Wookieepedia:Inq/K'Kruhk

< Wookieepedia:Inq
Wookieepedia > Wookieepedia:Inquisitorius > Inq/K'Kruhk

K'Kruhk

  • Status: Article

Support

  1. Jaina Solo(Talk) 10:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. --Eyrezer 06:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. Greyman(Paratus) 14:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Object

Things to do

  1. Expand. --Eyrezer 03:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Remove Objection

Objections to Clone Wars infobox image.

  1. Resolved. --Eyrezer 05:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments

  • Uh...can I ask what's still holding this up? QuentinGeorge 08:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Havac's objection about lack of detail. Last time I asked him, he was still reluctant to strike it. Green Tentacle (Talk) 08:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, how about he tells me a few more specifics about "lack of detail" since his only objection came months ago, after which substantial edits were made to the article. QuentinGeorge 08:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
        • I've reread it, and it's cleaned up some from how it was. I'm not enthused enough about it to vote for it, however, and it seems like it could use a bit more polish (a good copyedit and some really expansive detail as opposed to the breezier version currently in place). Look at this, for example: "Giiett performed a simple trick involving simple misdirection with cups and balls to K'Kruhk and Obi-Wan Kenobi. This seemingly innocuous piece of entertainments was intended to teach the Padawans an important lesson: do not always rely on the Force, as there are far more mundane ways to confound and mislead one's enemies." It's out of place chronologically within the article, needs "entertainments" copyedited out, lacks in detail (one more sentence could easily tell us what the game actually was and give us a fuller picture of what's going on in K'Kruhk's head), and could generally use a little polish to read a little smoother and more fluidly. Or this: "Unlike other dissidents, such as Sian Jeisel and Rhad Tarn, K'Kruhk never doubted that Windu's appeals were made in good faith, but he sorely misjudged the motives of Bulq." Complete gloss-over. K'Kruhk repeatedly defends Windu against Jeisel and Tarn's doubts in various conversations, but no mention of those discussions is made, and nothing at all is mentioned of what his judgment of Bulq's motives was. There's so much more detail that could be gone into to give the reader a fuller, richer picture and make a truly impressive FA rather than one which merely breezily hits all the required points. As it stands, it might make a good GA . . . but not really an FA. I like Quentin and it's a good effort with flashes of what it could be if some more time was spent on expanding it . . . but it doesn't read like "Wookieepedia's best" so much as it reads like "A hurried effort to breeze through all the material, give it a gloss-over, and call it complete." That might make a GA, but an FA just demands more than that. It shouldn't be the Cliffs Notes. It reads a bit like the NEGTC . . . but the NEGTC had space considerations we don't have and no obligation to be a definitive accounting of a character, just a handy reference that hits the high points so you have a pretty good idea what they were about even if you didn't read that book. FAs ought to be beyond that level. You've got really delve into it -- not play-by-play, but you need to make sure every relevant piece of information is given; summarizing half of a double-issue comic in one sentence just doesn't do that. It's like describing Jango Fett's role in AOTC as "He was chased by Obi-Wan Kenobi for his role in an assassination attempt before being killed by Mace Windu. Before dying, he managed to kill a Jedi Master in the arena battle." Does it technically hit everything that's there? More or less. But there's a paragraph of material in his contract on Amidala and subcontracting of it to Zam, followed with her death at Jango's hands, alone. I'd like to give a concrete example of expanded text in K'Kruhk's article, but I'd essentially just end up grabbing whatever source and rewriting the whole damn section to make the point properly, which is more than I'm up for at three in the morning. But I am willing to work on this with you, Quentin, and I think it can be done with not a whole lot more effort. Havac 08:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)