User talk:Kine/good articles

From Gineipaedia, the Legend of Galactic Heroes wiki

"Good articles"

I'll assume you either haven't looked over (m)any of the articles I've been fiddling with lately, or have a very, very low opinion of my writing skill. If the latter, I will expect a detailed, specific critique. o__O

Anyway, I'm fairly certain that EVERY page in Category:Pre-Imperial meets all of your criteria for "good" articles, as well as all of the Kaiser pages for the Goldenbaum Dynasty up to Friedrich III. (At the very least they're all fully cited. And the Timeline page, of course.

I did, however, deliberately avoid placing citations on the timeline page because they would make it too cluttered. It's more of a "hub" than an actual article, after all.

And, of course, there are plenty of other pages, like Galactic Empire, that are fully up-to-date content wise, but still need citations. Canary 20:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Well I NEVER! All my articles are of the highest quality! Pistols at dawn! And swords! (sorry, Season 2 Gaiden reference). Seriously though, let me know what you think my articles need, I'll improve em if possible. Vympel 00:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any problems with your articles at all. The only reason i gave 2/3 for yours (and i think there were some that i missed btw, but i was tired) were that they don't have complete histories — as far as citations and all of that jazz they are cool  ♥ kine @ 02:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

That's ok mate, I was joking. In terms of complete histories, it can be hard to add detail for some of the ships where all one can really say, at the end of the day, is that "yeah, the ship was there at this battle". I'm still trying to figure out a way to write up an exhaustive account of the most often appearing warships in a way that reads well. In some ways, the less well-known ships offer a better chance for completeness - the Theodoricus appeared in only one battle so that article is pretty much finished. Same with the Sindur (though there's a bit on a discrepancy that should be added), the Grendel and the Morholt, which I've all finished now. Vympel 02:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, well, i don't know if it's helpful but on the Bremen page you can see i've managed to get several paragraphs out of it despite its brief appearance. I do think in some cases that 'it was there' will be all you can say, but in many of them you can describe specific tactics and formations and stuff like that they were involved in. (I will look at some of the ones you've mentioned later)  ♥ kine @ 03:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah thats a good piece. I could write a lot about Brunhild, obviously, so I'll be looking at doing that in the coming days. It has a long colourful history after all. Vympel 03:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear. I feared that would seem narcissistic. :(

Like i mentioned briefly on the page, i am biassed in large part because i have not looked closely at too many of those articles you've been working on. I will endeavour to do so and update this page later today  ♥ kine @ 02:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

PS: Canary — i was looking at some of the pre-Imperial articles you've mentioned. I do think they're pretty good, certainly most would fall under the 2-star category at the very least on my scale (for whatever that's worth, mind you; i'm not trying to establish myself as the article gate keeper or anything). However, since you asked for critiques, these are the — mostly very minor — issues i note in looking at a few of these pages:

1. Some of the citations are a bit off. There should always be a space before them, and if there's more than one episode you should use the {{logh|###|###|###}} format — don't use two {{logh|###}}s in a row, for example.

2. UK English should be used, ideally, per our MOS. Of course, not everyone is familiar with that, or even if they are it's hard to break a habit, so i don't hold it against anyone. But i do think it should be a prerequisite for a 'good' page. Fortunately, it's quite simple to replace a few double-quotes and z's

3. Several of the articles aren't using that standard format of 'bold subject word (Japanese: bold japanese)' at the top

4. Images should all have captions — i saw a few that didn't

Also, i've never discussed this before, so perhaps we need to discuss this in Policy if there are disagreements/questions, but my feeling is that the introductory section should not contain any unique information — it should just briefly restate a few key things that are expanded upon further down in the article. Given that that's the case, introductory paragraphs should not need citations (because the statements will be cited later)

Like i said these are minor. I should be able to take care of a bunch — going to do so now  ♥ kine @ 03:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)