Wookieepedia:Good article nominations/Contispex


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

Contispex

 * Nominated by: -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 23:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Nomination comments: Come perdition or hard vacuum, AdmirableAckbar expects that every AgriCorps member will do his duty.

(3 ACs/2 Users/5 Total)
Support
 * 1) Rudimentum probo.  Graestan ( Talk ) 23:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 2)  Chack Jadson  (Talk)  20:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Grand Moff Tranner [[Image:Imperial Department of Military Research.svg|20px]] (Comlink) 20:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 4)  Grunny  (Talk) 02:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Good article.  Pranay Sobusk  ~  Talk  21:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Object
 * 1) Hey:
 * 2) * "was not widely known, with later historians unaware" Unaware that the poisoners were involved at all? Either way, I'd suggest changing it to something like "with later historians unaware of their involvement" or "with later historians unaware of the extent of their involvement", whichever fits better.
 * 3) **Should be good.
 * 4) * Also, and keep in mind that this is merely a suggestion, as I was unable to gain a unanimous consensus on IRC, I think it'd be better if you changed "jihad" to something else. Nothing about race, or the connotations attached with it nowadays, I just think it sounds weird here.  Chack Jadson  (Talk) 00:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) **If I can just dip my fly in this ointment for a sec, "jihad" is the actual word used in the source. Thefourdotelipsis 07:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) **Having read the IRC logs, I see you're where you're coming from, Chack (and the others who agreed with your position), but I disagree. Like 4dot pointed out, jihad's used in the source and if it wasn't I probably wouldn't have used it, and as jSarek and Graestan said in IRC it's an acceptably used term in the English language. I don't really see the problem, as these crusades were jihads, even if they weren't Muslim ones. If and when someone gets offended or worked up about it or whatever, we can deal with it, but I don't see any compelling reason not to include it. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 20:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) ***All right, that's reasonable.  Chack Jadson  (Talk) 20:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments