Wookieepedia:Featured article nominations/Kallidahin


 * ''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a featured article nomination that was withdrawn.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

Kallidahin

 * Nominated by: Skippy Farlstendoiro 06:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Nomination comments: Finding quotes for this article felt like doing it for Lobot's.

(0 Inqs/1 User/1 Total/INQCON 1)
Support
 * 1) How do they eat? 17:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Object Comments
 * 1) Unfortunately, a quote-related objection. The quote in the "Biology and appearance" section is from Old Wounds, which is non-canon, hence the quote cannot exist in the main article.  01:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) *Better? --Skippy Farlstendoiro 06:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) **Yep. 17:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Can you cut down on multiple-reffing? Ie, if a fact is in two source, you only need to ref one of them. --Eyrezer 08:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) *I'll second this, and also request that if you can, try and save your refs for the end of a sentence. At the moment it's quite difficult to read in places. Thefourdotelipsis 23:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) *I don't want to remove multiple reffing; I really think the article needs it because: Source A specifies the signs used in their language while source B specifies the use of computers in their language but we need sources C and D to detail the telepathic part of the language &mdash; all of which should be covered in the same sentence for encyclopedic style. However, I understand the multiple[1][2][3][4][5][mambo] notes in quick succession is distracting. I propose a compromise: Keep the notes in mid-sentence but every time one note requires several sources, all of them will be referred with one single note, avoiding the ][ string. Eg: Note 36: Clone Wars Campaign Guide + The New Essential Guide to Alien Species. Deal?--Skippy Farlstendoiro 08:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) **I don't know about Eyrezer, but I'm not really a fan of that solution. It just puts all the clutter in the Notes and references section, which isn't desirable. I'd rather have the multiple notes in the one section (Though I still can't see why you would need so many for just a few words,) and I think you will most definitely get away with putting all your references at the end of the sentences. Apart from when you think it might be particularly necessary to source a specific part of a sentence, you will be able to do it, and it will make things more readable for the reader, which is the most important thing. Thefourdotelipsis 23:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) ***That's what I meant: I feel neccessary to source a specific part of the sentence, quite commonly in this particular article. The ref section is indeed cluttered, but I understand nobody reads it from the beginning; the reader instead is following a particular note, and then can easily read that part in a blue box ("Oh, so those are the sources saying that this event happened mysteriously"). This could happen in other similar articles with several sources talking about the same thing and giving new information: "The species language, known as Tom,[1] Dick[2] or Harry,[3] was formed by grunts[4] and whistles.[5]" --Skippy Farlstendoiro 06:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) ****But within that sample, I don't see why you need three or four sources to verify "whistles." One source is enough, and it doesn't matter if the same information is repeated in other articles. The idea of sourcing isn't, basically, to point out all the instances of a certain piece of information in canon works, it is to identify where you got a certain piece of information for your article from. One source for "grunts" and "whistles" is enough. To use an example from the source, "Although Amidala had twins, Luke and Leia, she had lost any will to live and slowly refused to recover." is sourced to eight different works. That's over reffing. You only need one: ROTS. The rest is redundant. You don't have to have everything from the apperances and sources lists in the notes and references. Thefourdotelipsis 23:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) *****I'm sorry, but I 100% disagree with each and any of your sentences. I don't think one source is enough if the information is mentioned in several sources (something that happens frequently: RPG books, essential guides...). While repetitive, I do not think the rest of the sources are needlessly repetitive. If I got a certain piece of information from more than one source, then I should point out all the sources I used. If a new source mentions Kallidahin only in passing, it would probably be that particular event, and then, with no new information, that source should be added to that reference. Particularly, I think a FA should have "everything from the apperances and sources lists in the notes and references", and in fact that exactly was an objection to my previous FAN (Here; objection 2, second-to-last objecting paragraph). Having reached this point, I respectfully suggest to continue the debate in our talk pages if needed, and I profusely apologize for getting so worked up. --Skippy Farlstendoiro 11:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) *There actually seems to be two separate things going on here. When it comes to identical information in numerous sources, each piece of information should only be reffed to one source if possible. This was my original objection, which FourDot agrees with. So for the example of the birth of the twins, it should indeed only be reffed to ROTS. Now, your original example of the language deals with a different scenario, where scraps of information from different sources combine to give a fuller picture. In that case, numerous refs are necessary, but one thing I try and do is have as few references as are absolutely necessary. This sometimes means I will rearrange sentences or organise material in such a way that information from the same source is next to each other if at all possible. So it might become something like "The species language, known as Tom, was formed by grunts[4] and whistles. It also went by the names Dick[2] and Harry.[3]" Here grunts and Tom are in one source, whistles and Dick are in another, and Harry in a third. Organizing it one way results in 5 refs, the other in only 3. I try to group relevant information together, including the end of one sentence and the start of another. --Eyrezer 00:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 12) *When it comes to SavageBob's suggestion that appeared in Sneevel, it is not actually necessary to have every source and appearance be part of the foot notes if they don't actually add anything to the article. Some users like to have it that way, but it is not necessary and in my opinion can be achieved in other ways if necessary. --Eyrezer 00:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 13) **Yeah, I do that mostly to head those users off at the pass. It bit me in the butt with Lutrillian, so I just try to play it safe nowadays and make sure everything in the sources and appearances lists gets mentioned in the notes. ~ SavageBob 01:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 14) ***Do not want - to be followed in talkpages. --Skippy Farlstendoiro 14:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 15) Four Dot
 * 16) * You don't need to provide any references for the name of the species in the infobox.
 * 17) **Done.
 * 18) * "If the Kallidahin were known for something in the galaxy, it was because of their compassion and kindness, even if they also practiced the virtue of discretion." - Bit conversational.
 * 19) **Reworded.
 * 20) *You can ditch the quote at the beginning of the "Order 66" section. It's got only limited relevance to Polis Massa, and no relevance to the Kallidahin.
 * 21) * Far too much context in the "Order 66" section. Pare it down, and make sure you're always keeping it relevant to the Kallidahin.
 * 22) **Done?
 * 23) *Quote at the start of the "Imperial Inquisition" section is unneeded and irrelevant.
 * 24) *Again, far too much context in the "Imperial Inquisition" section. You don't need to chronicle the history of Polis Massa, here. Cut it down.
 * 25) **Done?
 * 26) ***Could do with a bit more.
 * 27) ****More now. Done?
 * 28) *****Still needs more. Basically, look at the parts where you're detailing the actions of Kenobi, Olin, Malorum, and be as general as possible. Gloss over those details, because they have only tangential relations to Polis Massa, and no relation to the Kallidahin. Thefourdotelipsis 08:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 29) ******Probably not yet, but that's today's work.
 * 30) ******Have a look now; I really think all the remaining info is related to the Kallidahin, even if the protagonists are Obi and the Humans. --Skippy Farlstendoiro 14:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 31) *******You're still going way too far into the specifics of what happens. Remember, you're not providing mini-biographies of each of the Kallidahin here - you're summarizing the history of their race as a whole. Thefourdotelipsis 23:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 32) * "Galactic Civil War" - Too much context, irrelevant quote.
 * 33) **Context: Done? Quote: Pending.
 * 34) ***Still needs more gone, particularly about the battle, especially since the Kallidahin weren't involved and weren't affected. This is more to do with the history of Polis Massa, than anything.
 * 35) ****More now. Done?
 * 36) *"Later conflicts" - Totally irrelevant quote.
 * 37) *"Kallidahin in the galaxy" - Irrelevant quote.
 * 38) * "Soon before the Clone Wars, Kallidahin exobiologists were sent to a different planet in the Subterrel sector to perform research. The local fauna included fierce predators, but the Kallidahin managed to keep them at bay using Kamino saberdarts they had obtain in their deals with the Kaminoans. Another traveler to the planet, a Besalisk known as Dexter Jettster, witnessed the use of the saberdarts and was impressed with them." - This shouldn't be in the history. Just have it in the "Kallidahin in the galaxy" section.
 * 39) **Moved.
 * 40) * File:Polegomassa.JPG is distorted.
 * 41) **Tried to improve it to the best of my knowledge. Is it enough now?
 * 42) * "Darth Maul noticed that the Kallidahin he killed were mute, meaning that Maneeli Tuun and Osh Scal were not killed by Maul in that continuity." - OR.
 * 43) **Removed.
 * 44) *"Referencing this plot, Darth Maul features as a "hero character" in the Polis Massa level of Star Wars: Battlefront II, but only as a gameplay trick and not as a part of the story." - OR.
 * 45) **Reworded. --Skippy Farlstendoiro
 * 46) ***That's good, but I don't think the statement is particularly true: IIRC, you don't need some kind of "trick" to activate him, he's just the character who appears to fight for the CIS if you play that level with hero mode turned on. So it's not really an easter egg. Thefourdotelipsis 23:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 47) ****I guess this is so.
 * 48) *Otherwise, fine. Thefourdotelipsis 23:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 49) Prepare to be Savaged...
 * 50) *This is a solid piece. There are a few things I think should be cleaned up, though:
 * 51) ** No footnotes on the title of an infobox should be necessary. The stuff about their multiple names is better sourced in the body of the article.
 * 52) ***Done.
 * 53) ** Growth rings: Can you provide a bit more context about what these are? I'm imagining that if you cut a Kallidahin in half, you'll see a ring inside for every year of its life. Is this the intention? It's confusing, since they're supposedly "surrounded by" the growth rings.
 * 54) ***OS says so; I'm as confused as you are.
 * 55) **** Is there anything at all that can be added? "surrounded by anatomical features known as growth rings," maybe? ~ SavageBob 23:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 56) *****That would be OR. "Growth rings surround their (...) bodies, although the biological reason for this is unknown" (or something like that). --Skippy Farlstendoiro 07:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 57) ****** Why would it be OR? Do we not know that growth rings are anatomical features or something? ~ SavageBob 01:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 58) *******Done. --Skippy Farlstendoiro 14:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 59) ** There're some weasel words in the article that should be cleaned up if at all possible: "Certain sources suggested..." (Which sources specifically?) "The native Eellayin mysteriously vanished afterwards and were subsequently considered extinct." (Considered by whom?) "During the first days of the Alliance to Restore the Republic, probably around 2 BBY..." (Probably? Why?) "It is believed that the Empire raided the base repeatedly without success." (Believed by whom?) "It is unclear if any other side of the conflict ... saw otherwise." (Why is it unclear? Who says?)
 * 60) ***All of them reworded.
 * 61) ** "Most Kallidahin were mujte due to a natural lack of vocal cords." If there were non-mute Kallidahin, please state so explicitly here in the biology section.
 * 62) ***Added. I still don't know why some of them are not mute: the source does not state that those Kallidahin do have vocal cords; they might speak through other means.
 * 63) **** I see what you mean; we shouldn't speculate. Perhaps just note that some spoke through means unknown and don't attribute it to biology, but still mention it in the biology section so all the muteness stuff is together. ~ SavageBob 23:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 64) *****Question is, I don't know if the reason is unknown in-universe. Thus: "Some Kallidahin had a natural difference...".
 * 65) ** The quote in "Society and culture" is attributed to "Maneeli Tuun, methodical professional". I'm not sure what "methodical" is meant to convey here.
 * 66) ***Kallidahin are methodical, disciplined, careful and efficient (as said by sources); this quote reflects one Kallidahin who did his best to be all that. Methodical. Reworded, btw.
 * 67) **** OK, I see. I'm still not sure we need to include a descriptor in the quote. We usually don't do this with quotes; we just say who said it. I'll think about this. ~ SavageBob 23:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 68) *****It isn't worth your time. Removed.
 * 69) ** "They rejected direct confrontations . . . but they were nevertheless able to protect themselves and their culture in case of need." How?
 * 70) ***They are peaceful and so, and do not take the RPG class "Soldier", though they are perfectly capable of protecting themselves. Reworded, but I think I might have made it worse.
 * 71) ** "The Kallidahin were hard workers, enjoying a full day of work commonly in the core of an asteroid field." This sentence is a bit confusing. Can you clarify?
 * 72) ***Reworded. Done?
 * 73) **** My problem here lies with the phrasing "in the core of an asteroid field." Do you mean their own specific asteroid field? The vagueness of "an asteroid field" bothers me. Can we be more specific? ~ SavageBob 23:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 74) *****Double-checked; it's not any field, but their field.
 * 75) ** "The majority of Kallidahin miners were seasoned spelunkers, and dug deep into the core of the asteroid to locate prize artifacts." What asteroid? I'm assuming Polis Massa, but can you clarify?
 * 76) ***Reworded.
 * 77) ** "Other species began to speculate ... many other aliens believed that this drive was their real motivate." This pair of sentences is confusing. Can you clarify exactly who is believing what about whom?
 * 78) ***Reworded; pronouns replaced by "Kallidahin" or "other guys who are not Kallidahin". Done?
 * 79) ** The paragraph about the finding of Wiyentaah seem out of place. Can the information be relocated to somewhere that discusses their excavations, rather than sandwiching it between discussion of their xenobiology interests and droid construction?
 * 80) ***Moved.
 * 81) **Over all, the history is way too long and includes way too much non-essential background. Think about the history section as "history from the Kallidahin's point of view" and remove any information that they wouldn't have known (or cared) about, and rewrite those bits that they do know about from their point of view. Remember, this is the history of the Kallidahin, not the history of Pollis Massa, and certainly not the history of Luke and Leia's birth.
 * 82) ***Tried my best (Yoda communed with Jinn's ghost in Polis Massa, but that might not be important for the Kallidahin).
 * 83) ****I'm a bit rushed at the moment, but I'll take a look at this point again in the next few days. ~ SavageBob 23:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 84) ****OK, I still feel this is a problem. The full first three paragraphs of the "Order 66" section are still written from Obi-Wan and Yoda's point of view rather than the Polis Massans'. Similar problems persist in the entire "Imperial inquisition" section and the "Later Conflicts" section. Pretend you are a Polis Massan historian. What would you write? Certainly you wouldn't care that much about a Rebel base, for example, or Yoda's problems with Vader. ~ SavageBob 01:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 85) *****Done; I fear giving too little context. Ship is important; it's Malorum's lead to Polis Massa later. --Skippy Farlstendoiro 14:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 86) ** "Jedi ... were known to have trusted this pro-establishment Kallidahin." Pro-establishment of what?
 * 87) ***Establishment = Old Republic. Changed to "firm ideals".
 * 88) ** If non-canonical material is going to be included in the "Behind the scenes" section, it would be better to recast it completely in out-of-universe perspective so it's not such a stylistic disconnect. I'd really like to see this part rewritten if possible...
 * 89) ***Reworded.
 * 90) **** It's better, but I don't see why we need the big, ugly templates and the "Non-canon" header. It's already in the "Behind the scenes" section, so it's outside the concerns of continuity already. ~ SavageBob 23:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 91) *****Removed ugly templates; not really needed, I guess, as the section has its own title.--Skippy Farlstendoiro 14:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 92) ** What is meant by "gameplay trick"?
 * 93) ***Easter egg. Changed and moved.
 * 94) *Good job over all, and I hope to see this get featured before long! ~ SavageBob 01:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 95) **No, I think this will take long; longer than Ugor at the very least, I hope.
 * 96) *Well, I did another pass. Here's what I've got:
 * 97) ** "they tried to be kind to any visitors." Would it be OK to change this to "they were kind to any visitors"? Tried makes it sound like they failed sometimes, which is odd. ~ SavageBob 01:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 98) ***Changed.--Skippy Farlstendoiro 14:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 99) ** The paragraph on their fame in archaeology and medicine seems out of place and stubby. Could these talents be merged up into a preceding paragraph somehow? ~ SavageBob 01:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 100) ***Changed.--Skippy Farlstendoiro 14:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 101) ** The history section makes it sound like they learned cloning techniques before they started digging around for their ancestors. Is this true? It seems counter-intuitive. ~ SavageBob 01:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 102) ***Less ambiguous now; I understand it happened in the order you say, but the sources are not specific.--Skippy Farlstendoiro 14:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 103) **The word "Kallidahin" is repeated a bit too much. Try to replace it with pronouns and synomyms ("the species," "members of the species") in a few more instances. ~ SavageBob 01:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 104) ***Done.--Skippy Farlstendoiro 09:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 105) ** Can you give a bit of context on what "hero mode" is? ~ SavageBob 01:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 106) ***Added, while I'm not 100% sure of it being that.--Skippy Farlstendoiro 14:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Consider using the tag on the non-canon appearances in the "Appearances" section rather than the heading "Non-canon appearances." The latter are more elegant and less distracting in my opinion. ~ SavageBob 01:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) *I believe we previously voted to keep them separate in the appearances section, as non-canon works do not fit on the main timeline, and are more quickly identified with the subheading.
 * 3) *What he said.
 * 4) **It's unbelievably ugly, though. And why do we even have the template if we can't use it? ~ SavageBob 23:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) ***Me no know. Admins decide those things, I guess; try talking with them. --Skippy Farlstendoiro 07:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Are there any concept sketches of the species available? I'd rather see something like that as an illustration of the "Behind the scenes" section than the Lego image, but that's just my personal preference. ~ SavageBob 01:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) *Yes there are, but I thought and still think that Polegomassa is the best choice to illustrate BtS. The concept art would provide little to the article. Another option I considered for that was the panel from the comic adaptation that did not include Polis Massans, to stress a BtS point. --Skippy Farlstendoiro 08:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Requestal to remove nomination
Nominator requests the removal of this nomination, and apologizes for any inconvenience. --Skippy Farlstendoiro 15:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)