, we should adhere to the Layout Guide. What do you think? ~ SavageBob 23:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  4. Toprawa:
    • The use of the "unknown" phrasing here is borderline violation of the Manual of Style. Assuming this is literally taken from a source, that the planet was literally unknown to the rest of the galaxy, please find a more fitting way of wording this. You do a nice job of what I'm looking for in the "History" section: "from an unknown planet"
    • The end of the "History" section needs to be sourced. Toprawa and Ralltiir 21:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
      • OK, I've addressed both of these. Thanks for the input! ~ SavageBob 02:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Approved as a Good article by AgriCorps 01:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


Vote to strike Darth tom's objections (AC only)

  1. ACvote These objections have been addressed and the objector is going to be away until the 31st, and there's no point holding up the nom. Grunny (Talk) 00:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  2. ACvote CC7567 (talk) 00:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  3. ACvote Grunny made me. :P Chack Jadson (Talk) 00:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)