Wookieepedia:Good article nominations/The Clone Wars: Cold Snap


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

The Clone Wars: Cold Snap

 * Nominated by: Goes along with my previous Shiv and Mag noms. Also goes along with my personal OOU campaign.
 * Nomination comments: Kilson Likes PIE 12:28, 23 July 09 (UTC)

(3 ACs/3 Users/6 Total)
Support
 * 1)  Mauser  Comlink 15:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 2)  Jonjedigrandmaster  ( Jedi Beacon ) 20:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) &mdash;Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 03:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 4)  IFYLOFD  ( You will pay the price for your lack of vision! ) 03:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 5)  CC7567  (talk) 22:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Toprawa and Ralltiir 00:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Object
 * 1) Mauser:
 * 2) * Get at least one more image.
 * 3) **Added two more
 * 4) *I also made spelling and linking fixes along the way.
 * 5) *You made good use of Procedure formula, did you?  Mauser  Comlink 13:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) **Hey, if it's not broke, why fix it. :P Thanks for the copyedit and the review. Kilson Likes 'PIE 15:29, 23 July 09 (UTC)
 * 7) IFYLOFD:
 * 8) * "Shiv tells Flanker that things aren't going well for him right now, because while Shiv was on the night patrol with his commander, Mag, their CK-6 swoop bikes froze up, leaving the two stranded till dawn, when Glid Station could send out a gunship to pick them up." Split this up.
 * 9) *That's it. Well done.  IFYLOFD  ( You will pay the price for your lack of vision! ) 05:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) **Addressed, thanks for the review. Kilson Likes PIE 18:10, 24 July 09 (UTC)
 * 11) Attack of the Clone
 * 12) * "Shiv tells Flanker that things aren't going well for him right now while on patrol with his commander, Mag." The phrasing is a bit awkward here. I get that you're trying to say he's on patrol with Mag, but the chronology doesn't seem to be working. You might want to consider using the word "reveal" more to be clearer.
 * 13) *Please try to run your articles through some sort of spellcheck before nomming them next time.  CC7567  (talk) 05:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 14) "Behind the scenes" in an OOU article? That violates either the MoS/LG, if we have one for such articles, or else just FA precedent. Should be reworded to something more appropriate - "description," possibly. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 11:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 15) *Again, if I might interject, Ackbar. As I noted on the Value of Intelligence nom, Rule 15 states that all GAs must have a Bts as does the MoS. Nayayen [[Image:Old Republic military symbol.png|18px]] talk  21:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 16) **I agree with Nayayen, all the previous OOU GAs have had a Bts, so I'm going along with GA precedent. Thank you for the review. Kilson Likes PIE 20:06, 03 August 09 (UTC)
 * 17) ***With all due respect, Acky, and I'm not taking sides here, but there's no Layout Guide formula for OOU article sections, and thus no real ruling that says the BTS section can't be used. If you would like to change this, I certainly encourage you to start a CT if you'd like, but either way the nomination should not be held up on this objection. I'm willing to give you guys time to come to a resolution, but I can imagine the AC won't hesitate to take action here in the interest of speeding things along. Toprawa and Ralltiir 00:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 18) ****I would've hoped to have seen common sense favored over rigid rule-following, when the MoS and GAN rules are quite clearly not catered for such an article. But if you'd prefer to follow outdated/incomplete rules that shouldn't apply but have lower standard of articles, that's fine. Sure, there's no established rule saying BtSes can't be in OOU articles, but I've seen them objected to on FANs and none of our OOU FAs or GAs have BtS sections, bar the two most recent OOU GAs which are in the same hasty vein as this one (and were also written by the same author, one of which was passed with a comment objecting to the use of "BtS" - ergo, no actual precedent). The relevant section of the MoS - an MoS which, I will reiterate, is not up to date on this matter, and we have no formal LG rules - also states "This list is typically more flexible than main articles". Also, a proposal on establishing a MoS (which, incidentally, did not include a "behind the scenes" section title) was denied, on the basis that the MoS and LG for OOU articles should be worked out and refined as the articles are made into FAs and GAs, rather than just throwing one together - so why can't we do that now, here? If someone can give me a good - any - reason for calling it "Behind the scenes" I'd be much more willing to back down, but I've yet to see one. And it'd be nice if article quality took precedent over "speeding things along." -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 00:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 19) *****You do not have to get angry or anything, I'm just trying to do what you're doing, trying to make this article as well written as possible. In reality, I'm also trying to create an excepted comic and book layout guide right now, like what you want to do. Several other users are starting to do OOUs, and I want them to look consistent and similar. First of all, I believe it is better to use "Behind the scenes" rather than "Description" or anything else because info that would be defined as Behind the scenes info goes in this seciton, such as the canocity subsection in Value and the other Tales GAs, and when and who published the OOU. Not to sound simplistic, but wouldn't the entire article be the "Description" section? As for the previous GAs that have the Bts section called "Development" (one of which I passed with this mistake) I'll change them to Bts becuase not all the info in there goes along with the development of the comic. Once again, thank you for the review. Kislon Likes PIE 02:45, 05 August 09 (UTC)
 * 20) *I've stricken my objection because I'm going away tomorrow and I'm not sure when I'll be able to contribute again, though I don't see the problem with using this page as a forum for establishing precedent and improving standards, when holding up the nom really isn't a problem at all. In a few days if I get the chance I'll start a CT either proposing a proper LG for such articles or else proposing we get rid of the current, poor MoS on them. One of the reasons I don't like the use of "Behind the scenes" is that everything tends to get lumped in together and doesn't get as much coverage as it might otherwise; I think it's great that you and others have started working on OOU articles cause the site needs that (and I'm sorry for getting snarky with you when you're just improving the site), but I think having everything put together means the level of detail and coverage is slightly lacking and could be more thorough. Anyway, yeah, we'll sort this out somewhere else. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 23:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 21) **I understand where you're coming from (although I don't agree with your views on the Bts) and I appreciate what you're doing. If I or someone else does start an OOU project, there will need to be an accepted Layout Guide. Kilson Likes PIE 06:45, 07 August 09 (UTC)
 * 22) The Jedi Council missed something...
 * 23) * Sorry for the post-vote objection, but I've just discovered that we can now link to individual pages of the webcomic, so please reference accordingly.
 * 24) *&mdash;Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 03:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 25) **It's cool dude, I didin't know that, thanks for telling me, it is addressed now. Kislon Likes PIE 18:54, 05 August 09 (UTC)
 * 26) ***As I explained to JangFett, not everything can be sourced to one page. The writer, penciller, etc. need to be sourced to the "inside cover" of the issue, while the issue number, "preceded by", and "followed by" fields in the infobox need to be sourced to the table of contents. Also check the BTS to make sure statements there are sourced to the correct page. &mdash;Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 04:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 27) ****Oh, I see what Jang did now, I changed it now. Thanks, I should pay attention more. :P 06:45, 07 August 09 (UTC)

Comments