Wookieepedia:Good article nominations/Unidentified Imperial officer (Metalorn)

Unidentified Imperial officer (Metalorn)

• Nominated by: Clonehunter^{(Report your W.M.D.)} 05:43, July 4, 2014 (UTC)
• Nomination comments: With eyes like that, he must be Officer Derpy. If they were facing inward, well...

(0 ACs/1 Users/1 Total)

Support

1. 501st dogma^(talk) 22:54, July 28, 2014 (UTC)

Object

501st

• "...planet's malevolent governor, Corwyth." Malevolent is a bit POVish, so it should be reworded to avoid this.
  • I mentioned again that Corwyth was an Imperial, similar to the intro.
• Not sure what Tagge's visit has to do with the officer. Mention of it can be removed.
  • Removed.
• "It wasn't long before Organa encountered a lone stormtrooper, whom she dispatched by using an adhesive spray to clog the trooper's ventilation system in his helmet. Unaware of the tracking device in the trooper's blaster, Organa took it for herself. " Same here, this can be shortened quite a bit, to saying that Organa took down a stormie and stole his blaster.
  • Fair enough.
• "Reporting back to Corwyth, the governor could only vent his frustrations on his radio officer. " How does this relate to the officer?
  • Imo, it sounds better than just "The officer reported back to Corwyth." It's kinda like a bit of cause and effect.
    • Sure, keep it. 501st dogma^(talk) 17:54, July 6, 2014 (UTC)
• "When he prepared to fire the weapon on Princess Organa, he lowered its power setting in order to leave the ore machines undamaged." This is unnecessary in the Equipment as well. If you're trying to say that the blaster had an adjustable power setting, just say that he preferred a blaster pistol that could be adjusted for power.
  • Reworded t a bit, then.
• Go through a make sure all the article pertains to the officer, and doesn't go on tangents too much. Good work. 501st dogma^(talk) 20:23, July 4, 2014 (UTC)
  • Removed some other information in the bio, namely the first paragraph. Figured all that huff about the population could be shortened a bit, while still giving some context to the situation. --Clonehunter^{(Report your W.M.D.)} 16:54, July 6, 2014 (UTC)
• Body could use some context on the Galactic Civil War. Currently you don't actually link to the Rebels. 501st dogma^(talk) 14:21, July 7, 2014 (UTC)
  • They're linked under the word rebellion in the first paragraph in the body. Changed it a bit to be a bit clearer, or something. --Clonehunter^{(Report your W.M.D.)} 03:07, July 8, 2014 (UTC)
    • Looks good.
• Nitpicky, but context for Alderaan would be nice. 501st dogma^(talk) 22:33, July 8, 2014 (UTC)
  • Nitpicky is good. Added context. --Clonehunter^{(Report your W.M.D.)} 02:01, July 13, 2014 (UTC)

Toprawa

• After skimming through the story, it would seem to me that this officer and the Imperials don't realize at first that it's Princess Leia who they're hunting. Only Tagge knows later on. If this is correct, the article should explain this, because it comes off as though they know specifically that they're after Leia Organa.
  • Ah, I see your point. I tried to fix this to reflect this information.
• The BTS. First: The issue's publication date needs to be sourced to something. I have no idea what that source is in the Star Wars 30 article for the September 1979 date, because the cover of the issue itself clearly says December 30. I would probably just go with that date, since we can verify it.
  • So would that just be a matter of self sourcing (The Dec date), or should I just add a reference at the end of that line to clarify that?
    • Normally, yes, though after looking at the original cover, the date does not appear to be on there. The December 30 date is on the cover within Classic Star Wars: A Long Time Ago... Volume 2: Dark Encounters, which is what I'm using, but nothing in this TPB says these comics were printed in 1979-1980. You could source the December 30 to the TPB, but you'll need to find another source for 1979. I don't know where to tell you to look off the top of my head. Maybe Star Wars: The Comics Companion? Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 00:55, August 7, 2014 (UTC)
  • As an update I am still looking into this. Checking libraries. --Clonehunter^{(Report your W.M.D.)} 03:27, August 17, 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm just using the year now, although I could probably use the September date. I saw this source on the comic's page, but I have no idea if it's reliable, or what it even is. I guess it's a placeholder for now.--Clonehunter^{(Report your W.M.D.)} 03:14, August 31, 2014 (UTC)
      • And that's why it's not a good enough source. You have no idea what "The Comic Reader #172 and The Comics Journal #49" is or whether it's even reliable. You'll need to find something else. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 13:38, September 2, 2014 (UTC)
        • Like I said, it's not permanent. --Clonehunter^{(Report your W.M.D.)} 17:44, September 3, 2014 (UTC)
          • Well, you should be aware that this does not satisfy the objection. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 17:51, September 3, 2014 (UTC)
            • Of course I'm aware of that. It's a placeholder for my eyes while I get it in order. I just think aloud, or, write aloud, rather. --Clonehunter^{(Report your W.M.D.)} 18:08, September 5, 2014 (UTC)
              • Interesting, but accoridng to the sources for [3], the date from the cover of the issue is actually not the release date. It doesn't give us a year, though, but clarifies what that Publication Date/Sale Date stuff means. --Clonehunter^{(Report your W.M.D.)} 04:34, September 20, 2014 (UTC)
• Secondly, the rest of the BTS noting that the comic was republished in different omnibuses is trivial and unnecessary. You should just cut that, and omnibuses are never listed in the Sources list. Those should be removed too.
  • I disagree, but I removed them anyways. I removed them as sources too. That makes sense.
• Reviewing notes:
  • Don't use contractions in formal writing.
    • Whoops, I knew that. Damn. I'll be more careful next time.
  • Please familiarize yourself with the MOS's policy on ranks and titles. "Princess" should not be capitalized throughout.
    • Understood. I'm gonna have to do a sweep in other articles now, and probably pay closer attention to the MoS. --Clonehunter^{(Report your W.M.D.)} 03:19, August 6, 2014 (UTC)
  • You have a habit of formatting quotes incorrectly in relation to the original source. This isn't the first time I've caught you on this. It's gotten to the point that I have to go check the source myself, because I know without looking that you didn't transfer it over correctly. Please pay attention and get this right. It's a simple matter of transcribing the quote and its formatting exactly as the source does. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 18:14, August 3, 2014 (UTC)
    • I might need a bit more clarification on this one. In the comic, when the word is bolded or italicized, the word when put into a page quote receives ''(word)''s. Since quotes are italicized already, what this does is that it removes the style from the word for a similar effect. I'm not totally sure what's wrong. I looked at an edit and it appeared that I was just screwing up some of the punctuation. --Clonehunter^{(Report your W.M.D.)} 15:06, August 5, 2014 (UTC)
      • This might be easier to elaborate on in IRC, if you ever stop by. I'm in there regularly. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 00:55, August 7, 2014 (UTC)
        • I'll try to get a word on this then, on the off chance I stop by. If you're not busy, I'll try to flag you down in the IRC then. :) --Clonehunter^{(Report your W.M.D.)} 03:14, August 31, 2014 (UTC)

Comments

• Chrono source might be too much. Also, couldn't decide if some of that stuff is unnecessary info or useful context as too what's going on. --Clonehunter^{(Report your W.M.D.)} 05:44, July 4, 2014 (UTC)

• Would the compendiums be sources or appearances? Or neither? They're under Sources, right now. --Clonehunter^{(Report your W.M.D.)} 02:03, July 13, 2014 (UTC)
  • Believe that's right. 501st dogma^(talk) 22:54, July 28, 2014 (UTC)