Wookieepedia:Good article nominations/Okins


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

Okins

 * Nominated by: Toprawa and Ralltiir 05:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Nomination comments: Another temporary Executor commander. 987 unhappy words.

(4 ACs/1 Users/5 Total)
Support
 * 1) Master JonathanJedi Council Chambers 06:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Well done, Tope. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research.svg (Comlink) 11:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 3)  CC7567  (talk) 20:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Excellent, and quite interesting too.  Chack Jadson  (Talk)  12:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 5)  Cavalier One FarStar Logo.jpg( Squadron channel ) 12:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Object
 * 1) From the Council Chambers:
 * 2) * "Okins successfully led the Executor in a tremendous rout of the Rebel shipyard, destroying hundreds of vessels in a grand victory.": "tremendous" and "grand" both sound slightly POV.
 * 3) **I understand your concerns, and I've changed "grand" to "great," which, like "tremendous," is meant to convey size. Taken as is, these should not fall under POV. Toprawa and Ralltiir 06:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) ***OK, understood. Master JonathanJedi Council Chambers 06:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) * "The Emperor tasked Vader with the responsibility of personally overseeing the shipyard's destruction, against the Dark Lord's own preference.": a bit confusing, since technically both are Dark Lords of the Sith.
 * 6) **Changed. Toprawa and Ralltiir 06:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) * "not caring to waste the Executor ' s firepower on such insignificant targets." This may be Okin's opinion, which is OK, but as written, it sounds POV.
 * 8) **I think this kind of nitpicking, with all due respect. The sentence is indeed meant to be read from Okins' own perspective, which you seem to have successfully picked up on. The only way to change this would be to state "on what he considered to be insignificant targets," and I really don't think that's necessary here. This isn't gratuitous POV violation. Toprawa and Ralltiir 06:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) ***OK, understood. Master JonathanJedi Council Chambers 06:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) *Master JonathanJedi Council Chambers 05:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) **Thank for your review. Toprawa and Ralltiir 06:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 12) Can you try to reword the "you" to a different perspective? It's a bit unspecific, and in any case, I don't think addressing the reader is the best encyclopedic tone.  CC7567  (talk) 19:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments