Nomination comments: Trying to nom something simple this time. This article is paired pretty closely with Barel Ovair and has only one appearance/source. Looking forward to your comments and objections.
Way too many images. -- 1358(Talk) 19:40, April 16, 2010 (UTC)
Cut it down to one image. (Cried a little in my heart, because they're all just so pretty.) —fodigg(talk) | 19:46, April 16, 2010 (UTC)
Missing vital info in the bio, like species and sex. Sentient species, like Nautolan, are always capitalized. I will possibly give the article a full review. -- 1358(Talk) 08:10, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
Information in intro expanded. Made sure that "Padawan" and "Nautolan" were always capitalized. Thanks for the review! —fodigg(talk) | 03:59, April 18, 2010 (UTC)
Bio has still no info about this. -- 1358(Talk) 05:00, April 18, 2010 (UTC)
Doh! My apologies. I checked the intro and didn't look at the bio! I have added it to the bio. Thanks again! —fodigg(talk) | 22:12, April 18, 2010 (UTC)
Date and place of death are missing in the infobox. Possible a full review later.Clone Commander LeeTalk 14:05, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
Added place/year (circa) of death according to source. Thanks for the review! —fodigg(talk) | 03:59, April 18, 2010 (UTC)
If he was possessed by Sadow's spirit, the Sith Empire (or at the very least, the Sith in general) should be listed as his affiliation. Also, I believe he warrants a Sith infobox for the same reason.QuiGonJinn(Talk) 18:03, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
There's currently a discussion about this on the article's talk page. -- 1358(Talk) 18:06, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
I have no preference, and will change it to whatever is decided on the talk page. (and thanks for the review!) —fodigg(talk) | 03:59, April 18, 2010 (UTC)
Only one from me: Ovair's true allegiance to the Empire was not revealed until years later, when Jedi historian Gnost-Dural researched the events of Gynt's death. and Over a century later, Jedi historian Gnost-Dural questioned why the spirit of Sadow would have sought vengeance against Ovair specifically, and made the connection between Ovair and the Sith. He realized that Ovair and his Jedi ancestors were in fact spies working on behalf of the Sith Emperor. These sentences seem to be more about Ovair than Gynt. It would be good to link Dural's research to Gynt in some way.SoresuMakashi(Everything I tell you is the truth) 10:16, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
Good thought. I have massaged the text a bit: Ovair's Imperial allegiance and complicity in manipulating Gynt to his death were not revealed until years later, when Jedi historianGnost-Dural researched the events of Gynt's death. and Over a century later, Jedi historianGnost-Dural researched the events surrounding Gynt's death. He questioned why the spirit of Sadow, having taken possession of Gynt, would have sought vengeance against Ovair specifically. Gnost-Dural concluded that Ovair and his Jedi ancestors were in fact spies working on behalf of the Sith Emperor; that Ovair had manipulated Gynt to draw out Sadow's spirit. The Emperor had viewed the old Sith Lords as potential threats. Sadow's defeat, and Gynt's death, eliminated one of those threats and made the invasion of the Republic easier during the Great Galactic War.. Hopefully these changes suffice without sounding contrived or changing the meaning of events. —fodigg(talk) | 01:19, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
The Emperor had viewed the old Sith Lords as potential threats. This sentence is a little short and out of place, and could probably be merged into a nearby sentence. Other than that, it looks good. SoresuMakashi(Everything I tell you is the truth) 01:42, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
Revised text: The Emperor had viewed the old Sith Lords as potential threats, and Sadow's defeat—along with Gynt's death—eliminated one of those threats, which made the invasion of the Republic easier during the Great Galactic War. Hopefully that fixes the issue. —fodigg(talk) | 03:05, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
The Grand Master
"Gynt was abandoned by Ovair during a mission to Yavin 4; Ovair claimed that he had been killed." I think a bit more context could be used here. To whom/where/when did Ovair claim this? (i.e. even something as simple as "upon returning to Coruscant, Ovair claimed…" or something similar)
Context added. The timeline actually showed him reporting to the Galactic Senate. I also added this info to the Bio section. —fodigg(talk) | 04:04, April 25, 2010 (UTC)
No article for their mission to Yavin IV or for their duel?
Hmmm, the Raid on Sadow's tomb seems fine, but maybe a more apporpraite name for the duel would be something like "Duel on Coruscant (Eison Gynt)"? I think you should at least indicate in the title that it was a duel. Jonjedigrandmaster(We seed the stars) 04:15, April 25, 2010 (UTC)
Change made. Updated the link in the article to the new location. —fodigg(talk) | 02:13, April 26, 2010 (UTC)
Please mention first in the bio that Gynt had been possessed by Sadow's spirit, and then say that Ovair returned and claimed the Gynt had been killed. Remember, this is Gynt's article, and should follow his point of view more.
Hmm. My concern there is we don't know when Gynt was possessed. It's possible he was abandoned in the temple and was not possessed until later, after his death was reported by Ovair. Thoughts? —fodigg(talk) | 02:13, April 26, 2010 (UTC)
Do we know for certain that he was possessed via Transfer essence? Could it not have been some other type of Sith power/magic? Unless the source states that it was an essence transfer, then the link needs to be removed.
Nah, I was assuming. Link removed. —fodigg(talk) | 02:13, April 26, 2010 (UTC)
"…Ovair had manipulated Gynt to draw out Sadow's spirit." Do you mean during their mission to Yavin IV? If so, please specify.
Addressed the rest, thanks again! —fodigg(talk) | 02:13, April 26, 2010 (UTC)
Just a couple more: the intro could be cut down some. It's a tad long for an article of this size.
I've reduced as much as I can think of a way to without removing information added to satisfy other objections. —fodigg(talk) | 18:00, April 26, 2010 (UTC)
"While Gynt's death was considered tragic…" Does the source say by whom his death was considered tragic? (i.e. the Jedi Order?)
Exact text: After a lengthy recovery, Master Ovair told a tale of the horrors he faced, and of Gynt’s tragic death. Note: This is actually talking about Gynts reported death and now his true death. As this is the case, I simply removed that part of the sentence. (But to answer your question, Gnost-Dural was being melodramatic I guess.) —fodigg(talk) | 18:00, April 26, 2010 (UTC)
Please add quotes to the article; as you can use quotes from Gnost-Dural's narrative.
Quotes directly relating to Gynt are sparse, as it's usually relating to Ovair or to the two of them together. I moved the lead-in quote to the "abilities" section as it was more appropriate there, and led with the quote about Gynt as a promising youth, which I think works better anyway.
Also, watch your wording usage; you say Ovair returned to Coruscant "wounded," "alone," and "half-insane," which is the same wording used in the narrative. Use some synonyms here, and please check for other instances of this throughout the article. Jonjedigrandmaster(We seed the stars) 16:47, April 26, 2010 (UTC)
Altered some word usage between article and source transcript to make it more varied. Removed "half-insane" as that's rather distinctive flowery language that doesn't really mean much. Like being "half-cold". —fodigg(talk) | 18:00, April 26, 2010 (UTC)
Added it for when he appeared on Coruscant, which was right before the duel and his death (with "circa"). —fodigg(talk) | 20:13, April 26, 2010 (UTC)
Okay, so it appears I lied again. This is the last one: since Star Wars: The Old Republic | News, Updates, Developer Blogs - "Peace for the Republic" is being considered a separate source, then the article needs to be sourced. Jonjedigrandmaster(We seed the stars) 20:22, April 26, 2010 (UTC)
Ugh! You are, unfortunately correct. Well you didn't really lie because Darth Trayus only recently added that. What happens if I go through and find that, while the News post is a source, it doesn't say anything that isn't duplicated in the timeline? Every paragraph just gets a little timeline source marker at the end? —fodigg(talk) | 20:26, April 26, 2010 (UTC)
Already not the case, as the year is exclusively from the news post and not from the timeline. I'll see if I can't get this done in both Eison Gynt and Barel Ovair by the end of the day. —fodigg(talk) | 20:32, April 26, 2010 (UTC)
Okay, Eison Gynt is all sourced up, however, I had a question. I only used the "News" source when it provided information that only appeared on the News source. When there was overlapping information, I used the "Timeline 7" source, which had a lot more info generally. I assumed that it would be optional to also source the "News" source when it provided overlap. Is this the case? Or do I have to comb through the whole article and provide both sources when info appears in both sources? —fodigg(talk) | 21:03, April 26, 2010 (UTC)
That is correct. When info appears in both sources, it's your choice to source it to whichever source you want. Jonjedigrandmaster(We seed the stars) 21:06, April 26, 2010 (UTC)
Any reason Padawan is not capitalized in the opening quote?
Because I suck at life. The given transcript was all caps and switched it to all lowers and then manual upped to caps where appropriate and just missed this one. Fixed. Also capped "Order" for the "Jedi Order" in that quote. —fodigg(talk) | 21:32, April 26, 2010 (UTC)
Can you vary the first two sentences of the intro so it's not the exact same as the quote I just read?
Ah yes, that would be good. Sorry, I just added that quote. I varied it up a bit, substituting "talented" for "promising", which I think is pretty safe. —fodigg(talk) | 21:32, April 26, 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the review, and for the copy-edit! —fodigg(talk) | 21:32, April 26, 2010 (UTC)
The Sith Empire:
In the intro, you should provide some idea of the time period during which he lived, particularly when you say he was the most talented Padawan in the Order, as it currently gives the impression that he was the most talented Padawan to have ever existed. I would suggest something like "By 3,756 BBY, he was considered to be the most talented blah blah blah"
Added "in the years of his youth". Didn't want to put an exact year on it because it would be another "circa 3,756 BBY", which is already being used to mark the date of his death. Varied language between Intro and Bio (bio: "at the time of his selection"). —fodigg(talk) | 14:01, April 27, 2010 (UTC)
Darn. Thought I had that covered. Changed in the intro. —fodigg(talk) | 14:01, April 27, 2010 (UTC)
"Ovair's Imperial allegiance and complicity in manipulating Gynt to his death were not revealed until years later..." - This needs a slight rewording, as it's currently a bit choppy. I would suggest removing the "to his death."
I worry if I only remove that bit, the next question would be "manipulated how? manipulated to what end?". I altered it to: Ovair's Imperial allegiance and complicity in Gynt's death were not revealed until years later, when Jedi historianGnost-Dural researched the events of the mission to Yavin 4 and Gynt's reappearance. Hopefully that makes the sentence flow better without losing meaning.
You use the word "talented" twice in two successive sentences in the beginning of the intro. Substitute one.
Removed the first instance. No reason to talk up how great he was just to do it the next sentence. Was previously "talented/promising", but even that's a little overkill. —fodigg(talk) | 14:01, April 27, 2010 (UTC)
You'll want to state that the Yavin mission occurred in 3,756 BBY in the first paragraph and remove the mention in the second paragraph.
Done. I like this much better as it identifies the hard date and means I don't need "circa" when I mention 3,756 BBY. —fodigg(talk) | 14:01, April 27, 2010 (UTC)
The final two sentences of the P&A start with almost identical clauses. Vary one of them.
Last sentence changed to: When Gynt resurfaced on Coruscant, the Nautolan was wearing the robes of a Massassi warrior. Those two sentences were originally in a "Equipment" section. —fodigg(talk) | 14:01, April 27, 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! And thanks for the review! I'll go tackle your objections on Barel Ovair now. —fodigg(talk) | 14:01, April 27, 2010 (UTC)
You should specify a general timeframe here for reference. For example, in the intro you make immediate mention of the "Old Republic." Something along those lines would suffice: "Eison Gynt was a maleNautolanPadawan of the Jedi Order, and was born to a family line of Jedi Knights."
The article's lead quote mentions he is a fourth-generation Jedi. You should also make note of this specific information around that first bio sentence.
Added going three generations back to the end of that bio sentence. I didn't want to copy the exact format of the quote, and saying it this way allows me to vary the number without changing the information. Hopefully that will suffice. —fodigg(talk) | 14:38, April 28, 2010 (UTC)
Both items in the Source list claim to be the first mention. Is that correct?
Yes, they were posted simultaneously. The first is a news post that points to the second, the timeline video/transcript. I originally did not include the news post as a source, but Darth Trayus added it, pointing out that there was unique information in that post, most notably the year these events surround. —fodigg(talk) | 14:38, April 28, 2010 (UTC)