Wookieepedia:Good article nominations/Labyrinth of Evil


 * ''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a good article nomination that was unsuccessful. Please do not modify it.

Labyrinth of Evil

 * Nominated by: User:Rayn3000
 * Nomination comments: I'm still updating the plot but I think this article is more than ready to become our second novel to reach GA status.

(0 ACs/0 Users/0 Total)
Support

Object
 * 1) Other than the plot summary, it's mostly just a list. The info in the "Behind the scenes" section should be greatly expanded and redistributed into "Conception," "Production," "Continuity" and "Reception" sections. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 09:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) * I don't quite understand your points. The page is set up alot like the Cloak of Deception page so I dont know what you want in regards to the list. It also has a good deal of more info in the BtS section than the Cloak of Deception article so I don't know what you want me to add to expand it.Rayn3000 19:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)User:Rayn3000
 * 3) **Well, while Cloak of Deception is a GA it's an older one that's definitely substandard and will most likely be stripped of its status in the coming months. Therefore, this article shouldn't really be modeled on it, but should look something like this or this (admittedly, they're unfinished, but there aren't really any finished examples to point to). "Behind the scenes" shouldn't be a section title as the article is out-of-universe; like I said, the info there should be distributed into new sections: "conception," dealing with the idea; "production," dealing with the book's writing, changes in revisions, etc.; "continuity," dealing with any issues in continuity, what other works it references, the situation with the differences with the CW cartoon about the Battle of Coruscant, etc.; and a "reception" section dealing with how popular/liked it is, and why, yada yada yada. All of this will also need to be properly sourced and referenced. And that, I'm afraid, will require a lot of research. If you want to get this article to GA or FA quality it will require a lot of work and patience; personally, I'd recommend you start off with something easier and more straightforward, but it's your decision, obviously. Also, don't forget to sign your posts with ~ . -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 19:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) *Personally I think Labyrinth of Evil and Cloak of Deception are set up better than those pages but I can change it. Should I set the main characters up like they are in The Last One Standing: The Tale of Boba Fett? And clear out all of the list info ie; Characters, Locations,Miscellanea,etc.?Rayn3000 19:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)User:Rayn3000
 * 5) **Sorry, no, keep them; on those articles they just haven't been added yet. A "main characters" section would be a good addition but I wouldn't say it's as vital as the other sections I suggested. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 20:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) **Well, like Acky said, Cloak of Deception is a poor article, despite the GA tag. It's not a good model for you to follow.  Chack Jadson  (Talk) 20:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) ***Considering this is not a big SW project (eg. a book series), the BtS subsections, especially reception, could be hard. While I definately believe they should be there, keep in mind that they do not need to be hugely expansive or anything like that. SoresuMakashi ( Everything I tell you is a lie ) 05:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay so for the reception section would I put stuff like "this book has an average rating of four out of five stars on amazon.com"? Also would this review be a fair source to use for the reception section?Rayn3000 20:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)User:Rayn3000
 * 1) **Yeah, you could use that stuff.  Chack Jadson  (Talk) 12:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments
 * For the record, in light of this GAN, Cloak of Deception has been put up for AC review for the Dec 22 meeting, during which time its fate will be decided. Toprawa and Ralltiir 00:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Vote to remove nomination (AgriCorps members only)
 * 1) This is very far from GA status, and going nowhere.  Chack Jadson  (Talk)  02:17, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Agreed. It's been 3 weeks. Toprawa and Ralltiir 23:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Never gonna get it, never gonna get it. Never gonna get it, never gonna get it. Never gonna get it, never gonna get it. Never gonna get it. Never get it.  04:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)