Talk:Grand Admiral Thrawn/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 14:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• Grabbing this for a review. I adored the trilogy when I was a teenager. In fact, it stands as the only expanded universe books I've read. I was also addicted to TIE Fighter and the sequels - I was rather hoping Thawn might be cannonised at some point, so very pleased to see it happen. Miyagawa (talk) 14:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• The first thing that hit me was the article title. But having re-read WP:COMMONNAME, I'm happy with "Grand Admiral Thrawn" as opposed to just, say "Thrawn". After all - Grand Moff Tarkin. If the re-launch of him changes the common name so that he isn't a Grand Admiral in the future then it'll need to be looked at then. But for now, it's fine.

Yes, GM Tarkin, Princess Leia, Admiral Ackbar, and Captain Phasma (and even Darth Vader, I suppose) ... but Palpatine. So it can be revisited when the Rebels stuff shakes out.— TAnthony^Talk 21:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• Character: I'd move "IGN called the character "diabolical, brilliant and ruthless" in 2008." down to the reception section

I altered the usage in the character section to make it less "review-y" but to preserve the description "diabolical, brilliant and ruthless", which I think helps describe him as a villain, etc. I also added an extended quote from the IGN piece to the Reception section.— TAnthony^Talk 21:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• Expanded Universe works: There's something on the Expanded Universe article (which I think is cited) that there was a mention of EU characters potentially moving over to the new canon. Might be worthwhile ending this section with that.

Good idea, I added some quotes in this regard from the announcement to the first pgh of the EU section, basicallt saying the door is open to use EU material.— TAnthony^Talk 21:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• Thrawn trilogy: Second paragraph is uncited  Fixed— TAnthony^Talk 21:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
• Star Wars Rebels: I'd remove the link to StarWars.com - firstly, it isn't the first mention of the website, and also it's only redirecting to Star Wars anyway.  Done— TAnthony^Talk 21:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
• Portrayal: I'd just remove the carriage breaks in this section and make it into one paragraph. At the moment it just looks like a list but missing the bullet points.  Done— TAnthony^Talk 21:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
• Reception: Would it be possible to add more of the years to the opinions as you have with Breznican? It'll give more context, especially if any of them are from the 90s.

 Done However I preserved the flow of the material rather than reorganize the quotes chronologically because I think to do so would make the section disjointed. — TAnthony^Talk 21:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• Cite #5: I'd just say StarWars.com rather than Star Wars Databank  Done— TAnthony^Talk 21:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
• Cite #15: Link Publishers Weekly — Actually cite #4 is the first mention of PW, and is linked. (BTW #15 is now #18 if you're looking it over.) — TAnthony^Talk 21:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
• Is SWBooks.co.uk reliable?

I only used it to cite plot for the short stories/novellas because I wasn't 100% sure. But it seems thorough, respectable, and not fansite-y. It is not user-updated, though they accept submitted reviews, and it is not a retail site. So ... — TAnthony^Talk 21:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• External link: I'd drop the Databank external link since you've used it as a citation instead  Done— TAnthony^Talk 21:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
• Reception could do with a bit of an expansion, but it covers the main points well enough for GA purposes. There will be more coming from that once he makes his Rebels appearance anyway, so you don't need to worry. Ping me back when you've taken a look at the above, or need more than 7 days. Placing it on hold for now. Miyagawa (talk) 14:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree, but it was surprisingly challenging to find online what I was able to include in the Reception section as it is. I suppose because the character's initial spurt of popularity occurred in the pre/early internet days. As you say, I'm sure more will arise after the rebels appearance.— TAnthony^Talk 21:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

@Miyagawa: See my comments above, but I believe everything has been addressed. Thanks! — TAnthony^Talk 21:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Great, based on those changes, I'm happy that this now meets the Good Article criteria. Happy to promote. Miyagawa (talk) 21:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)