Wookieepedia:Good article nominations/Redeemer (Venator-class)


 * ''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a good article nomination that was successful. Please do not modify it.

Redeemer (Venator-class)

 * Nominated by: Kilson Like PIE 23:23, 20 June 09 (UTC)
 * Nomination comments: Goes along with my Defender nom. Me and CC both think that there's not enough info. for a Commanders and crew section.

(3 ACs/3 Users/6 Total)
Support
 * 1) I have no problems with it. Well done, PIEman.  IFYLOFD  ( You will pay the price for your lack of vision! ) 04:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 2)  Mauser  Comlink 10:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 3)  CC7567  (talk) 20:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Toprawa and Ralltiir 03:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) --Clone Commander Lee 11:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 6)  Cavalier One FarStar Logo.jpg( Squadron channel ) 08:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Object
 * 1) Mauser:
 * 2) * Why there is little no technical information listed, both in the body and in the infobox, when the Venator-class Star Destroyer article has plenty?
 * 3) **If I might butt in here, it's because the Redeemer wasn't confirmed to be a "universal" Star Destroyer; for example, we don't know the specifics for the crew. It has to be clarified directly, or else it's just speculation.  CC7567  (talk) 18:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) ***We may be oblivious about the crew, but we can be sure it has standard width/height, right?  Mauser  Comlink 20:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) ****For now, I rather doubt it; who's to say that it wasn't modified? Just because the original Venator was a certain size doesn't mean that it was used on all destroyers; again, unless there's a source (and a recent one at that) that clearly states "All Venators Are This Size", it's still speculation.  CC7567  (talk) 23:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) *****Because the animators use the same model over and over again, that's why! =) Seriously, I looked at the other starships FA and GA and mpst of them seem to ignore the characteristics of individual ships, even if they are presented in a sourcebook for the class as a whole. No point arguing with that, I think, no matter how I disagree.  Mauser  Comlink 10:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) * Can somehting else be found for the BTS?
 * 8) **Gave another little tidbit, but other than that, not really. Kilson Likes PIE 21:53, 21 June 09 (UTC)
 * 9) *Otherwise looks good.  Mauser  Comlink 10:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) Attack of the Clone
 * 11) * "The Redeemer was part of the Republic's task force of three Venator-class cruisers to eliminate the Confederate blockade, led by the Jedi General Anakin Skywalker and his Padawan, Jedi Commander Ahsoka Tano, along with the cruisers Resolute and Defender. " Please try to reword this sentence; it currently sounds like there's more than three cruisers involved.
 * 12) **It still has the same problem, even with the addition of "made up". If you're going to name the other two cruisers, please do so when you mention them first; otherwise, it's just too confusing.  CC7567  (talk) 20:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 13) ***How about now?
 * 14) ****I'll catch you in IRC if I can, but the wording still isn't coherent. The sentence doesn't get in the fact that all three cruisers made up the task force, and that the task force was under the command of Skywalker and Tano; right now, it isn't clear what Skywalker and Tano were commanding. It would be clearer to say "the Redeemer, Resolute, and Defender were part of a Republic task force under the command of Skywalker and Tano sent to eliminate the Confederate blockade." However, you're still going to have to find some way to get in the fact that the Resolute and Defender were Venators.  CC7567  (talk) 21:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 15) * "It also had a pair of command towers and eight engines equipped." Can "equipped" be varied, as it's used in the previous sentence? Also, the word order isn't working here.
 * 16) * Just a note: while I realize this adheres to the Manual of Style, please consider changing "Venator" to "Venator-class" in all related instances; it gives the impression that it's fanon.
 * 17) **I was only able to find one instance, and I changed it. If you see anymore, please tell me, or just change it yourself.
 * 18) * "However, Tuuk summoned four more Munificent frigates to support his fleet, which opened fire upon the Republic task force, causing heavy damage to all three Star Destroyers." The excess commas are making this sentence choppy.
 * 19) * While it's fine to leave the stuff about Skywalker's defeat of Tuuk in the article, please try to shorten it a tad. It's not directly relevant to the article, and it doesn't require as much detail as it currently has.
 * 20) * Does the CSWE have an entry for the Redeemer, as the Defender did?  CC7567  (talk) 20:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 21) **No, it does not. Thanks for the review CC, everything else is addressed. Kilson Likes PIE 12:32, 28 June 09 (UTC)

Comments > JangFett  Talk 23:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC) > JangFett  Talk 23:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Missing a lot of Venator-class Star Destroyer description. Other than that, nice work Kilson :) <span style="font-variant: small-caps; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 12px"
 * 1) *Please see the response to Mauser's comment.  CC7567  (talk) 23:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) **Indeed, I concur with his objection. <span style="font-variant: small-caps; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 12px"
 * Kilson, sorry about the confusion; I voted when I still had an objection remaining. I've stricken it for now, but I'll replace it once the objection is fixed.  CC7567  (talk) 18:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)