# Talk:Moff Gideon

This review is transcluded from Talk:Moff Gideon/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Cavie78 (talk · contribs) 10:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Thought I'd give someone else a chance, but still no takers so I'll do this one Cavie78 (talk) 10:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Lead

Our old friend "first appearence"
LOL Changed. — Hunter Kahn 15:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
"who does not hesitate" -> "and does not hesitate"
Changed. — Hunter Kahn 15:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Backstory

"Gideon knows the identity of and information about the show's title character, otherwise known as "The Mandalorian", due to his role in the Purge" Think this coule be worded better. Maybe "Gideon knows information about the show's title character, otherwise known as "The Mandalorian", including his identity, due to his role in the Purge"
Changed. — Hunter Kahn 15:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
"is a title for high-ranking Imperial official who served" -> "is a title for a high-ranking Imperial official who served"
Fixed. — Hunter Kahn 15:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
"The "Moff" title and has been featured"
Fixed. — Hunter Kahn 15:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
"Just prior Gideon's" -> "Just prior to Gideon's"
Fixed. — Hunter Kahn 15:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Season one

Are we saying The Child/Client or the Child/Client?
When I had them in quotation marks (like "The Mandalorian" in the lead and "The Child" on first reference" I used the capitalized "The", otherwise it is lower-cased. Let me know if you disagree with this method. — Hunter Kahn 15:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
"and the meeting is a trap in which the Mandalorian plans to kill the Client and his stormtoopers" Make it clear this was a plan devised by all three. Current wording could be taken to read as though Greef Karga and Cara Dune don't realise it was meant to be a trap
I've tried rewording it, let me know if that is better. — Hunter Kahn 15:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
"Afterward" -> "Afterwards"
Changed. — Hunter Kahn 15:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

"and his party from the outside," -> "and his party from outside the cantina,"
Changed. — Hunter Kahn 15:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
"to the wing and after briefly clinging"
Fixed. — Hunter Kahn 15:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
"a black-bladed lightsaber and ancient Mandalorian artifact" -> "a black-bladed lightsaber which is am ancient Mandalorian artifact"
Changed. — Hunter Kahn 15:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Season two

Ok
Thanks again Cavie78! — Hunter Kahn 15:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Characterization

"that they cannot trust them"? "that they cannot trust him"?
Fixed. — Hunter Kahn 16:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
"or even for mere annoyances like when they interrupt him" -> "or even for mere annoyances, such as when they interrupt him"
Changed. — Hunter Kahn 16:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
"determined to achieve his goals[35] and is willing" Add a comma before the cite or move the cite to the end of the sentence
Added the comma, since I'm using the citation for that particular clause. — Hunter Kahn 16:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
"His motivation to get the Child appear personal" -> "His motivation to get the Child appears personal"
Fixed. — Hunter Kahn 16:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Portrayal

"Esposito said one of the first things he did after accepting the role" Make it clear you mean Moff Gideo as you've just mentioned the Jungle Book.
Done. — Hunter Kahn 16:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
"was a fan of the first original Star Wars trilogy"
Oops, lol, fixed. — Hunter Kahn 16:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
"and appreciated that there was a more minority actors in the later productions" -> "and appreciated that there were more minority actors in the later productions"
Fixed. — Hunter Kahn 16:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
"become an Internet sensation" -> "become an internet sensation"
Changed. — Hunter Kahn 16:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Costume

"concept designer and artist with The Mandalorian" -> "concept designer and artist for The Mandalorian"
Changed. — Hunter Kahn 16:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
"costume was created based upon the design by costume designer Joseph Porro"? I don't understand this. You said the costume was designed by Brian Matyas?
My understanding is that Porro designed it and then Matyas physically made it based upon the design. Maybe I should change "created" to "crafted" to avoid confusion? (Or if that's the only thing holding up GA approval, feel free to make the change yourself so you don't have to wait for me. :D) — Hunter Kahn 16:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
"and he wanted to keep his costume" -> "and said he wanted to keep his costume"
Changed. — Hunter Kahn 16:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Filming

"said of the filming scenes"
Fixed. — Hunter Kahn 16:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
"I'm on (a) globe 30 feet in (the) sky" -> "I'm on [a] globe 30 feet in [the] sky"
Changed. — Hunter Kahn 16:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Reception

OK
Images

All ok and appropriately licensed
Sources

Great
Another nice article. Placing on hold for now Cavie78 (talk) 15:53, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you much Cavie78! — Hunter Kahn 16:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Good work Hunter Kahn. Happy to promote - congrats again! Cavie78 (talk) 20:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Cavie78. This means there is only one Mandalorian character GA left unreviewed! Very exciting! :D — Hunter Kahn 15:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

The lead should specify that "Moff" is not a name but a rank. Debresser (talk) 20:42, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

And I really think that unless that is done, this can not be a good article. Debresser (talk) 15:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
The more I learn about Wikipedia the more I see that articles can pass quality reviews despite being riddled with mistakes and even basic failures to follow Wikipedia's own guidelines, and that includes Good Article and Featured Article reviews. (Wikipedia has a great many rules and recommendations, it seems strange that more of the quality review process has not been automated.)
You can try to fix the mistakes, or as it says in the Good article box at the top of this page you can challenge it and ask for reassessment. Please read the guidelines. Particularly part where it says "To tag an article, {{GAR request}} is placed at the top of the article talk page." You should not remove the Good article template from an article even if you have very good reasons to disagree with it, but I welcome you to try the reassessment process. -- 109.76.196.68 (talk) 16:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Well, so be it. If this section was here for three weeks and nobody, including editors who supposedly brought this article to good article level, saw fit to mend this crucial omission, then it is not worth my efforts. Debresser (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
On any news article you are lucky to get one comment for For every 100 or even a 1000 readers. The chance of any reply to a Wikipedia talk page comment is very small. From notes and comments I've read elsewhere there was an effort by one or more editors to improve various Star Wars The Mandalorian character articles in early 2020 before season 2 even came out and during a time when many people were in lockdown. They might not have this article on a watchlist, or they might respond eventually.
I was interrupted and did not submit a comment I had intended to post before your reply, it follows: The article already says "The term "Moff" is a title for a high-ranking Imperial official". Are there further specific changes to the wording that you think are necessary? We can just go head and make changes instead of getting the article reassessed. (WP:BRD starts with BOLD changes, if anyone reverts we can discuss further.)
So to reiterate, I'm willing to try and copyedit the article further if you can clarify what problems you can see, that I'm missing. I'm guess we need to remember that the word Moff is like saying the word "General" and so the article should use it only very sparsely, hardly at all. (For comparision, in an article like Han Solo you might write the full name "Han Solo" repeatedly but you probably wouldn't write "General Solo" over and over.) -- 109.76.196.68 (talk) 23:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I would be happy to see you make an edit to clarify this. Yes, I know it is in the Backstory section, but since it is part of the title of the article it can not be lacking from the lead. Debresser (talk) 23:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm still not entirely sure what you see is wrong with the article, or are you saying my earlier guess was basically correct? -- 109.76.196.68 (talk) 00:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Anyway, i took a stab at it.[1] Where it felt necessary to write Moff Gideon I did, but I then tried to only write "Gideon" after that in the same paragraph or section. "Gideon", it sounded a little strange at first but I got used to it. Gideon. I decided against changing anything in image captions, and deliberately wrote his full title "Moff Gideon". I was reluctant to trim the wording of the Reception section, but I may re-evaluate that later. Hopefully that seems like an improvement, and hopefully if anyone disagrees they will discuss or make small changes to improve the article in a different way. -- 109.76.196.68 (talk) 00:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Good edits, sure enough. My point, however, is that the lead section should explain that "Moff" is a rank/function and not part of a name. As long as that is not mentioned in the lead section, there is something crucial missing from this article and it is misleading. Debresser (talk) 20:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Be WP:BOLD make the change yourself. Failing that propose your change on the talk page first (ideally of the form change X "example text before" to Y "sample text after"). Looking at the article Grand Moff Tarkin and comparing it to Moff Gideon I don't think intro needs to be changed to explain rank in the lead, explaining it later seems like enough. (I'm thinking if this was Shogun Gideon, we wouldn't explain that it was a military rank in the lead either, and if it was General Gideon we definitely wouldn't.) I could be mistaken though, so show specifically by example what you think should be done, maybe then it will seem like an improvement. If you are waiting for other people to do it for you could be waiting a very long time. -- 109.76.198.190 (talk) 15:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
I would have made the change right away, since being bold is not a problem for me, but in this case I prefer not to. Which I why I started a talkpage section. Debresser (talk) 15:51, 9 January 2021 (UTC)