- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a good article nomination that was successful. Please do not modify it.
Contents
HoloNet News — Chancellor Palpatine's Approval Rating Falls[]
- Nominated by: Kilson 02:12, March 2, 2011 (UTC)
- Nomination comments:First podcast nom, a little different from the other OOU articles I've done in the past. I wasn't completely sure what infobox to use for this article, so I chose media after CC suggested it.
(3 ACs/2 Users/5 Total)[]
Support[]
- I give this article my approval rating. ~ SavageBob 20:07, March 10, 2011 (UTC)
- CC7567 (talk) 05:34, March 12, 2011 (UTC)
- Grand Moff Tranner (Comlink) 19:33, March 13, 2011 (UTC)
- Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 01:06, March 22, 2011 (UTC)
- No objections from this guy. Really well-done! I like your placement of the "Cast" section below plot summary. I have one suggestion that's not really objection-worthy --- I'd recommend creating an article on [[Podcast]], as it's a form of media that produces canon stuff, like novel, comic book, and video game. Menkooroo 06:24, March 29, 2011 (UTC)
Object[]
Prepare to be savaged…[]
Since this is a podcast, it appears that some of the terms used in the article are only spoken and not written down. Do we have official spellings, then, for Chokee & Chokee and for Rule Davenbay? If not, it should be noted in in one of the other sections (or perhaps in footnotes) that these are conjectural spellings.- Rule Davenbay is actually spelled out in the link I provided. As for Chokee & Chokee, I put a small footnote next to Chokee & Chokee in the Appearances list.
You should take a look at this proposed layout guide for OOU articles. Although it didn't pass, it's probably still a good model to go by, even if you want to shuffle some of the sections around. Of particular interest is that since OOU articles are, well, OOU, there should be no BTS section. Instead, that info should be folded into a "Conception" or "Production" section.- Yeah, I've noticed that. The only problem is in that past, OOU good articles had a Bts section and on occasion a Development subsection. At this point, I think it's better to keep the Bts section as is, just to be consistent. However, I feel this will need to be later clarified in an official OOU Layout Guide.
- Scratch that, I desided to change the Bts section to a Production section based on Toprawa's objection to my The Clone Wars: Prelude nom. Kilson 20:39, March 9, 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, I've noticed that. The only problem is in that past, OOU good articles had a Bts section and on occasion a Development subsection. At this point, I think it's better to keep the Bts section as is, just to be consistent. However, I feel this will need to be later clarified in an official OOU Layout Guide.
The fact that Mas Amedda is a Chagrian is not mentioned in the podcast, so I'd add a quick reference note there just to source that fact (in the Appearances list).- I put a footnote in the Appearances list
- Nice work. ~ SavageBob 16:07, March 8, 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review. Kilson 21:15, March 8, 2011 (UTC)
The clone[]
Does Dateline Coruscant have any relation? Since Davenbay mentions it, I'd assume that it does. Please see what you can do to implement this in the body of the article somewhere.- I mentioned it in the Plot Summary, what do you think.
- Not an objection, but for future reference, the Star Wars Annual 2011 does not state that all of TCW takes place in 21 BBY, only selected battles—the rest of the events can only be assumed to be in "c. 21 BBY." Please keep this in mind for the future. Also, the Appearances section was a little lacking, so please be a little more careful next time. CC7567 (talk) 20:28, March 11, 2011 (UTC)
- My apologies, I was unaware of this fact about the Annual. Also, thank you for telling me about the Appearances section, it's such a small section, I sometimes forget about it. Kilson 05:30, March 12, 2011 (UTC)
Grunny[]
Is there a good reason not to source all the entries in the appearance list to HoloNet News — Chancellor Palpatine's Approval Rating Falls on StarWars.com? You reference most other things such as the Plot summary there, and with the two references to other sources in there, it looks awkward without references for them IMO.Grunny (talk) 10:07, March 17, 2011 (UTC)- I just assumed it would be obvious, it's not like any of the entries didn't appear in article. I only sourced the other two entries because the polling agency's spelling was conjecture and the Ammeda's species wasn't obvious given the fact it is a podcast. I could see why you would want the sources, but I just think it is overkill. If you really think it's a good idea, I will put them in. Thanks for the review, Grunny. Kilson 21:19, March 17, 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I'm more thinking consistency. You're sourcing the Plot summary, cast, some parts of the major character info to the StarWars.com page which are no different to the appearances list really. Where as a few other similar OOU GAs haven't sourced the plot for the same reasons you didn't source the characters. At the moment, I feel it is inconsistent, and I'm personally of the mind that if you can source something, you should. I know I spoke to Cav about this last night and he agreed, but I'm not fussed, so up to you ;-). Grunny (talk) 00:28, March 18, 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, looking back on it, I'm not sure why I sourced the Plot Summary. For consistency's sake I'm going to remove that source and not source the rest of the Appearance list, but if someone comes along later and says I need to, I can always change it. Kilson 00:32, March 18, 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I'm more thinking consistency. You're sourcing the Plot summary, cast, some parts of the major character info to the StarWars.com page which are no different to the appearances list really. Where as a few other similar OOU GAs haven't sourced the plot for the same reasons you didn't source the characters. At the moment, I feel it is inconsistent, and I'm personally of the mind that if you can source something, you should. I know I spoke to Cav about this last night and he agreed, but I'm not fussed, so up to you ;-). Grunny (talk) 00:28, March 18, 2011 (UTC)
- I just assumed it would be obvious, it's not like any of the entries didn't appear in article. I only sourced the other two entries because the polling agency's spelling was conjecture and the Ammeda's species wasn't obvious given the fact it is a podcast. I could see why you would want the sources, but I just think it is overkill. If you really think it's a good idea, I will put them in. Thanks for the review, Grunny. Kilson 21:19, March 17, 2011 (UTC)
Jujiggum[]
Why is the approximate date of the news cast not mentioned in the plot summary?- I did not mention the date because it was not stated in the actual podcast. The Plot Summary is only for information stated in the podcast itself.
Also, current consensus in the SH thread calls for "alternating images, no white space, and mandatory captions" in the Main characters section. Although it's not been CT'd yet, consensus as of right now is pointing toward this compromise, so it's probably best to go with that layout for now.Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 19:23, March 21, 2011 (UTC)- I gotta tell you Jon, this whole situation with the Main Character sections is really starting to confuse me. I'm not sure what type of article is required to have a Main Character section. In anycase, I reworked the section, how does it look now? Kilson 21:36, March 21, 2011 (UTC)
- Well, looks like you may not need it after all. But for now, it should probably be kept, because it'll definitely be easier to just jettison it later if need be. Anyway, check out the suggestions on the SH thread for what to put in the captions rather than just the plain name. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 23:59, March 21, 2011 (UTC)
- OK, how about now. Added a little about each character. Kilson 00:09, March 22, 2011 (UTC)
- Well, looks like you may not need it after all. But for now, it should probably be kept, because it'll definitely be easier to just jettison it later if need be. Anyway, check out the suggestions on the SH thread for what to put in the captions rather than just the plain name. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 23:59, March 21, 2011 (UTC)
- I gotta tell you Jon, this whole situation with the Main Character sections is really starting to confuse me. I'm not sure what type of article is required to have a Main Character section. In anycase, I reworked the section, how does it look now? Kilson 21:36, March 21, 2011 (UTC)
Comments[]
Approved as a Good article by AgriCorps 15:56, March 29, 2011 (UTC)
- After talking it over with Menkooroo, I now support the idea OOU's need Main Character sections, I will soon be adding a Main Character section to both this nom and my other OOU nom, as well as all the OOU articles I've done in the past. Kilson 05:30, March 12, 2011 (UTC)
- OK, I added a Main Characters section to this article. To those who supported previously, you might want to re-review just to make sure I did it correctly. Kilson 00:49, March 13, 2011 (UTC)
- Please try to use a spell-check in the future; there were a few typos there. The referencing was also a little faulty; that "around 21 BBY" date can only be sourced to the Star Wars Annual 2011 and nothing else. Can you add an image or two, perhaps? Palpatine and Amedda definitely have images. CC7567 (talk) 08:17, March 13, 2011 (UTC)
- I put an image in for Amedda and Palpatine. I looked around and Davenbay doesn't have an image. How does it look now? Kilson 18:33, March 13, 2011 (UTC)
- I want to keep the images for the Main Character section on the left side to go along with the Main Character section of past promoted OOUs. Kilson 23:07, March 13, 2011 (UTC)
- The article looks far better with the images in question on the right. Placing them on the left is an eyesore. For example, when the Mas Amedda image is set to the left, the "Notes and references" section header and the first reference are unnecessarily pushed toward the center of the article. This can easily be avoided by implementing the change I suggested. Grand Moff Tranner (Comlink) 23:36, March 13, 2011 (UTC)
- I guess that makes some sense. I reverted my last edit. Oh, and thanks for the review Tranner. Kilson 23:46, March 13, 2011 (UTC)
- The article looks far better with the images in question on the right. Placing them on the left is an eyesore. For example, when the Mas Amedda image is set to the left, the "Notes and references" section header and the first reference are unnecessarily pushed toward the center of the article. This can easily be avoided by implementing the change I suggested. Grand Moff Tranner (Comlink) 23:36, March 13, 2011 (UTC)
- I want to keep the images for the Main Character section on the left side to go along with the Main Character section of past promoted OOUs. Kilson 23:07, March 13, 2011 (UTC)
- I put an image in for Amedda and Palpatine. I looked around and Davenbay doesn't have an image. How does it look now? Kilson 18:33, March 13, 2011 (UTC)
- Please try to use a spell-check in the future; there were a few typos there. The referencing was also a little faulty; that "around 21 BBY" date can only be sourced to the Star Wars Annual 2011 and nothing else. Can you add an image or two, perhaps? Palpatine and Amedda definitely have images. CC7567 (talk) 08:17, March 13, 2011 (UTC)
- OK, I added a Main Characters section to this article. To those who supported previously, you might want to re-review just to make sure I did it correctly. Kilson 00:49, March 13, 2011 (UTC)