Wookieepedia:Good article nominations/Voss (species)


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

Voss (species)

 * Nominated by: &mdash;fodigg  BlackRebelStarbird.png (talk) | 18:53, May 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Nomination comments: There is currently no information on Voss appearance, so there is no 'Biology and appearance' section at this time. This article is one I plan to continuously maintain as new information is released regarding Star Wars: The Old Republic. Looking forward to addressing your objections!

(3 ACs/7 Users/10 Total)
Support
 * 1) Darth Trayus ( Trayus Academy ) 23:25, May 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) SoresuMakashi ( Everything I tell you is a lie  the truth  ) 08:03, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Nice. --Eyrezer 09:01, May 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * 4)  Chack Jadson  (Talk)  19:03, May 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Jedi Kasra (comlink) 17:42, May 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Imperialles 22:03, May 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) I feel sorry for any long-term bachelors in this society. ~ SavageBob 22:19, May 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) I've removed some redundant footnotes, hope you don't mind.--Skippy Farlstendoiro 14:25, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * 9) Moar TOR! -- 1358  (Talk) 18:06, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * 10) Toprawa and Ralltiir 21:11, May 17, 2010 (UTC)

Object
 * 1) Soresu
 * 2) * Not sure here, but I don't think category links should be used in abscence of actual articles. At least, I haven't seen any other FAs/GAs that do.
 * 3) **I have removed them. &mdash;fodigg  BlackRebelStarbird.png (talk) | 22:29, May 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) * Not sure if there is a need for Voss in the Galaxy. According to WP:LG, the section tends to be used for discussion of notable individuals, and we know of none. Everything you have in their has already been stated, once, if not more, times elsewhere in the article.
 * 5) **Removed. Just trying to stay as true as possible to the guideline. &mdash;fodigg  BlackRebelStarbird.png (talk) | 22:29, May 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) ***The LG is simply, as you said, a guideline. It even says specifically that X in the galaxy can be removed if there is not sufficient info. Don't be afraid to just take it out if it feels unneeded. SoresuMakashi ( Everything I tell you is a lie  the truth  ) 08:03, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) * In history, there are a few details missing. First, you need to mention that its discovery was accidental. Second, your version of events regarding the Republic and Sith interests in Voss differ slightly. In the intro, you say that the Sith attempted to conquer Voss and the Republic "intervened", while in the history, you say they both plotted, and the Voss intervened. It could use a bit of clarification.
 * 8) **Well, the Republic's "intervention" was still an occupation that the Voss viewed as a plot against them. Source text: When the Sith Empire schemed to conquer Voss, the Republic sought to defend the planet--but the Mystics foresaw both plots and in the end a fleet disappeared, an Empire was humbled and two mighty powers came to Voss peacefully to win favor. I have expanded the history section and clarified the intro to stay closer to the source text in meaning. &mdash;fodigg  BlackRebelStarbird.png (talk) | 22:29, May 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * 9) * Also, do we know what form this "intervention" took (military, economic etc.)?
 * 10) **Considering the context of the source text, I think it's fairly obvious that the "missing fleet" was a Republic fleet, but it's unconfirmed. I think it's clear that it was military, because it's failure led to "coming to Voss peacefully", by establishing the embassies. In the revised text it's general "occupation forces" for both sides. &mdash;fodigg  BlackRebelStarbird.png (talk) | 22:29, May 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * 11) * In the intro, it sounds like the Republic intervened to help the Voss or simply to defeat the Sith. Clarify their true motive please.
 * 12) **"Occupation force" as per above. &mdash;fodigg  BlackRebelStarbird.png (talk) | 22:29, May 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * 13) *Nice work. Your writing continues to improve. SoresuMakashi ( Everything I tell you is a lie  the truth  ) 02:05, May 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * 14) **Thanks. Definitely a different style than what I'm used to writing. And thanks for the review! &mdash;fodigg  BlackRebelStarbird.png (talk) | 22:29, May 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * 15) I think you should create an article for the war between the Voss and Gomak.  Chack Jadson  (Talk)  00:48, May 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * 16) *I have created Eternal War of Voss and linked to it from both the Gormak and Voss (species) articles. I will also link to it from other related articles. &mdash;fodigg  BlackRebelStarbird.png (talk) | 02:34, May 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * 17) Needs to be updated with the latest developer blog. Gormak, too. --Imperialles 16:28, May 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * 18) *Nice! I haven't been able to digest all the new news yet and didn't see this one. I'll post again when the articles are updated with new bits. Thanks for the link. &mdash;fodigg  BlackRebelStarbird.png (talk) | 16:33, May 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * 19) *Oh my god, they confirmed Voss Mystics as "gray"! Luckily, I'm also managing the FAN for Gray Jedi. This is a big article for me. &mdash;fodigg  BlackRebelStarbird.png (talk) | 17:01, May 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * 20) **Okay, this article is updated. I will post on the Gormak GAN entry when that article is updated, then on the Gray Jedi FAN entry when that article updated, and then I'll move onto some of the other like the Voss Mystics article. Please let me know if I missed any important information on the Voss species article. Thanks! &mdash;fodigg  BlackRebelStarbird.png (talk) | 17:49, May 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * 21) Proper review:
 * 22) * Intro: Sentient is generally a preferable word to sapient. I think there was a consensus decision on the issue many years back.
 * 23) **Changed. I'll have to go and check some of my other edits for that. &mdash;fodigg  BlackRebelStarbird.png (talk) |
 * 24) * Biology and appearance: I believe the "poison frog" comment is OOU; that whole section of the blog is devoted to notes on the design of the Voss, it's not an in-universe description.
 * 25) **Doh! Removed. &mdash;fodigg  BlackRebelStarbird.png (talk) |
 * 26) ***I'm guessing the mention of camouflage is based on this sentence from the blog "These people don’t blend or quite belong on their world"&mdash;which is part of the same OOU notes as the poison frog stuff. --Imperialles 20:37, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * 27) ****Ach! Sorry, forgot that was there. Struck! &mdash;fodigg  BlackRebelStarbird.png (talk) |
 * 28) * Society and culture: You link to Gray Jedi, but it's clear that these are not Jedi. Perhaps a new article on Gray Force traditions in general would be better.
 * 29) **Here I disagree. The definition we have for Gray Jedi says that it was a general term that could apply to non-Jedi. In this sense, it is similar to Dark Jedi before sources started favoring Dark Side Adept. I'm adding them to the Gray Jedi article right now actually. &mdash;fodigg  BlackRebelStarbird.png (talk) |
 * 30) * Society and culture: "veritable utopia" is POV.
 * 31) **Source text: These Voss Mystics – rumored to be enigmatic healers as well as seers – struggle to protect their utopian society from annihilation. Is that not sufficient? &mdash;fodigg  BlackRebelStarbird.png (talk) |
 * 32) ***There's plenty of sources saying Palpatine was evil, that still doesn't make it not POV. One man's utopia is another man's dystopia, etc. --Imperialles 20:37, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * 33) ****Roger that. I was going to strike it outright (as I did the word "utopia" in the intro) but instead tried something clever by combining it with the next sentence, altering its meaning. The new sentence is: Between the strong defenses and artistry of their home, as well as the guidance of their Mystics, members of Voss society were generally pleased with the rule of the Voss Mystics, despite the totalitarian nature of their government. This is sourced to the Creating Worlds article, and hopefully is sufficient. &mdash;fodigg  BlackRebelStarbird.png (talk) |
 * 34) * Society and culture: "and both governments established embassies in Voss-Ka in order to curry favor with the natives" Maybe reword this to "maintained diplomatic relations with" to make it seem less repetitive (seeing as the information is mentioned in three different sections)
 * 35) **Good call, text altered. Now only says "curry favor" in the intro. &mdash;fodigg  BlackRebelStarbird.png (talk) |
 * 36) * BTS: Lots of stuff to add here from the developer blog. Mention what the designers had in mind when creating the species.
 * 37) **I wasn't sure how much was appropriate to add. I have expanded it with the big items I can think of. &mdash;fodigg  BlackRebelStarbird.png (talk) |
 * 38) *--Imperialles 18:04, May 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * 39) **Thanks for the review! &mdash;fodigg  BlackRebelStarbird.png (talk) | 20:42, May 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * 40) **Hopefully those last two are now properly addressed. &mdash;fodigg  BlackRebelStarbird.png (talk) | 22:00, May 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * 41) Prepare to be savaged...
 * 42) * Terms like Voss Mystics and Voss Commandos, if they are the names of organizations, should be capitalized only if the full title of the organization is used. Otherwise, they are common names and should be lowercase. At least normally; does the original source use the terms commando and mystic with a capitalized first letter without the Voss in front of it? Either way, please be consistent, since both forms currently appear.
 * 43) **Actually "Commandos" was used once in the source (hence why that page is "Voss Commandos" and not "Voss commandos"), however, to be consistent I have changed the text so that the words "mystic" and "commando" are only captialized when preceded by "Voss". &mdash;fodigg  BlackRebelStarbird.png (talk) |
 * 44) * "the planet Voss was accidentally discovered..." A couple of things: Discovered by whom? And how could it be discovered when the Voss and the Gormak were already there and had presumably already discovered it? Perhaps "reached by outsiders" would be better.
 * 45) **I'll add that off-worlders discovered it by chance, but that text was put there to satisfy a previous objection, so I'm reticent to remove it entirely. New text: the planet Voss discovered by off-worlders by chance, becoming known to both the Sith Empire and the Galactic Republic. We do not know who exactly discovered Voss or what the circumstances were that made it "accidental", but hopefully the aboved revised sentence highlights the core information: off-worlders discovered Voss when they weren't necessarily looking for it, and the result was this knowledge came to both the Empire and the Republic. Hopefully that is sufficient. &mdash;fodigg  BlackRebelStarbird.png (talk) |
 * 46) * Do we know that the colors of skin we're seeing are, in fact, skin and not body paint or tattoos?
 * 47) **The source text describes them as "skin patterns", and never mentions paint or tattoos. From the design context, especially the comparison to poison dart frogs, it is apparent that these patterns are a natural part of their appearance. &mdash;fodigg  BlackRebelStarbird.png (talk) |
 * 48) * "did not physically develop sexually until after marriage rituals were performed." I'm not sure what this means. Does this mean they did not enter puberty until these rites were performed?
 * 49) **Not a clue. Source text: Then there are documents that are explorations of Voss art (monochromatic and symbolic), marriage practices (don’t physically sexually develop until their marriage rituals are performed), funereal rites (usually a Voss speaks as little as possible but they are extremely publicly emotional and wail at funerals and other times of hardship) and all of the other details It seems like an interesting quirk of their biology, but with this being the only information we have... I dunno. I assume puberty but don't want to add speculation to the article. I've changed the text to Voss underwent a physical, developmental change during their marriage rituals, and did not develop sexually prior to the performance of these ceremonies. for now, but if you have any suggestions on this I am open to them. &mdash;fodigg  BlackRebelStarbird.png (talk) |
 * 50) * Please provide context on why they were considered "gray" (i.e., please explain that the Jedi are considered light and the Sith dark).
 * 51) **Changed the text to: The Voss Mystics were considered to be gray by the Jedi and the Sith for their non-standard perspecitve on the nature of the Force, as they belonged to neither Order nor fully embraced either the light or dark sides of the Force. which is essentially a brief summary of the definition of "Gray Jedi" or "Gray" in the context of the Force. &mdash;fodigg  BlackRebelStarbird.png (talk) |
 * 52) * The Treaty of Coruscant is mentioned a few times, but it's never explained. Can you give some context after the first mention?
 * 53) **Howzabout: Following the Treaty of Coruscant in 3,653 BBY that ended the Great Galactic War and started the Cold War, ? &mdash;fodigg  BlackRebelStarbird.png (talk) |
 * 54) *That's it! Nice work! ~ SavageBob 05:36, May 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * 55) **Thanks for the review! &mdash;fodigg  BlackRebelStarbird.png (talk) | 22:00, May 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * 56) ***All looks good to me. Nice work. ~ SavageBob 22:19, May 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * 57) Two things
 * 58) * Can you use the holonet template in the references as well?
 * 59) **I swear I remember trying and having it not work, which was why I was just following the phrasing of the template, but now it seems to be working? Made the changes. (will now go and update other articles to do this as well) &mdash;fodigg  BlackRebelStarbird.png (talk) |
 * 60) * Any reason why blue is capitalized in the infobox?
 * 61) **Not really. Changed to lower-case. &mdash;fodigg  BlackRebelStarbird.png (talk) |
 * 62) *-- 1358  (Talk) 17:23, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * 63) **Thanks for the review! &mdash;fodigg  BlackRebelStarbird.png (talk) | 18:04, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * 64) Toprawa:
 * 65) * All of the swtor.com external link news articles listed in this article's referencing can be properly included as Source list items. Please refer to Trayus's Good article, Duel on Coruscant (Inter–Sith Wars Period), as a perfect example of how to format it for consistency with our other TOR articles. Toprawa and Ralltiir 20:03, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * 66) **I believe it is done, though I ask you to look at the titles I gave to the screenshots/concept arts. As they were all titled "Voss", I simply added the number found in the URL. Is this keeping with the official format? (note: I will update other articles with this format once I'm sure of it) &mdash;fodigg  BlackRebelStarbird.png (talk) | 20:27, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * 67) ***Yes, what you have looks fine. But what I meant for the objection was, for any of these news articles that actually include or mention the Voss, you can literally list these in the Sources list in addition to the referencing. Toprawa and Ralltiir 20:33, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * 68) ****Oh I see, done. And I intentionally listed both "Secret Mists of Voss" and "Voss in The Holonet" as 1st mentions, as they were posted simultaneously. &mdash;fodigg  BlackRebelStarbird.png (talk) | 20:49, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * 69) *****Any reason the Screenshot items aren't also included? Toprawa and Ralltiir 20:56, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * 70) ******As a side note, most of these refs will be redundant once the game is released, and will need to be updated. --Imperialles 20:59, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * 71) *******Though I imagine their listing as sources will remain? Sources added by the way. &mdash;fodigg  BlackRebelStarbird.png (talk) | 21:09, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * 72) ********Yes, the sources may remain. Toprawa and Ralltiir 21:11, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * 73) *********Eh. Listing every article on a website like this is not the norm. Might be worth making a general article on the website itself, and linking to that. Regardless, I think stuff like screenshots can safely go when we've confirmed the information is actually present in the game. --Imperialles 21:16, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * 74) *Something like The Holonet template? I don't know how to set up templates, but that'd be cool. &mdash;fodigg  BlackRebelStarbird.png (talk) | 21:19, May 17, 2010 (UTC)

Comments