Wookieepedia:Featured article nominations/Great Jedi Purge


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

Great Jedi Purge
Support
 * 1) Darthchristian   ( Hey! ) 11:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) No arguement here. .  .  .  .  23:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 06:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 07:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Lord Hydronium 03:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) It could be a lot better with all those sources, but I think it's enough now to get FA'd  Stake black   msg 15:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Chack Jadson 19:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Caddaric 02:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Very thorough and well-sourced. Adamwankenobi 00:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose
 * Doesn't cite sources. &mdash; http://images.wikia.com/starwars/images/e/e5/ATATatarismall.png 15:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Fixed.-- Darthchristian  ( Hey! ) 15:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Intro is incredibly short and not good enough for the FA box (Rule 7). Cull Tremayne 00:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, fixed. -- Darthchristian  ( Hey! ) 10:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Unsourced images. Green Tentacle (Talk) 09:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't find the source for the Jedi in disguise picture. Anyone mind helping? -- Darthchristian  ( Hey! ) 18:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's definatly a cropped image. There are these odd bluish boxes around the outside...Magazine cover?Amthyst fire 15:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The art style and color of the bluish boxes suggest to me it's one of the later WotC RPG books, possibly the Power of the Jedi Sourcebook or the Hero's Guide. jSarek 23:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's from POTJ - I have the book in front of me. That being said, I have a few objections. Mainly, the "MIA" section. It's a load of poodoo, and should be removed. 1) It's basically a big list saying, "We don't know anything about these people". Duh. Logically we just need a list of survivors and victims - anyone else is of "unknown" status. Secondly, K'Kruhk, Jeisel and A'Sharad are survivors, not MIA. Full stop. They are explictly stated as surviving the Purge in the NEC, a book which, in universe, is written 32 ABY, decades after the Purge. If it says they survived, they survived. End of discussion. QuentinGeorge 03:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Man, you need to calm down. First off, I put K'Kruhk, Jeisel and A'Sharad in the survival section. Second, we don't know anything about those people. That is why the MIA section is there. People have debated about the MIA, survivors, and victims sections on the talk page, and they've been made to the best of the article's ability. If you truly think it needs to be fixed up more, then request for it to be done on the article's talk page. That's what the talk page is there for. By the way, thanks for the source on the image. Last, Green Tentacle, you can strike your objection because we now have the source for the Jedi in disguise picture. -- Darthchristian  ( Hey! ) 4:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Second, we don't know anything about those people. - then why bother putting them there? An article is supposed to be about known, canon information. I'm sorry, but a section that basically says, "We don't know" is pointless for an article of this type. If you don't know about an individual, then don't add them to the page. There's no need for a "status unknown" list. A reader can infer that any Jedi not listed on the victim or survivor list is of an unknown fate. I won't strike this objection until that superfluous list is removed. QuentinGeorge 06:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but you can't just delete an entire section in an article. There's a point to that section, and it was made for a reason. People need that list to inform them who's survival is unknown. People can infer for a couple of Jedi, but not the entire group of unknown Jedi. There are just too many. I really don't care if you don't strike that objection. If the Survival Unknown section is really that bad, then either: 1) Ask for the section to be deleted on the talk page, 2) Do it yourself, or 3)Ask the Inquisitorious or the Administrators to do something about it. That section needs to be there. -- Darthchristian  ( Hey! ) 16:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Since I've been given implicit permission to do so, I have removed said redundant section. Now I'd like to see that bulleted BTS turned into neat and clean paragraphs. QuentinGeorge 08:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ughhh...fixed. -- Darthchristian  ( Hey! ) 12:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments

'''Approved by Inquisitorius - Inq:Great Jedi Purge 00:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see some more images, and please, better ones.  Stake black   msg 19:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Added one under Siege of Naboo. It's of pretty good quality, but other than that, the article has enough. -- Darthchristian  ( Hey! ) 20:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Why is the Conclave on Kessel image not in the Conclave on Kessel section?  Gonk  ( Gonk! ) 12:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't really know why, but when you edit it, there's a request not to change where the Conclave on Kessel image is. -- Darthchristian  ( Hey! ) 16:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, is the Kaminoan Resistance paragraph necessary? There were no Jedi involved in that IIRC.  Gonk  ( Gonk! ) 12:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is, so I deleted it. -- Darthchristian  ( Hey! ) 16:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)