Wookieepedia:Good article nominations/Escape from Darth Vader

Escape from Darth Vader

 * Nominated by: ProfessorTofty (talk) 23:30, December 8, 2014 (UTC)
 * Nomination comments: I have been working hard on this one and I think it's ready to go. I've got plot summary, plenty of background info, images, etc. The only thing I'm slightly unsure about is the source in the development. I know Wookieepedia isn't normally a source, but I think in this case it's acceptable because it's referencing the page history simply to prove that the Amazon link is a match; that it proves that the same link that existed then exists now. ProfessorTofty (talk) 23:30, December 8, 2014 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Brandon Rhea (talk) 16:48, January 18, 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) 501st  dogma ( talk ) 00:59, February 4, 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Looks good! Manoof (talk) 11:41, February 18, 2015 (UTC)
 * 4)  IFYLOFD  ( Talk ) 19:20, March 21, 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) Ayrehead02 (talk) 10:38, April 15, 2015 (UTC)
 * 6) Winterz (talk) 03:09, April 19, 2015 (UTC)

Object
Brandon
 * Right off the bat - the sections were in the wrong order. I fixed it, but please keep the Out of Universe Layout Guide for published narrative works in mind in the future.
 * Is there no information anywhere about the creation/development of this book? No author interviews or tweets or anything? The development section, as it currently stands, is all about the release. Obviously if that's all there is then that's fine.
 * Are there no reviews from significant sources that you can use for a reception section?
 * Also, Wookieepedia is definitely not a source in this context. For all we know, that information was wrong. That will need to either be sourced or removed.
 * More later, if I find anything. Brandon Rhea (talk) 23:58, December 8, 2014 (UTC)
 * Regarding point 1: I was actually using an existing good article for a book as a model for the order of the sections. It would seem that one then has them out of order. I'll have to go back and fix that one later, but thank you for fixing this one. Regarding point 2, given its being a somewhat minor children's book, I wouldn't be surprised if there aren't, but I'll research this one and report back here. Regarding point 3 - good idea. I'll add that. As for the last point, hmm. Okay. This is going to take some digging, but I'll try to find something with a date attached to it regarding the book going that far back. I'll try to take care of all of this tomorrow. In the meantime, any other objections or thoughts from anyone else are welcome. ProfessorTofty (talk) 01:31, December 9, 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Remember, when it comes to things like what I mentioned in the first point, your first stop to figure out how it should be are Wookieepedia policies, not existing articles. They may have been written before policies were updated/created, issues may have been missed, etc. Existing status articles are a good guide for new nominations, and I’ve used then myself, but the policies trump existing status article in regards to how you should do it. - Brandon Rhea (talk) 01:51, December 9, 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'll definitely make sure to do that in the future. Okay, point 2: there is nothing. Nothing. Michael Siglain has a Twitter, but started in May of this year and says nothing on about this book. Neither does Roux on hers. I couldn't find anything else, anywhere, whatsoever. Point 3: Reception section added. Point 4: Ee. This really stings, but again, there's nothing. I couldn't grab anything off of Internet Archive and I couldn't find anything else anywhere that proves that that listing was there at that time. Information removed. ProfessorTofty (talk) 20:40, December 9, 2014 (UTC)
 * It should be noted: items in the Appearance section should be listed alphabetically, not by order of appearance. I've fixed the Appearances section to reflect.
 * Also regarding the Appearances section, it seems a bit lacking. You mention in the summary, for example, that the ship is pursued by a Star Destroyer (via a link to the ISD page) but that's not in the Appearances section. Please check through the Appearances section and add anything that's missing.
 * Having not read the book, the plot summary seems light on details. Please expand it to include a more detailed summary of the story. Additionally, can you clarify (on this review page) at what point in A New Hope that the story ends? The publisher's summary, for example, mentions Luke, yet your plot summary doesn't.
 * Your linking was a bit inconsistent; sometimes you'd like to something a few times after it was mentioned, or even not at all. I've fixed this as well. Check out the diffs to see what I did.
 * More later, if I find anything. - Brandon Rhea (talk) 03:00, December 21, 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for fixing this.
 * The Appearances section is lacking because the book is small. I've added Imperial-class Star Destroyer, but see more my next bullet-point. I will also check the book again just to be absolutely sure, but I really doubt I missed much of anything else. It may have to wait a day or two, though, because I checked it out from the library and I'll have to get it back from there.
 * Having read the book, the plot summary is light on details because the book is light on details. Visit the links and check out the preview pages; you'll see that each page has at most two sentences; some have less than one sentence. If I added anymore detail, I might as well just reprint the content of the book. The story ends with R2 and C-3 landing on Tatooine, followed by a page that presents several of the characters as illustrations, simply as a way of saying "here's what's coming next in the story." The bit about them "meeting Luke" is publisher puffery - that doesn't happen in this book.
 * Thank you for fixing that also! Not sure why I didn't notice that myself, but I checked over your edits. ProfessorTofty (talk) 15:37, December 21, 2014 (UTC)
 * Plot summary updated with a few additional details. I don't think I can do anymore than that without basically just plagiarizing the book. Appearances updated, mainly just starship classification and a couple of other miscellaneous items. Two other Appearance items considered but rejected due to being unable establish notability - "Binary star" and "Cloak." ProfessorTofty (talk) 00:03, December 30, 2014 (UTC)

501st

 * I'm assuming the book doesn't mention Devastator by name, but it should be pipelinked to in the body. Also, it should be added to the Appearances section.
 * You're right, it doesn't mention it by name. I've added it to the Appearances, but I'm not sure how can work it into the body and pipelink it. Should I just mention it by name in the body? ProfessorTofty (talk) 01:59, January 23, 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that would work.
 * Okay, that is now done. ProfessorTofty (talk) 03:44, January 23, 2015 (UTC)
 * You'll need to find somewhere in the body to add that it is 32 pages long, as that is infobox exclusive info right now. I'd place it in the Development section. Author, cover artist and illustrator also needs to be mentioned in the body, preferably in the Development.
 * Okay, that's all done. Cover artist is the same as the illustrator, do I need to mention that specifically, or will just saying that Roux illustrated it do? ProfessorTofty (talk) 01:59, January 23, 2015 (UTC)
 * That'll do just fine.
 * That last part of the Continuity section will have to be sourced.
 * Is it okay now? I just took the Amazon links to the two titles and placed them both at the end. ProfessorTofty (talk) 01:59, January 23, 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd recommend sourcing the article to itself, like here, just so that you can fully source the article. It helps show what info is from what, and avoids the ambiguity currently present when you don't source a section, making the reader wonder if it's from the book, or someone forgot to source it.  501st  dogma ( talk ) 22:04, January 21, 2015 (UTC)
 * So would simply source it as The Rebellion Begins? And should that be at the end of the Plot summary section? ProfessorTofty (talk) 01:59, January 23, 2015 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean by the Rebellion Begins, but just source all facts that come directly from the book (i.e plot) to Escape from Darth Vader. 501st  dogma ( talk ) 02:58, January 23, 2015 (UTC)
 * Haha, I had The Rebellion Begins on the brain because I'd been addinga lot of Appearance information to it. Anyway, that's now done. The book itself is referenced at the end of the Plot summary section. ProfessorTofty (talk) 03:44, January 23, 2015 (UTC)
 * Timeline, ISBN, and series fields in the infobox can probably be sourced to itself as well. 501st  dogma ( talk ) 17:45, February 3, 2015 (UTC)
 * Timeline and series done. ISBN cannot be done, on this or any other page. Attempting to do so breaks the infobox. ProfessorTofty (talk) 00:09, February 4, 2015 (UTC)

Floyd

 * There are some things in the intro that require context: for instance, the Tantive IV, the Star Destroyer (which I would name) and the two droids.
 * Added material to give context. Alright now? ProfessorTofty (talk) 17:58, March 17, 2015 (UTC)
 * C-3PO and R2D2 must keep Darth Vader from discovering the Rebels' secret plans!" Is R2D2 written this way in the actual summary?
 * Yes. Would you prefer I put in a "[sic]" on that? ProfessorTofty (talk) 17:58, March 17, 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, probably.  IFYLOFD  ( Talk ) 04:46, March 18, 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, I put that in. ProfessorTofty (talk) 02:20, March 19, 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd also toss a mention of the author into the intro.  IFYLOFD  ( Talk ) 04:32, March 16, 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, that's been added. ProfessorTofty (talk) 17:58, March 17, 2015 (UTC)

Ayrehead

 * I've not reviewed many out of universe articles but should the Battle of Yavin timeframe be infobox exclusive? Ayrehead02 (talk) 11:42, April 4, 2015 (UTC)
 * You know, I'm not really sure. Perhaps precedent would be helpful in this case, but I don't know off-hand of any other good or featured articles for books like this. However, I did add a line at the end of the plot summary regarding the book's events being part of ones key to the future of the Alliance, and linked to the Galactic Civil War. How's that? ProfessorTofty (talk) 01:53, April 8, 2015 (UTC)
 * I still think a direct mention of the Battle of Yavin in the body somewhere might be better. Ayrehead02 (talk) 10:38, April 15, 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, I added a direct mention in there at the end. ProfessorTofty (talk) 02:02, April 19, 2015 (UTC)

Toprawa

 * All external link referencing requires the use of Cite web. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 20:45, July 21, 2015 (UTC)
 * All such links updated to use that, with the exception of one that was changed to an Amazon link. Also made a couple of other tweaks based on developments since this was last reviewed. ProfessorTofty (talk) 19:58, July 22, 2015 (UTC)
 * That's how you use Cite web. All possible fields should be filled in. The instructions are on the template page. Please read them. Additional issue: There's no reason why reference 9 should be a separate citation. Just incorporate it into reference 1. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 04:22, July 30, 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks, I'll definitely keep those guidelines in mind. Though I have no idea where you managed to find some of those names, like "Peter Morrison." Also, I changed the reference you mentioned to use reference 1. ProfessorTofty (talk) 21:33, August 4, 2015 (UTC)
 * The article tagline reads, "Posted on September 16, 2014 by Peter." A quick search of the site indicates that it is maintained by one Peter Morrison. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 01:36, August 5, 2015 (UTC)
 * The Bibliography is meant for officially licensed sources from Lucasfilm and its licensees. Links to Amazon and other bookseller sites belong in the External links section. We don't really have a set practice for this since very few OOU book articles have been taken to status, but there's really no reason to list all of these bookseller sites. I would suggest listing Amazon only, unless you're citing one of the other websites in the article someplace. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 04:22, July 30, 2015 (UTC)
 * Name of the section changed to External links and limited to Amazon and iTunes download, since that one I am citing within the article. Besides, might not be a bad idea to have that at least, since it's an entirely different format. ProfessorTofty (talk) 21:33, August 4, 2015 (UTC)
 * Basic Layout Guide rule: External links section goes after the Notes and references. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk)
 * Ah yes, the change in section type necessitates a change in placement. Moved. ProfessorTofty (talk) 02:17, August 5, 2015 (UTC)
 * Referencing: In any article you write, you should reference as much as you possibly can to primary sources. For example, if you're writing a film subject from Attack of the Clones, you should source as much information as possible to the film itself rather than secondary sources such as reference books. In the case of this article, you should source as much as you can to the book itself (the primary source) rather than secondary, unofficial sources like Amazon. In the infobox, you're sourcing the author, illustrator, publisher, media type, and number of pages to Amazon. Can none of these be sourced to the book itself? Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 02:40, August 5, 2015 (UTC)
 * Everything except for the release date sourced to the book itself, as the book gives the month and year, but not the exact date. ProfessorTofty (talk) 02:30, August 8, 2015 (UTC)
 * Going through the infobox, there is nothing on this Amazon page that says that Use the Force! follows Escape from Darth Vader. I understand that you're making a basic inference here that Level 1 is followed by Level 2 in this reader's series, but your referencing is basically bollocks. I don't even know how to tell you to fix this exactly. Maybe a manual reference note would be best.
 * Given your below take that this World of Reading isn't even a series, would it be alright if I simply removed it? I'm not sure I really have a good answer for you on this, otherwise. The books themselves don't list which books are part of the series, as such, and I can't find anything anywhere online that simply lists them and starts definitively that one follows from the other. ProfessorTofty (talk) 00:20, August 30, 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm requesting clarification on your comment here: What are you asking to remove exactly? I'm confused because you seem to have misunderstood what I'm saying. World of Reading is definitely a series; there are just no defined sub-series, such as World of Reading original trilogy. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 02:34, September 1, 2015 (UTC)
 * Toprawa, sorry for taking so long to reply. Perhaps I did misunderstand. In any case, I would like to get this resolved, so let's tackle it, and sorry for this being kind of lengthy. You're saying that "World of Reading" is a series, where as the sub-series aren't a defined series and therefore don't merit their own pages. I disagree in that while there is no formally defined series for the original trilogy or Rebels, I feel that if you just put them all under the banner "World of Reading," then you don't really have a series either, so much as a collection of books that happen to share certain characteristics, such as the fact that they're all illustrated and they all use simple language. For example, we have the DK Readers, such as What is a Wookiee?, which we've loosely defined as a "series" for the purpose of the infobox, but for those, we don't try to specify a "previous" book or "next" book because it's pointless. They aren't really intended to have a chronological order. So what I'm asking to simply remove is the statement that the book is "Followed by" Use the Force, assuming we redefine this as "World of Reading" and not "World of Reading original trilogy." Barring that, I'm not really sure how to satisfy your objection, as I can't really find anything specifically stated anywhere that states that "Use the Force" is the next book in the series. For that matter, if the intention would be to define the "following" book as the next book in the in-universe timeline, then that would actually be AT-AT Attack! ProfessorTofty (talk) 00:23, September 14, 2015 (UTC)
 * The last thing you say there is kind of what's making me iffy on listing Use the Force! That book is certainly the next in Siglain's series, but if you take the entire original trilogy set together, you're correct that AT-AT Attack is the next chronologically. Since AT-AT Attack is Level 1 and Use the Force! is Level 2, I think maybe the best solution would be to list both in that field on separate bullets and then just use each book's respective Amazon page as references. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 03:27, January 6, 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, I just went ahead and did this one too to show you what I'm looking for. Let me know if you have any issues with this. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 16:10, January 6, 2016 (UTC)
 * This isn't an objection exactly, since any resolution here will ultimately need to play out through the Trash compactor, but your "World of Reading original trilogy" article is a complete fabrication, as is "World of Reading Star Wars Rebels." The reading series here is World of Reading. There's no other name for it or defined sub-series as part of World of Reading. If we should have any article for this (which I'm not sure we should, necessarily), it should simply be covered under one centralized "World of Reading" article, and then we can categorize pages from there; example, Category:World of Reading Level 1. I will most likely bring these pages to the Trash compactor. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 19:41, August 17, 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I agree. I know the name is conjecture, but I still feel that there's a distinct series there and the page is useful to have. Still, if you feel it should go to the trash compactor, that's fine, though I wouldn't object to your idea of simply having a centralized "World of Reading" article. On a side-note, would you be willing to address the discussion below, in Asithol's objections, regarding the requirement or non-requirement of having either an External links or Bibliography section? ProfessorTofty (talk) 00:20, August 30, 2015 (UTC)
 * Site policy requires that you upload a screenshot of the Twitter post from reference 2, a la this. The image file must then be linked in the Twitter citation template.
 * Unsourced item in the infobox. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 19:30, January 5, 2016 (UTC)
 * Artist restored from Pilot Studio to Stéphane Roux per IRC discussion. Sourced from Amazon, Barnes and Noble also corroborates. ProfessorTofty (talk) 02:50, January 6, 2016 (UTC)
 * The Media type infobox field should list all the different versions of this book, which includes paperback, digital, and a hardcover version, as you will see from that link. Basically, long story short, it's a special type of school hardcover binding. Make sure you also detail the hardcover version in the article body. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 03:12, January 6, 2016 (UTC)
 * I just went ahead and did this myself, along with adding in the multiple publication dates for the varying editions. I replaced the iTunes reference with an Amazon reference to keep things simpler, since the eBook is the same everywhere. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 05:26, January 6, 2016 (UTC)

Asithol

 * Expanding on Toprawa's last point above, what purpose does the amazon.com link serve at all? As an informational site, Wookieepedia should not be giving even the appearance of endorsing any one particular online bookseller.  Any user, knowing the book's title and how to use a search box, can find the book on any bookseller's site he or she chooses.  Same is true of the iTunes link, unless iTunes is an exclusive source of the electronic edition, in which case pointing this out falls within the realm of providing information. Asithol (talk) 05:44, August 5, 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, site policy requires an external links or bibliography section of some sort, and in this case, since there is nothing that I know of that would go in the bibliography, then external links it is. And Amazon and iTunes are the choices since they're being cited in the article - Amazon for the release date of the regular print book, and iTunes for the release date of the electronic edition. I suppose if it's preferred, a more neutral source could be used to source the release date, such as Disney's website. It's just that Amazon, in the case of the print release date, anyway, is normally the first one to provide these details, so they're the one that gets posted. And thus I never really saw any need to change it. Same for the other details, before the book was released, which was why I hadn't changed the sourcing on those either. ProfessorTofty (talk) 02:30, August 8, 2015 (UTC)
 * Pardon my ignorance: where is this policy specified? I can't find it in the Bibliography or External links sections of WP:LG/OOU, which is where I'd expect to see it.  I'm curious at the rationale for requiring a section even if there's no relevant information to include in that section. I think it's fine to cite a commercial web site in a reference when that site provides relevant information.  But providing one in the External links section&mdash;especially when it's the only one present&mdash;sends the unintentional message that Wookieepedia endorses that business as a provider of the item in question. Asithol (talk) 19:26, August 8, 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, you know, I'm actually sort of going by Toprawa here. He's warned both me and Dentface before when creating new articles that simply having Notes and references indicating the existence of a title isn't enough; there has to be either a Bibliography or an External links section of some sort. Presumably, that doesn't stop applying once the article stops being new or the product is released. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding though, exactly what's being gotten at here. Seeing as Toprawa is also reviewing the article, perhaps he can weigh in here. I'm sure this can be cleared up easily enough. ProfessorTofty (talk) 21:31, August 9, 2015 (UTC)

Comments

 * I will say that it might be worth going through the book and adding every appearance, there's a lot of things on wookieepedia that might not occur to you. For example, if an imperial officer is pictured, you can link to Imperial officer's tunic, Imperial officer's uniform, Hat and Boot (since Durasteel-toed boots are not canon) to name a few. If the binary star was pictured only, you can always add the tag :) Manoof (talk) 20:03, February 18, 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not a bad idea. Might be worth one more look through to make sure that anything minor like that hasn't been overlooked. I'll check it out ASAP. Still can't do "binary star" though, unless that term is used somewhere in canon that I don't know about. That's the reason I didn't include it before, because as far as I know it doesn't qualify for a canon article. ProfessorTofty (talk) 22:49, February 18, 2015 (UTC)
 * I have another copy of the book waiting for me at the library and will check it out sometime this week and do a final once-over to make sure there isn't anything missed that could be in Appearances. ProfessorTofty (talk) 03:26, March 2, 2015 (UTC)
 * Added two more Appearances. ProfessorTofty (talk) 22:24, March 7, 2015 (UTC)