Wookieepedia:Good article nominations/Wukkar/Legends

< 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.

Wukkar

  • Nominated by: jSarek 23:25, September 10, 2011 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: Michael Allen Horne comes up with awesome Core World names. Wukkar, Wukkar, Wukkar.

(4 ACs/1 Users/5 Total)

Support

  1. ACvote Kilson(Let's have a chat) 03:23, September 18, 2011 (UTC)
  2. ACvote IFYLOFD (Floyd's crib) 01:19, September 20, 2011 (UTC)
  3. Inqvote Menkooroo 05:34, September 27, 2011 (UTC)
  4. --Cal JediInfinite Empire (Personal Comm Channel) 13:11, September 28, 2011 (UTC)
  5. ACvote CC7567 (talk) 06:41, September 30, 2011 (UTC)

Object

Kilson
  • No quotes for the article? Even an offhand mention would be good.
    • It has been named in only three sources, and none of them mention the world in attributable text. jSarek 08:11, September 13, 2011 (UTC)
  • You have some Infobox-exclusive info, namely the planet's grid coordinates and primary terrain.
    • Hmm, terrain is something I forgot to strip out; while it's incredibly likely given the population, it is never conclusively stated. It's now gone. As for grid coordinates, those to my knowledge are never included in the main text (and aren't in a random sampling of other planet GAs, which included Apatros, Douglas III, Ione, Nouane, Pammant, and Rainboh). jSarek 08:11, September 13, 2011 (UTC)
      • Just because previous GAs that were passed prior to the institution of the "Infobox-exclusive info" rule doesn't have grid coordinates doesn't mean you shouldn't put them into the Description section. Anyway, while they are not planets, Kuna's Eye, Kuna's Eye system, and Unidentified protoplanetary disk have grid coordinates in the Description section. Kilson(Let's have a chat) 00:42, September 15, 2011 (UTC)
        • Do you have a link for this rule? It's not in the MOS, LG, or GAN requirements, and it seems contradictory to how we do a LOT of things around here; we certainly don't put publishing era in the main text, for instance. And we're not even certain that grids are in-universe; see Jason Fry's comment here where he gives two different answers in the same comment (and certainly didn't run it by LFL before changing his mind). jSarek 06:17, September 15, 2011 (UTC)
          • Well, given the fact that grid coordinates may be out-of-universe, they probably should not be mentioned in the article. Thank you for explaining that to me. Kilson(Let's have a chat) 03:23, September 18, 2011 (UTC)
  • In the Intro and History section, you should mention that Wukkar became a part of the New Republic during the Galactic Civil War.
    • If that isn't obvious from the fact that it surrendered to the New Republic, then it also can't be assumed; all that is definitively stated is that it surrendered, and then years later, Yuuzhan Vong forces were deployed there. jSarek 08:11, September 13, 2011 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I think we misunderstood each other. You should instead say that Wukkar surrendered to the New Republic during the Galactic Civil War. The mention of the Galactic Civil War is important. Kilson(Let's have a chat) 00:42, September 15, 2011 (UTC)
        • You're right, I did misunderstand. I've reworded that paragraph to include that fact. jSarek 06:17, September 15, 2011 (UTC)
  • You should mention that the planet was located in the Slice in the Description section.
    • Done. jSarek 08:11, September 13, 2011 (UTC)
  • Mention the year that the Republic was converted into the Empire.
    • Also done. jSarek 08:11, September 13, 2011 (UTC)
  • Do we know what year Wukkar became a part of the New Republic? If so, we should insert that in the History section.
    • We do not, beyond the broad brackets of after Endor and before Thrawn. jSarek 08:11, September 13, 2011 (UTC)
  • Otherwise, good job jSarek. Kilson(Let's have a chat) 17:14, September 12, 2011 (UTC)
    • Thank you. :-) jSarek 08:11, September 13, 2011 (UTC)
Floyd:
  • I noticed some linking issues in the article.
    • I fixed the only one I could find; a little more specificity might help here. jSarek 10:42, September 19, 2011 (UTC)
      • I checked again, and it actually wasn't as big a problem as I thought. :P IFYLOFD (Floyd's crib) 01:19, September 20, 2011 (UTC)
  • "In the last two months of the war, Vong forces began to pullpack from the Slice, allowing the Galactic Alliance to attack Corulag." "Pullpack"? Do you mean "pull back"?
    • It's not my fault! Fixed. jSarek 10:42, September 19, 2011 (UTC)
  • Nice work. IFYLOFD (Floyd's crib) 01:30, September 19, 2011 (UTC)
    • Thanks. :-) jSarek 10:42, September 19, 2011 (UTC)
Wukkar
  • Can you introduce the Rebel Alliance in a few words? That the initial mention of them is their transformation into the New Republic is a bit jarring. As the Empire has just been introduced, maybe introduce the Rebels as challengers of the Empire's rule before going into stuff about the Battle of Endor and the New Republic? A bit more context is needed here.
    • Done. jSarek 06:00, September 26, 2011 (UTC)
  • A note of when the Battle of Endor and the Yuuzhan Vong War took place might be a good idea, too, to give an idea of the timeline.
    • Both done. jSarek 06:00, September 26, 2011 (UTC)
      • 30 ABY? For shame. :P Menkooroo 06:06, September 26, 2011 (UTC)
  • I'd also like to see a touch more context on a few aspects the Yuuzhan Vong War --- who are the Galactic Alliance, and why are they attacking Corulag --- are the Vong at Corulag? Is the GA fighting against the Vong? etc. Not too much so as to distract from the subject at hand, but just enough so that the reader can follow it all without having any prior knowledge of the NJO.
    • Done. jSarek 06:00, September 26, 2011 (UTC)
  • And just one more: As Yuuzhan Vong Empire is in the infobox, can you link it somewhere in the body?
    • Also done. jSarek 06:00, September 26, 2011 (UTC)
  • All from me. Good work on an interesting subject from the mother of all sourcebooks. Menkooroo 14:02, September 25, 2011 (UTC)
    • Thank you. :-) jSarek 06:00, September 26, 2011 (UTC)
  • Crap, one more. Isn't the Atlas online companion a source for systems, rather than planets? I think that any mention of "Wukkar" there refers to the Wukkar system. Menkooroo 06:06, September 26, 2011 (UTC)
    • Technically, that's true of most planets in the Atlas itself, too. I think it's still justified labeling both the Atlas and the Companion as sources, since Wallace and Fry (rightly) made little effort to differentiate planets and systems when preparing the maps and appendix; this is why the Appendix has the "system" column filled by either the system or planet name, using whichever one readers could be expected to be more familiar with. jSarek 22:35, September 26, 2011 (UTC)
      • Sounds good, although Imperators II might like to have a word with you. :D Menkooroo 05:34, September 27, 2011 (UTC)
Just one
  • "Offhand comment" and "offhand mention" in the BTS seem a bit POVish. Thoughts? --Cal JediInfinite Empire (Personal Comm Channel) 23:00, September 27, 2011 (UTC)
    • My thoughts are that it's debatable, but why debate it when I can change both mentions to something that's both clearly not POV AND, at the same time, less colloquial? jSarek 02:31, September 28, 2011 (UTC)
Attack of the Clone
  • I apologize, but I disagree with the resolution to the earlier objection about the Atlas Companion not specifically mentioning Wukkar, the planet. I do agree that the authorial intent was to blend planets and systems, but the fact remains that only the system is presented in the final version of the index. I understand the need to be inclusive with sources, but it doesn't seem the proper thing to do in this case—the planet still isn't referred to at all, only the system is. CC7567 (talk) 04:35, September 30, 2011 (UTC)
    • I've added Imo tags to the Companion and to the Atlas itself, which is no different from the Companion in regard to the planet/system distinction. jSarek 06:36, September 30, 2011 (UTC)
      • I still feel that its inclusion isn't entirely prudent, but I'm fine with at least {{Imo}}. CC7567 (talk) 06:41, September 30, 2011 (UTC)

Comments

Approved as a Good article by AgriCorps 06:41, September 30, 2011 (UTC)