Wookieepedia:Comprehensive article nominations



This page is for the nomination of "comprehensive articles". For a list of "comprehensive articles", see Category:Wookieepedia comprehensive articles.


 * Comprehensive article nominations history
 * Comprehensive article nominations archiving checklist

What is a "comprehensive article?"

A "comprehensive article" is an article that contains all information regarding the topic. Often, "comprehensive articles" cannot reach Featured or Good Article status due to their limited content. This process is intended to recognize articles that contain all relevant canon information, yet are still under the 250 word limit required for a Good Article. The purpose of this is twofold&mdash;firstly, to help users distinguish what is a stub, and what is merely a short article with no further relevant material to be added, and, more importantly, to highlight for the reader when they are reading something that has been judged definitely "comprehensive"&mdash;that is, a guarantee to the reader that whatever they are reading contains the sum total of all available content.

Nominations and promotions of the Comprehensive article process are overseen by a collective of users known as the "EduCorps," which is made up of the Inquisitorius, the AgriCorps, and various other experienced users who are considered qualified to adequately judge the nominated material.

Lucasfilm Ltd. and its many licensees continue to expand the Star Wars universe. Since new information might become available, it may be necessary to revoke a "comprehensive article's" status. A forum will be used to nominate articles that have fallen out-of-date. Members of the EduCorps will then post a warning template on that page, and a grace period of one week will be instituted in which the article can be improved. If there is a significant amount of new information, it is likely that once updated, the article will become eligible for Good article status, and thereby ineligible for Comprehensive article status.

READ THIS FIRST!

An article must&hellip;


 * 1) &hellip;be well-written and detailed.
 * 2) &hellip;be unbiased, non-point of view.
 * 3) &hellip;be sourced with all available sources and appearances.
 * 4) &hellip;follow the Manual of Style, Layout Guide, and all other policies on Wookieepedia. This is, of course, within reason. If a topic only has a very limited degree of content that cannot be divided up into the relevant article sections, it is not required that it follow the Layout Guide precisely. This is to be judged on a case-by-case basis.
 * 5) &hellip;following the review process, be stable, i.e., does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars. This does not apply to vandalism and protection or semi-protection as a result of vandalism.
 * 6) &hellip;not be tagged with any sort of improvement tags (i.e. more sources, expand, etc).
 * 7) &hellip;have no redlinks.
 * 8) &hellip;have all relevant canon information presented.
 * 9) &hellip;be completely referenced for all available material and sources. See Sourcing for more information. While this is not required for an article possessing a singular source, it is encouraged, as it provides both uniformity and a good infrastructure should the topic be referenced in any future materials.
 * 10) &hellip;have all quotes and images sourced.
 * 11) &hellip;provide at least one relevant quote on the article if available.
 * 12) &hellip;include a "Behind the scenes" section for In-Universe articles.
 * 13) &hellip;counting the introduction and "Behind the scenes" material, must not exceed 250 words in length (not including captions, quotes, or headers, etc). Any articles exceeding the limit should be taken to the Good Article nominations page for consideration.

How to nominate:


 * 1) First, nominate an article you find is worthy of comprehensive status, putting it at the bottom of the list below. Nominated articles must meet all thirteen requirements stated above.
 * 2) Add CAnom at the top of the article you are nominating.
 * 3) Be sure to place sign in the "Nominated by" line when the nomination is posted for voting.
 * 4) Others will object to the nomination if they disagree that the article is good enough; they will then supply reasons for doing so, and ways to improve the article in accordance with the established rules.
 * 5) Nominators and supporters will adjust the article until the objectors (with reasonable objections) are satisfied. Objectors may also make alterations&mdash;if there is any reason for contention on a given point, it should be settled in a civil manner in the nomination field itself.
 * 6) Users may not vote on their own articles.
 * 7) There is no limit to the amount of nominations a given user can submit at any given time.

How to vote:


 * 1) Before doing anything, be sure to read the article completely, keeping a sharp eye out for mistakes.
 * 2) Afterward, compare the article to the criteria listed above, and then either support or object the article's nomination.
 * 3) *If you object, please supply concrete reasons for doing so, and how it can be improved.
 * 4) As stated above, any objections will be looked upon by the nominator, supporters, and anyone willing to improve the article, and action will be taken to please the objectors. Do not strike other users' objections; it is up to the objector to review the changes and strike if they are satisfied.
 * 5) There are several ways in which an article can receive the required number of votes. Within a 48-hour period of nomination, only EduCorps votes will count towards the total, although anyone may choose to vote in that window. If two members of the EduCorps support a nomination in that window, and there are no outstanding objections, the article can be considered a "Comprehensive article" and be tagged with the template 48 hours after the initial nomination.  The talk page will also be tagged with the CA template. When the 48 hours are up, any user's votes will contribute towards the total. If one EduCorps member has voted for an article after a week, three regular votes will be required. After the 48 hour period, an article can still also pass with just two EduCorps votes.
 * 6) Once a nomination is successful, it will be placed on the Comprehensive article list. Instructions on how to archive nominations, successful or otherwise, can be found here. Anyone can archive a nomination&mdash;just make sure it has the correct number of votes, has been nominated for at least a week (or 48 hours if there are two EC votes), and that there are absolutely no outstanding objections. If you are not sure how to do this, just ask, and someone will likely be more than willing to help you. Also, if you think you can slip one past us, think again&mdash;someone is always watching you.

All nominations will be considered idle and are subject to instantaneous removal by EduCorps members if objections are not addressed, or at least not answered, after a period of 2 weeks.

Comm 4

 * Nominated by: Corellian PremierAll along the watchtower 11:52, August 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Nomination comments: Labeled as technology, not a structure.

(1 ECs/1 Users/2 Total)
Support
 * 1)  SoresuMakashi ( Everything I tell you is a lie  the truth  ) 11:39, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Looks good to me -- DarthRage Leave a message after the beep 23:15, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

Object
 * 1) Soresu
 * 2) * Be more specific about how it was destroyed. Was it disabled by infiltrators? Destroyed in a space battle?
 * 3) * Can it be proven that it was created in 32 BBY? Just because it got deployed above Naboo in that year doesn't mean it was manufactured then. SoresuMakashi ( Everything I tell you is a lie  the truth  ) 23:07, August 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) **Context added; and I cannot prove it was created in 32 BBY so I removed the information. Corellian PremierAll along the watchtower 11:27, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Not Soresu
 * 6) * Keeping the second source as just "The New Essential Chronology" and sticking a source to Battle for Naboo in the middle of the first sentence would be a bit more straightforward than the explanatory note included with your second source. Keep it simple! :^D
 * 7) **While I agree it would be more simple, that was how I was instructed to source 32 BBY.
 * 8) ***Mind if I ask by who? It seems a really roundabout and unnecessary way of referencing. I really think that: "Comm 4 was a communications satellite established by the Trade Federation during its invasion of Naboo[1] in 32 BBY.[2]" would be simpler and better, with [1] going to the video game and [2] going to the NEC without all the explanatory stuff. Menkooroo 04:10, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * 9) ****By Tope and Xd on my first [] GAN. Corellian PremierAll along the watchtower 15:54, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * 10) *****Still seems unnecessary to me. Adding explanatory notes to references should be avoided when it can, and in this case, keeping the referencing simple would say all that needed to be said. Menkooroo 16:27, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * 11) ******Then would it be unnecessary on all the other Invasion of Naboo articles as well? Corellian PremierAll along the watchtower 20:10, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * 12) *******Yup. Menkooroo 00:06, September 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * 13) ********Hm. I see. Well, since there is already a precedent, I will not be making the change.
 * 14) *********Then I will not be striking the objection. We should always strive for simplicity, and the current method of sourcing is needlessly complicated. Menkooroo 02:07, September 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * 15) **********My opinion: If the NEC does not state that "Disruption of Comm 4" takes place in 32 BBY, then I find that an explanation in the reference is required. -- 1358  (Talk) 16:12, September 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * 16) ***********If the game establishes that the disruption of Comm 4 takes place during the Invasion of Naboo, and the NEC establishes that the Invasion of Naboo takes place during 32 BBY, then (in my opinion) the explanation is overkill when we should be keeping it simple. It's like all of the Clone Wars articles that reference Traviss's novelization for the date of 22 BBY --- they simply reference the novelization. They keep it simple. And this case is even more clear-cut than those ones. Menkooroo 03:14, September 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * 17) ************There's nothing wrong with adding an explanatory ref note where needed. In this case, the video game does not itself overtly support the 32 BBY date without drawing conclusions from other source material, NEC specifically, for one. The ref note is more precise and more helpful than leaving the reader to draw the unwritten conclusion for themselves. I also think we ought to be spending our time on more worthwhile objections than something as nitpicky and arbitrary as this. Toprawa and Ralltiir 18:01, September 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * 18) *************I'd like to see what the nominator thinks. As far as precedents go, setting one like this could lead to a lot more needlessly complicated referencing when a simpler solution is available. I agree that there's nothing wrong with adding an explanatory note when needed... but it isn't needed at all in this case (The game establishes that this is in the invasion of Naboo, which the NEC establishes is in 32 BBY --- how would it be drawing conclusions?). I'd be OK striking the objection, but only at the thoughtful advice of the nominator. Menkooroo 18:12, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * 19) **************The NEC, IIRC, mentions next to nothing about the adventures in BfN. So a reference note would bring clarity to the source of the date. I have also been using the same reference on the articles for Star Wars: Starfighter, as the same issue exists for that one. Corellian PremierAll along the watchtower 20:09, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * 20) ***************You got it. Menkooroo 06:01, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Two consecutive sentences beginning with "The Satellite" --- can you change it up?
 * 1) **Indeed I can.
 * 2) * Can you make the bts into two sentences? One-sentence paragraphs are frowned upon. Good work! Menkooroo 00:44, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) **Addressed. Thanks for your review. Corellian PremierAll along the watchtower 20:25, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

Comments

Folded ear boosqueak

 * Nominated by: Eyrezer 03:30, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Nomination comments: A menagerie of creatures from the Atrivis sector

(1 ECs/2 Users/3 Total)
Support
 * 1) Now that the naming thing has been cleared up.  SoresuMakashi ( Everything I tell you is a lie  the truth  ) 06:47, September 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) ~ SavageBob 22:27, September 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Excellent. Menkooroo 06:25, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Object
 * 1) Shouldn't the rare folded ear boosqueak have its own article?  SoresuMakashi ( Everything I tell you is a lie  the truth  ) 22:46, August 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) *Done, with a new nomination below! --Eyrezer 01:46, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) **See comments below. SoresuMakashi ( Everything I tell you is a lie  the truth  ) 09:32, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) My objection is in direct opposition to the above objection. Rebellion does not state or suggest in any way that any type of species named "boosqueak" is somehow a separate species from the folded ear boosqueak. The entry reads: "Fedje is host to many forms of exotic arboreal lifeforms including the rare folded ear boosqueak." "Boosqueak" should simply be a redirect to "Folded ear boosqueak," or vice versa, depending on what you think is the best title. Toprawa and Ralltiir 02:32, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I was unaware of that. If that's all the source says, then I agree with Toprawa. I would say folded ear boospueak would be the better name. SoresuMakashi ( Everything I tell you is a lie  the truth  ) 09:32, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) **The "folded ear" part is a qualifier on the type of boosqueak. This just follows the conventions of the English language. The "bottlenose dolphin" is a type of dolphin; the "long haired chihuahua" is a type of chihuahua; the "folded ear boosqueak" is a type of boosqueak. --Eyrezer 05:10, September 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) ***You're extrapolating based on real-world standards, which doesn't necessarily apply to the Star Wars universe or this species in question. The only species mentioned in Star Wars canon is the "folded ear boosqueak," yet you've taken it upon yourself to create a second species altogether. Show me the source that mentions the regular "boosqueak" in differential to the "folded ear boosqueak" and you can have two articles. Otherwise, these need to be combined into one article for the one species mentioned in canon. Toprawa and Ralltiir 05:32, September 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) **** I see Eyrezer's point; it's perfectly logical. But I think in this case, it is better to go with exactly what the OS says, which is "folded-ear boosqueak" and not just plain ol' "boosqueak." So, mostly per Tope. ~ SavageBob 05:36, September 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) **** Just as some other examples of how we've done this in the past, I think this situation is analogous to Kintan strider, Corellian sand panther, Mantellian Savrip, Florn Lamproid, etc. In each of these cases, we only have one article for the species (sometimes with the modifier, sometimes without). However, I'm sure we'd create a new one if a later source introduced us to the Chandrilan sand panther or what have you. ~ SavageBob 16:07, September 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) *****Against my better judgment, merged the two. Please proceed with the nomination lower down this page. --Eyrezer 10:33, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Rare folded-ear objection
 * 7) * I don't know how I feel about the bts's "possibly inspired by this encyclopedia entry." I say, it's speculative and questionably relevant, darn it! Menkooroo 05:43, September 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) **How about now? Rebellion established there were many exotic animals on Fedje, and later VotF has exotic pet salesmen from Fedje. --Eyrezer 23:31, September 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * 9) ***Still no good. "Appears to be" is original research. Similarly, I don't think it's really relevant to Boosqueak. Maybe for the Fedje article, but as VOTF doesn't mention the Boosqueak --- and Rebellion establishes that there are many exotic lifeforms from Fedje --- I think it's drifting too far off-topic. Menkooroo 03:20, September 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * 10) ****We definitely have different views on what constitutes OR, especially demonstrated by the completely limp wording you felt was necessary on the Mephitisian article. I remove the sentence on the relevance point, though. --Eyrezer 03:38, September 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * 11) ***** ... Well, that was a little reactionary and unnecessary. Menkooroo 16:36, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * 12) There should be more sources and references. Vision of the Future is mentioned in the BTS section, yet it is not sourced.--ID-21 Dolphin 23:43, September 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * 13) *To contest that, there was no confirmed appearance of the boosqueak in VotF, and the statement itself is self-sourcing. SoresuMakashi ( Everything I tell you is a lie  the truth  ) 23:48, September 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * 14) **Per Soresu. It is a self-sourcing statement. --Eyrezer 01:56, September 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * 15) Prepare to be savaged...
 * 16) * Can you clarify the BTS note? It sounds like the Imperial agents were inspired by the in-game encyclopedia of Rebellion, but I'm guessing you mean that Zahn was inspired? ~ SavageBob 13:55, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * 17) **Removed... --Eyrezer 10:35, September 17, 2010 (UTC)

Comments

Lohjoy

 * Nominated by:  Darth Karika  will destroy your planet! 00:33, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Nomination comments: (L)oh joy!

(3 ECs/1 Users/4 Total)
Support
 * 1) Reverend Lohjoy. Menkooroo 15:36, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2)  Jonjedigrandmaster  ( Talk ) 01:50, September 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) --Eyrezer 23:24, September 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * 4)  SoresuMakashi ( Everything I tell you is a lie  the truth  ) 06:49, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

Object
 * 1) I think you can add a fair amount of context to this, Ie, you currently don't even mention the war Lohjoy was involved in. Does it give a skin color for Lohjoy? Not all Ho'Din are green. --Eyrezer 22:20, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) *Added context. Nope, it doesn't give a skin color.  Darth Karika  will destroy your planet! 22:57, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Is it Omen or "The Omen"? The article flip-flops. Menkooroo 15:14, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) *It's just Omen. Corrected.  Darth Karika  will destroy your planet! 15:17, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Cav:
 * 6) *While Lohjoy was transmitting a hologram to Omen's commander, Yaru Korsin, her snake-like Ho'Din hair caught on fire; she was subsequently killed by a hull breach. Currently this reads like her hair caught on fire because she was sending a hologram, which I'm sure probably isn't the case. Can you tweak it slightly, maybe adding how her hair actually caught on fir (if known) to remove the implication? - Cavalier One FarStar Logo.jpg( Squadron channel ) 10:10, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) **Reworded.  Darth Karika  will destroy your planet! 12:06, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) Soresu
 * 9) * Could you give the quote some sort of context? Otherwise, it's confusing why it just cuts off abruptly. SoresuMakashi ( Everything I tell you is a lie  the truth  ) 23:03, September 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * 10) **Done.  Darth Karika  will destroy your planet! 00:56, September 16, 2010 (UTC)

Comments

Taloron language

 * Nominated by: ~ SavageBob 23:15, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Nomination comments: The word of the day is "Soknar."

(1 ECs/1 Users/2 Total)
Support
 * 1)  SoresuMakashi ( Everything I tell you is a lie  the truth  ) 05:41, September 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Savage Bob has written Soknar great articles since joining this site. Menkooroo 04:05, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

Object
 * 1) "The language is first mentioned" comes off as a bit odd. I know that present tense is OK when dealing with only one source, but I don't know about "is first". Sticking with past tense might look nicer, especially since there are a couple of other past tense references earlier in the bts. Menkooroo 15:20, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) *Yeah, I try to stick to present tense for BTS, but publication dates and such make it sound wonky sometimes. I've switched the is to was in this instance. Thanks for the review; I'm glad you didn't have Soknar objections! ~ SavageBob 16:34, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Cav:
 * 4) *Although the Taloron Hunters were first mentioned in The Star Wars Sourcebook, published by West End Games in 1987, and the species was first named in Domain of Evil, - a little confusion here; if the Taloron Hunters were first mentioned in one source, how could they be named in the second? Did they go under a different name in the first source? Some clarification is needed. - Cavalier One FarStar Logo.jpg( Squadron channel ) 10:14, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) **On second thought, a lot of that information was irrelevant to the article at hand (more appropriate to the Taloron (species) article instead), so I yanked it. How's it read now? ~ SavageBob 16:15, September 13, 2010 (UTC)

Comments

Unidentified pirate captain (Zekk)

 * Nominated by: Menkooroo 05:51, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * Nomination comments: Yo-ho

(2 ECs/1 Users/3 Total)
Support
 * 1) Uh huh&hellip;&mdash;  08:17, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) What happens in Blood Oath stays in Blood Oath. ~ SavageBob 16:13, September 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Quick n' easy.  Jonjedigrandmaster  ( Talk ) 00:30, September 15, 2010 (UTC)

Object
 * 1) Cav:
 * 2) *Maybe some context on Blood Oath's proposed plot in the BTS and how it followed on from the events on Invincible? - Cavalier One FarStar Logo.jpg( Squadron channel ) 10:23, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) **I don't know how relevant that is to this gal, talking about what Zekk was up to. Saying anything more than "He was a Jedi Knight who encountered her" seems a bit extraneous to me... whaddya think? Menkooroo 13:02, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) ***Wait, you said to the bts. I like that suggestion. Give it a look! Menkooroo 16:03, September 13, 2010 (UTC)

Comments

Unidentified Neona species

 * Nominated by: Eyrezer 08:58, September 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Nomination comments: An extinct species from the Colonies Region

(1 ECs/1 Users/2 Total)
Support
 * 1) ~ SavageBob 18:00, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2)  SoresuMakashi ( Everything I tell you is a lie  the truth  ) 03:37, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Object

Comments

Unidentified planet (Kolatill system)

 * Nominated by: Cavalier One FarStar Logo.jpg( Squadron channel ) 10:05, September 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Nomination comments: Umm ... yeah.

(0 ECs/0 Users/0 Total)
Support

Object
 * 1) *Well done. But based on the bts note, shouldn't the appearances section list it as an indirect mention? Menkooroo 18:57, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Comments

Bimiza

 * Nominated by: Eyrezer 11:06, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Nomination comments: From the Cassander sector

(1 ECs/1 Users/2 Total)
Support
 * 1)  NAYAYEN  failure is success rounded down 11:33, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2)  SoresuMakashi ( Everything I tell you is a lie  the truth  ) 02:58, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

Object

Comments

Djorra

 * Nominated by: Eyrezer 10:27, September 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Nomination comments: Another plant from the Cassandran Worlds

(0 ECs/0 Users/0 Total)
Support

Object

Comments

Unidentified Garqian reptile

 * Nominated by: Eyrezer 12:01, September 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Nomination comments: A reptile from the Cassandran Worlds

(0 ECs/0 Users/0 Total)
Support

Object

Comments

Vert-mite

 * Nominated by: Eyrezer 01:54, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Nomination comments: A mite from the Cassandran Worlds

(0 ECs/0 Users/0 Total)
Support

Object

Comments

Unidentified Garqian creature

 * Nominated by: Eyrezer 02:58, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Nomination comments: I'd be interested to know if people think this would pass the duck test for an insectoid.

(1 ECs/0 Users/1 Total)
Support
 * 1) Very easy read.  Jonjedigrandmaster  ( Talk ) 16:41, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Object

Comments