Wookieepedia:Good article nominations/Worrite


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

Worrite

 * Nominated by: --~ SavageBob 04:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Nomination comments: And W is for Worrite...

(4 ACs/1 Users/5 Total)
Support
 * 1) W is for vote. --Skippy Farlstendoiro 11:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) --Eyrezer 04:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Big boat comin' my way...  Chack Jadson  (Talk)  14:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Toprawa and Ralltiir 04:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research.svg (Comlink) 01:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Object
 * 1) Objections.
 * 2) * “Dominated”, where it is now, doesn’t make much sense/isn’t the best word choice, and should be changed.
 * 3) **I changed this. Are you OK with the new version? ~ SavageBob 00:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) * Second paragraph of intro; why’s it notable that he left his homeworld? Was it just that they didn’t travel much, or what?
 * 5) * “Frightening” is POV; who saw him as “frightening”?
 * 6) **The original source says, "He has made a living as a freelance thug-for-hire, a profession where his frightening appearance is a considerable asset." I'm not sure how else to express it. Ideas? ~ SavageBob 13:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) ***If that's in the source then it's fine. -- Darth tom Imperial Emblem.svg (Imperial Intelligence)  12:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) * In “Appearance and biology”, roughly equal proportion, as not a definite fact, is unneeded.
 * 9) **Why not? "Roughly equal" provides information that removing the line would not, and more information is better than no information in my opinion. ~ SavageBob 13:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) *** It's not majorly encyclopedic and isn't a definite fact, making it unneeded. -- Darth tom Imperial Emblem.svg (Imperial Intelligence)  12:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) ****Sorry, I disagree. It's more information than it would be to take it out, so I'd like to keep it. I mean, if they were "roughly" 2/3 insect and 1/3 crustacean, that would be different than being roughly equal parts one and the other, right? ~ SavageBob 00:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 12) * “Bumpy”, in same section, is way too colloquial.
 * 13) * “In one member of the species, the carapace was colored dark red” – Was this something that was just a normal color, was this unusual or what? Elaborate, please.
 * 14) **Well, we only know of one member of the species, and he had a "blood red" carapace. However, I'm uncomfortable generalizing that all Worrites are blood red from one specimen. It's no more appropriate than concluding that all Humans are brown-skinned based on Lando Calrissian's appearance. Thus the extra wording. ~ SavageBob 13:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 15) * “They had four arms. Two of these, held close to the body, were small and capable of fine manipulation.” – Could you reword? It doesn’t flow well in the current way.
 * 16) * “Closed, these claws were deadly bludgeoning weapons, but when used as pincers, they could easily sever the limbs of most humanoid species.” – Just a bit of a run on.
 * 17) * “Quite tall” is too colloquial.
 * 18) * Please go through the article and see if you can add any more links; stuff like the sexes needs to be linked to.
 * 19) * “At some point before 3 ABY,[ a Worrite named Mazumoda, made it off his homeworld and to the galactic capital, Coruscant.” Kill some of the extra commas. The one after “Mazumoda”, for instance, is unneeded.
 * 20) * “He found a niche” is, once again, colloquial.
 * 21) **I disagree; no dictionary I've consulted lists niche as colloquial. ~ SavageBob 13:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 22) *** That's because the dictionary would be seeing it more as a hole or opening, not in the sense you're using it. -- Darth tom Imperial Emblem.svg (Imperial Intelligence)  12:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 23) ****I checked again, and it's a perfectly fine use of the word. Check out Merriam-Webster (definition 2a) or American Heritage (definition 2). ~ SavageBob 00:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 24) * “Bookie” is too colloquial.
 * 25) * In the BtS: “The book provides no statistics for the Worrites in general, however, so the species is not available for players to use for their own characters.” – Cut the “however”, or put it at the beginning of the sentence.
 * 26) *Not bad, otherwise. -- Darth tom Imperial Emblem.svg (Imperial Intelligence)  07:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 27) **Thanks for the detailed notes! I've tried to address everything you mentioned except for things I've commented on individually above. Let me know what you think! ~ SavageBob 13:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 28) Responded to the points above, and another passing one...
 * 29) * Reference two; no need for all the words, give a single source. If someone asks, as long as you can justify, it's fine. -- Darth tom Imperial Emblem.svg (Imperial Intelligence)  12:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 30) **I disagree; I've used some disparate information in the source to make the time designation, and I think it's important to point out how I came to that conclusion. ~ SavageBob 00:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 31) ***I agree with Bob here. This is a perfectly acceptable use of a reference note. Toprawa and Ralltiir 21:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 32) There seems to be quite a deviation from the Layout Guide for sentient species articles. Please adhere to the current policy, which states that the "[species] in the galaxy" section maybe merged into the above sections, but does not mention further merging.  Graestan ( Talk ) 23:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 33) *I think there should be room for judgement, but I've asked the opinion of the other Aliens project members about this. ~ SavageBob 00:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, as much as I hate one-paragraph sections, I've changed this to adhere to the Layout Guide. I'll try to formulate a Consensus Track sometime soon about this kind of thing, but for now, we should adhere to the Layout Guide. What do you think? ~ SavageBob 23:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Toprawa:
 * 2) * The use of the "unknown" phrasing here is borderline violation of the Manual of Style. Assuming this is literally taken from a source, that the planet was literally unknown to the rest of the galaxy, please find a more fitting way of wording this. You do a nice job of what I'm looking for in the "History" section: "from an unknown planet"
 * 3) * The end of the "History" section needs to be sourced. Toprawa and Ralltiir 21:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) **OK, I've addressed both of these. Thanks for the input! ~ SavageBob 02:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) * The end of the "History" section needs to be sourced. Toprawa and Ralltiir 21:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) **OK, I've addressed both of these. Thanks for the input! ~ SavageBob 02:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Vote to strike Darth tom's objections (AC only)

 * 1) These objections have been addressed and the objector is going to be away until the 31st, and there's no point holding up the nom.  Grunny  ( Talk ) 00:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 2)  CC7567  (talk) 00:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Grunny made me. :P  Chack Jadson  (Talk)  00:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)