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

TynnanEdit

• Nomination by: --Eyrezer 03:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
• Nomination comments: It's been a while...

(5 Inqs/1 users/6 total)Edit

Support

1. SavageBob 01:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
2. Knowing that the Biology objection will be fixed. Cull Tremayne 07:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
   • It's been addressed, I think. I'm new here, so please let me know if I haven't properly crossed it out below! --SavageBob 05:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
3. If only because it gives us a chance to link tooth on the front page again. -- Darth Culator ^(Talk) 04:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
4. Green Tentacle ^(Talk) 17:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
5. Toprawa and Ralltiir 19:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
6. Lord Hydronium 07:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. This is good, but I think there are a few places where we can polish it up a bit more.
   • "They were discovered by Republic scouts . . ." Do we know when?
     • Sadly not.
   • "Terraforming" throughout: I thought that the correct in-universe term for this was "Vongformed" when the YV are the ones doing it. Not so?
     • Vongformed redirects to terraforming on the Wook. Agents of Chaos itslef mentions neither word specifically so it is really just a matter or style. I don't mind either way.
       • Well, since terraform means "to make like the Earth", it seems odd to use it for something so, er, alien. Our terraforming article does have this line: "The Yuuzhan Vong phrase was known as worldshaping, but others referred to it as Vongforming or Vongformation." SavageBob 08:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
   • "This insulation gave them a plump form that many species viewed as cute and pudgy." Doesn't pudgy mean plump?
     • I removed the "and pudgy."
       • "Pudgy" and "plump" do not mean the exact same thing; each carries connotations the other does not necessarily possess. Graestan^(Talk) 02:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
         • Pudgy includes the notion of shortness along with fatness, so it's probably the better of the two to use. However, I stand by my suggestion that using both is redundant. SavageBob 01:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
   • I think the "Biology and appearance" section should be beefed up a bit to mention other notable parts of the Tynnan physiology. The current writeup makes no mention of their brown fur; large, pointed ears; claws; back noses, short snouts; whiskers; tails; number of digits; or bipedalism. As all of these things are evident from the illustrations we have available, they should be mentioned.
   • Nowhere is it mentioned that they are adept swimmers. Perhaps this should be added to the first section as well.
     • I'll get on to this and the previous one and let you know when I'm done.
   • The image captions are a bit sparse. Might be a good idea to rewrite them with the goal of being illustrative. Why was this particular image placed in this particular spot? For example, the image currently captioned "A Tynnan" might be changed to "Tynnans wore belts with many pouches but otherwise had no need of clothing," since that's what the text at that spot is talking about.
     • Lol - this objection doesn't surprise me, considering my reverse objection to your nom :p Although on second look, is this Tynnan actually wearing a shirt? It is hard because of the colouration.
       • He he, yes. On closer inspection, I don't think that Tynnan is wearing a shirt; you can see little wisps of fur all down the sides of his/her belly and chest. While the captions on Lutrillian were probably too long before you commented, I do believe that captions should be descriptive, thus showing that a particular image was added for a reason, not just for decoration. This is especially important since all of our images are used under fair use provisions. Our claims to needing the images are bolstered if we can show why the images are necessary for the article to be better understood rather than being there just to look pretty. :) SavageBob 08:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
   • Again, nice work! A little more spit and shine, and I think this is ready for FA. --SavageBob 05:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
     • Commented on Eyrezer's comments. None of these things are make-it-or-break it for me, but I did want to voice my concerns. :) SavageBob 08:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
2. Toprawa:
   • Who is 'they'? The Republic or the Tynnans? "They were careful to ensure that economic and corporate development proceeded apace with environmental safeguards."
   • I'm not sure what's going on with the beginning of this. Can you clarify? "They were careful to ensure that economic and corporate development proceeded apace with environmental safeguards."
     • I think both of these are now addressed. --Eyrezer 18:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
   • Context for SELCORE, please: "This gave SELCORE new impetus to establish safe corridors and transit points." Toprawa and Ralltiir 23:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
     • I think Culator addressed this.
3. From the Chron-O-John of Green Tentacle:
   • Tynna isn't linked in the body and could be mentioned a little earlier. Early mentions of their homeworld don't name it.
   • "These incisors were an evolutionary holdover from ancestors who gnawed wood to build river dams; the species had long ceased this behavior, so each succeeding generation grew shorter teeth." Long ceased by when? Green Tentacle ^(Talk) 21:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Approved by Inquisitorius 07:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• The redlinks will be busted shortly, and a lead quote is being found. --Eyrezer 03:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
• I'm not opposing, so I'd like my remaining comments above to be taken as suggestions rather than opposition. The article's a good read on a fun species. Nice work, Eyrezer. SavageBob 01:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

1. • (Following comment moved from "Oppose" section above, as it is merely a suggestion. SavageBob 07:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)) I think the descriptions of individual Tynnans in the "Tynnans in the galaxy" section are too long. An entire detailed paragraph about each notable Tynnan is just too much in my opinion. Better to cut them to a sentence or two and let the reader click the link on their name if they want to learn more.
     • I disagree. If any of those individuals had decent article written for them, they could each be FAs. These are summaries.
       • They're looong summaries, though. In an ideal world (of my own creation :)), these would be short, just mentioning each character and what he or she is notable or. Then, if I wanted a summary, I could find it in the lead section of the character's article. Then, if I want even more detail, I would find it by reading the full body of the character's article. The summaries in the Tynnan article now are of lead length, so it seems a bit much to have them all. And while I understand that there are few enough known Tynnans in SW fiction to make this section's size reasonable, imagine that with each new notable Tynnan mentioned in SW fiction that we add another similarly sized paragraph. Eventually, the section becomes unwieldy. Granted, that time is not now, but I just don't see the point in having it all beefy now and then cutting it back in the future anyway. SavageBob 08:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
         • They're not that long. Can you please indicate the rule under which this objection falls? Sheer opinion cannot be sufficient reason to object. Graestan^(Talk) 02:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
           • Wookieepedia's Wookieepedia:Manual of Style includes this line: "For information on the most basic writing techniques and styles, which are used here, see Wikipedia's Manual of Style." Part of Wikipedia's manual of style is the summary style guideline that asserts that long sections should be spun off into their own articles, leaving only a summary in their place. Now, we don't have a firm rule that we follow summary style here, so I guess this objection is not binding. But take a look at some of the summaries in the Tynnan article. How is it pertinent to our knowledge of Tynnans as a whole to know that "A number of items were stolen by Gomalo, a Rodian slaver recently released from prison, whose own sculpture was among the loot. It contained the locations of a nebula in which he had stowed the body of a Jedi Knight frozen in carbonite. The Teleus' artworks were later recovered by Ezra Du'Re of the Office of Peace and Security"? Or that "The team struggled to find a buyer for their unique item and was forced to approach the dangerous hunter Tyro Viveca. This contact turned the tables on Noone, hunting the thief in his compound on Kabal. It was only Dawson's demolitions skills that enabled the team of thieves to defeat the Krish and escape the planet"? This is only tangentially about Tynnans, in my opinion, so it should be cut down. But since there's no policy on summary style here, I'm leaving this as my personal opinion (please show me the policy that says I can't express that), and not objecting based on it. :) SavageBob 01:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)