Wookieepedia:Inq/Form V: Shien / Djem So

< Wookieepedia:Inq
Wookieepedia > Wookieepedia:Inquisitorius > Inq/Form V: Shien / Djem So

Form V: Shien / Djem So

Considerations from Meeting 39

This article was placed on probation because there has been a lack of maintenance on the article and its current state is entirely different than that which originally passed review. Some of the information and rewrite practices have warranted consideration to weed out potential speculation/OR along with bringing the prose up to the present high standards needed to pass an Inquisitorius review. Over the next month (before the fortieth meeting), the Inquisitorius will begin to probe the article more thoroughly. Below are some preliminary considerations.

Things to do

Further expansion will unfold as the Inquisitorius continues its formal review. All Inquisitorius members are asked to contribute to this review.

  1. Pasta bowl appetizers:
    • Introduction needs major expansion
    • The first section needs cleanup
      • Short 'paragraphs' need to be merged
      • Grammatical fails like ill-placed adpositional and adverbial clauses or subclauses need to be fixed
    • The reader needs to have the two parts of the form clearly disambiguated and why they are considered one clearly defined
    • Mood/tense issues throughout
    • The 'description' and 'application' sections should be defined based upon those two headers and not so similar. There's too much overlap of description of the form in the application section, etc.
    • The application seems to have speculation and OR throughout it. Please clearly define the sources for each instance that explicitly indicate the from or maneuver associated with the form.
    • 'Known moves and maneuvers' should be in the description section.
    • 'Lightsaber design' should be the header of that section only, and its relation to Shien should be noted.
      • Much of this section sounds like OR and needs to be thoroughly checked and confirmed. Just because someone used a form (some used multiple) does not mean their lightsaber was built specifically for it. I am personally not buying some of the sourcing tags on this page in general.
    • BTS needs cleanup.
    • The last paragraph of the BTS is a head-scratcher:
      • Clarify the Sidious stuff if it is even relevant
      • Remove the speculation by fans unless it can be sourced; properly source who addresses it.
      • The Jedi Exile comments need clarification. Is this in-game information? How has this been assumed or derived? Is it even true or worth having here?
    • All this was from a preliminary review and not a thorough reading. This article needs a great deal of work, and I will personally vote for removal at the next meeting if I do not see it progress substantially. It should, frankly, undergo an entire new round of voting. — Fiolli; 15:24, January 18, 2011 (UTC)
      • I keep telling Jensaarai (the primary culprit for all those quality-reducing edits) to stop screwing with the saber forms. Guess I get to clean up his mess now. :/ Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 20:35, January 18, 2011 (UTC)

Removal of FA status

  • Placed on probation based upon 'Inquisitorius Review Redux' rules at Meeting 39.
  • Sent to redux per Meeting 40.

Comments

  • I've reverted a large number of the edits made after 12 November 2010, which should have improved the quality of the article. I also went through it and spruced up the prose somewhat. The intro was expanded, BTS somewhat better, layout changes made. I'm pretty sure that this article still needs some work—although I got it through to FA, the original prose was largely not mine. I'm willing to put in the work on this one, but I didn't have time to do more than a quick patch-job to get it back to something I can start with.

Regarding the comment on "The reader needs to have the two parts of the form clearly disambiguated and why they are considered one clearly defined" . . . I've tried to disambiguate the two parts of the form as much as possible. There are some issues with some sources saying generic things about "Form V" without specifying the sub-variant. As to why they are considered one form, that's not canonically answerable AFAIK. Regarding the comment on the Jedi Exile, I tried to reword it, but I don't understand the source of the confusion. If you pick 2 of the classes, you learn Form V. If you learn the other, you don't. It's a clear possibility that the Exile learned Form V, but we can't say for sure without knowing which route she took canonically. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 22:51, February 12, 2011 (UTC)

  • This should be placed on the FA queue to be re-featured if it keeps its FA status. Menkooroo 14:58, June 19, 2011 (UTC)

Redux review

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a reduxed featured article. The result of the discussion was Featured article status lost. Please do not modify the page.

Form V: Shien / Djem So

  • Redux comments: Sent to Redux per Meeting 40. Major rewrite; full review required
  • Date added: February 12, 2011

(+2)

Support

  1. Inqvote Article is back in good shape. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 20:20, May 8, 2011 (UTC)
  2. Inqvote 1358 (Talk) 18:49, May 11, 2011 (UTC)

Object

  1. Jujiggum
    • BTS needs a lot of expansion; also, the bit about the Jedi Exile could use some more detail/better explanation
      • I expanded the bit about the Jedi Exile, but I'm at a loss for what else you are looking for in the BtS. I could add the standard "Form V has appeared in these sources" but beyond that, I'm not sure what else you're looking for—do you have specific sources in mind? I'd prefer not to add random fluff to it just to make it longer, so I'll wait for feedback on this one.
        • I think you could at least explain its appearance as retcons in Eps II, V, and VI. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 20:56, February 26, 2011 (UTC)
          • Done. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 05:05, March 2, 2011 (UTC)
            • I think this could be stated much cleaner and without having to refer to "this article." Why not just say simply that the form's appearances in the films II, V, and VI are all retcons based on sources X, Y, and Z that state that the characters so-and-so used the form in these instances? Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 05:32, March 2, 2011 (UTC)
    • Seems to me like there is plenty of redundant information in the Practitioners section; I cut down some of it in my copy-edit, but even more could probably be removed.
      • I gave it a further trimming. To an extent, there will be some overlap because it's hard to discuss applications without mentioning the people involved but hopefully it's acceptable now. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 05:05, March 2, 2011 (UTC)
    • The fact that it's called "The Way of the Kray Dragon" needs to be mentioned somewhere in the main body.
    • A few things for the affiliation section of the infobox: shouldn't the Jensaarai be mentioned there? Also, the "New Jedi Order" is covered by the overall implication of "Jedi". Either specify which Orders used the Form (i.e. Jedi Order, New Jedi Order, and then list all of the various Sith organizations which used it) or else just stick with the simple "Jedi," "Sith," and "Jensaarai"
    • I'll give it another look-over once these are fixed. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 19:06, February 19, 2011 (UTC)
  2. Toprawa:
    • If the form counts AOTC, ESB, and ROTJ among its Appearances, does it not also appear in those films' many adaptations? Toprawa and Ralltiir 04:49, July 24, 2011 (UTC)
      • I would think so, but I'll pose this question that's kept me from adding them in the past. We know from imagery in Fightsaber that retconned Form V was used in those movies, but the only basis for that is that you see the swordplay in the movie. Whereas in the book, radio drama, audiobook, etc. the swordplay is either written or described. If that constitutes an appearance in your mind, I'll gladly add them in to this article and the other saber form articles I upkeep. :) Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 22:19, July 24, 2011 (UTC)
        • I would say these written descriptions, etc. count as appearances provided we can definitively pinpoint specific descriptions corresponding to whatever form we're dealing with. For example, if Form V says thrusting your lightsaber forward in a stabbing motion is part of the technique, and the novel describes Luke performing this action in a duel, then I would add the novel to the Appearances. Meaning that some adaptations may be game for inclusion, and others might not because they're just too generically described, for example. It's probably something you would need to go through each source and examine whether there's enough corresponding info to add it or not. Toprawa and Ralltiir 22:25, July 24, 2011 (UTC)
          • Sounds good to me, will work on it. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 22:27, July 24, 2011 (UTC)
            • I've gone through the sources and there's nothing incredibly explicit that just screams "This is Shien or Djem So." The Ep. VI novelization came close, but I'm not comfortable choosing what is an appearance and what isn't—it smacks of original research and seems to be something that could come back in the future as fodder for dispute. I suggest we either leave them off since there's nothing definitive to mark them as appearances, or label them all with Indirect appearance and Retcon. Thoughts? Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 04:40, August 2, 2011 (UTC)
              • Sorry for the very delayed response. If you want to leave out most of the adaptations as being too ambiguous, I would probably be ok with that. However, I still have a problem with simply dismissing everything as not being clear enough, especially in cases like the junior novelizations, which, unlike the original novelization, for example, Ryder Windham went to pretty good effort to describe exactly what is happening in the films. I would certainly presume these to be good enough for inclusion, though obviously that should be checked for sure. Additionally, you should also be checking all the many dozens? hundreds? of random different pieces of source material that show film-still illustrations of these duels from the movies. For example, if Galaxy Guide 5 shows a film still of the Luke-Vader Death Star duel that we know from this same Fightsaber imagery to be Form V, that must also then be included in the Sources list. Toprawa and Ralltiir 22:21, January 12, 2012 (UTC)
              • I understand that this is a very time-consuming thing and a lot of work to do and sources to go through. To try and make it easier on you, I would recommend going through the Appearances and Sources list for each of the three lightsaber duels in these movies and seeing what you can find in there. That's probably the best starting point: Rescue on Death Star I, Duel on Cloud City, and Duel on Death Star II. Toprawa and Ralltiir 17:57, January 16, 2012 (UTC)

Comments

Vote to remove nomination (Inq only)

  1. Inqvote Although I recognize my own lengthy periods of severe neglect for my objections on this nom, the sheer scope of work-intensive detail required for the currently removal-eligible idle objection leads me to initiate this removal vote. I get the feeling that this is something that would be best worked on off the page, whenever the nominator or someone else has the time and interest to attend to it. Toprawa and Ralltiir 00:30, February 28, 2012 (UTC)
  2. Inqvote Per above. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 00:49, February 28, 2012 (UTC)
  3. Inqvote Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 02:30, February 28, 2012 (UTC)
  4. Inqvote CC7567 (talk) 06:40, March 3, 2012 (UTC)
  5. Inqvote 1358 (Talk) 00:17, March 4, 2012 (UTC)