Wookieepedia:Good article nominations



This page is for the nomination of good articles. This is not a way to showcase the articles of your favorite characters, spaceships, or the like. For a list of good articles, see Category:Wookieepedia good articles.

What is a Good article?
A Good article is an article that adheres to quality standards, but cannot reach FA status due to its limited content.

A Good article has the following attributes.

1. It is well written. In this respect:


 * (a) it has compelling prose, and is readily comprehensible to non-specialist readers;
 * (b) it follows a logical structure, introducing the topic and then grouping together its coverage of related aspects; where appropriate, it contains a succinct lead section summarizing the topic, and the remaining text is organized into a system of hierarchical sections (particularly for longer articles);
 * (c) it follows the Manual of Style, Layout Guide, and all other policies;
 * (d) necessary technical terms or jargon are briefly explained in the article itself, or an active link is provided.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect:


 * (a) it provides references to any and all sources used for its material;
 * (b) sources should be selected in accordance with the guidelines for reliable sources;
 * (c) it contains no elements of original research.

3. It is broad in its coverage, addressing all major aspects of the topic (this requirement is slightly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FA, and allows shorter articles and broad overviews of large topics to be listed);.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy. In this respect:


 * (a) viewpoints are represented fairly and without bias;
 * (b) all significant points of view are fairly presented, but not asserted, particularly where there are or have been conflicting views on the topic.

5. It is stable, i.e., it 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. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. In this respect:


 * (a) the images are properly sourced and have succinct and descriptive captions;
 * (b) a lack of images does not in itself prevent an article from achieving Good Article status.

Nomination of Good articles
To nominate an article for Good article status, list it here. Nominated articles must meet all six requirements stated above. If an article has a net total of five votes of support (+5) after at least a week since it was nominated (beginning the day of its nomination), the article will be considered a "Good article" and tagged with the template. The talk page will also be tagged with the GA template. For complete instructions on archiving nominations please see here.

(+3)
Support
 * 1) Nominated. Sourced more or less everything and crammed in all info as I could think of in there. Unit 8311 17:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 2)  Chack Jadson  (Talk)  13:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Goodwood  [[Image:Rebsymbol2.png|20px]] ( For the Rebellion! ) 14:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Good enough.  Stake black   msg 20:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) I haven't read it, but there's no unsourced statements in the infobox. --  AdmirableAckbar  [Talk] 17:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) From the Forest of Goodwood:
 * 3) * Quote is not sourced.
 * 4) * Infobox needs to be fully sourced.
 * 5) **Source tag needed for name (as in the name given for "Model").
 * 6) * The sentence "The Variable Geometry Self-Propelled Battle Droid, Mark I, or Vulture droid starfighter, was a lethal droid starfighter used by the Trade Federation[4] and later, in much vaster numbers, the Confederacy of Independent Systems." needs to be rewritten for clarity and grammar.
 * 7) * "Lethal" in above example is POV.
 * 8) * Grammatical error here: "and could reach 1200 km/h in an planet's atmosphere." Link to atmosphere also needed.
 * 9) * Please break up and/or reword this sentence: "While in this walking mode, a droid starfighter could also latch onto surfaces in zero gravity, allowing the fighters to patrol from the outside hulls of capital ships instead of wasting energy in flight or using valuable hangar space."
 * 10) * The third paragraph in the Description section is a single sentence. Either merge it with another paragraph or expand.
 * 11) * Same for the last paragraph.
 * 12) * Prose issues throughout the article.
 * 13) * Please rewrite the BtS section, clarifying the mechanics of the Battlefront games in relation to vulture droids.
 * 14) * Last two statements in BtS need to be sourced and could possibly be expanded (first from the specific Clone Wars episode, second from the games).
 * 15) *TIMMMMMMBERRRRRRR!!-- Goodwood [[Image:Rebsymbol2.png|20px]] ( For the Rebellion! ) 21:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) **Just when I thought everything was sorted...okay, quote sourced, infobox sourced, done, done, done, done that, done that, that as well, please clarify what you mean by prose isssues--as far as I'm concerned, the prose is nice, formal and encylopedic, done that. Unit 8311 09:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 17) ***Though there's a couple small nuggets yet to fix, thank you for addressing these objections. The article is much better for it.-- Goodwood [[Image:Rebsymbol2.png|20px]] ( For the Rebellion! ) 01:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 18) ****BTS sourced, I think the source for that is the NEGVV, but could somebody please do me a favour and check. Unit 8311 18:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 19) *****There. EVERYTHING is now sourced. There is now no reason why this should not become a GA. Unit 8311 11:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 20) ******You'll notice it's called Good Article, and not Sourced Article. Being sourced is not the only factor involved in an article becoming a GA; being well-written and comprehensive is as important (I'm not saying this article lacks said requirement; just a general comment). -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 20:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 21) No info from the NEGTV&V. I'm sure some info could be added from some of the non-referenced appearances/sources. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 20:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 22) *Oh for...just like before, I don't own the NEGVV, but I'm sure any information from there is already in the article. In any case, it's far more comprehensive than it once was. And doing the second one would make the article, as you once said, very 'listy'. Unit 8311 20:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 23) *Whether or not you own the book is irrelevant. And "far more comprehensive" than it once was does not mean it is comprehensive enough. And unless you or someone else trustworthy can categorically tell me that no additional info can be added from it, then my objection stands (I would do it myself, but I don't own the book). I'm sure you can add the info without making it listy. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 20:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 24) **I can check, and add any missing info.  Chack Jadson  (Talk) 20:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments
 * I'd just like to point out that everything has to be sourced to be a GA, not just "oh, well, most of it is, why not?" Please don't nominate an article if you recognise everything is not sourced. --  AdmirableAckbar  [Talk] 17:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about this, but shouldn't the intro be left unsourced?  Chack Jadson  (Talk) 23:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If possible, yes. It is not hard to put the information that one wants to source into the actual body of the article in question, thus creating a clean looking introduction. However, there are a small number of examples where this doesn't work. This should answer any questions about where/when to source. Cheers, Greyman ( Paratus ) 01:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

(+3)
Support
 * 1) Thefourdotelipsis 08:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) No available quotes me sad :P Greyman ( Paratus ) 23:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Master Aban Fiolli (Alpheridies University ComNet) [[Image:NewRepublic.png|20px]] 18:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Jedimca0(Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 13:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Comments
 * And on... Thefourdotelipsis 08:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

(+4)
Support
 * 1) Sourced everything, images sourced, expanded much of the article. Unit 8311 19:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well detailed, well written, has enough images without going nuts, looks like a good one to me. Jedibob5 22:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC) (Vote struck per Single issue voters policy.  Greyman ( Paratus ) 01:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC))
 * 1)  Chack Jadson  (Talk)  22:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) &mdash; Darthtyler http://images.wikia.com/swfanon/images/1/18/Scuba_Diver.gif Talk 05:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Kilson 07:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Domlith 10:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 5)  Stake black   msg 19:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Comments
 * 1) Just from a quick glance:
 * 2) *The "Droideka series and variants" should be expanded somewhat to discuss the main differences between the models mentioned -- right now, that section does not meet GAN rule 1(a).
 * 3) * The BtS needs to be de-triviaized, and the bullets need to be removed -- again, per rule 1(a).
 * 4) *The two pictures in the "Appearances" section need to be incorporated into the main body or removed entirely. Remember that pictures need to support text so as not to break Fair Use.
 * 5) *Having two pictures in the "Description" section makes it looked cluttered. The best of the two should be picked and enlarged a tiny bit to fill the space.
 * 6) * All reference links need to be linked per policy.
 * Greyman ( Paratus ) 16:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) *Done that, done that, done that, to me it doesn't look cluttered--not on my browser anyway, done that. Unit 8311 21:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) **Simply moving the pictures from the Appearances section up a bit has now cluttered that section&mdash;two pictures in the "Droideka series and variants" section are not needed at all. Not every picture of a Droideka needs to be included in the article&mdash;only the ones that support the text. Likewise, I still feel that the same applies to the "Description" section, especially since I'm looking at it from three different browsers + two different computers and it still looks cramped. Also, the "Droideka series and variants" objection still has not been met: What's the main differences between the P, W, and Q series? Right now, Rule 1(a) is still not met there as those three sentences should be expanded. The Grapple model -- You say "melee", but does that mean that it was strictly a hand-to-hand fighting droid? Any information on why they were made? etc. The BtS looks good, no further concerns there, and the reference links as well. Greyman ( Paratus ) 22:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) ***Okay, done that, done that, no major differences between those series are ever specified, clarified that. Unit 8311 08:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Seems a bit listy, with lots of small paragraphs. I'd like to see some of them fleshed out or merged, preferably the former. Could also be expanded a bit, I reckon; no real info from the NEGTD or Galaxies. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 19:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) *Doesn't seem listy to me. In any case, I've added in a bit more info from galaxies. Most information from the NEGTVV is recycled from previous sources to the best of my knowledge, and in any case I don't own it. Unit 8311 20:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Considering the number of appearances and sources, I think the Clone Wars section should be expanded.  Stake black   msg 12:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I don't own every single EU piece involving the Clone Wars. Most of those appearances are probably just background ones anyway, and mentioning every single one would turn the Clone Wars section into a long list of battles droidekas appeared in. Unit 8311 13:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, that makes sense :)  Stake black   msg 19:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

(+3)
Support
 * 1) --  AdmirableAckbar  [Talk] 21:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Jedimca0(Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 15:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Greyman ( Paratus ) 23:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1)  Chack Jadson  (Talk)  13:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Comments
 * Latest of my Wretched Hives former-redlink nominations. Jik'Tal is up next. --  AdmirableAckbar  [Talk] 21:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

(+4)
Support
 * 1) --  AdmirableAckbar  [Talk] 21:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Greyman ( Paratus ) 00:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Jedimca0(Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 17:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 4)  Master Aban Fiolli  {Alpheridies University ComNet} 23:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Comments
 * Wretched Hives number three. Sha'Dria is next. --  AdmirableAckbar  [Talk] 21:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

(+1)
Support
 * 1) Nominated. Unit 8311 17:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) It's pretty good. Kilson LOVES PIE 07:37, 22 November 2007 {UTC}

Object
 * 1) Seems a bit short given the number of appearances and sources, though I could be wrong. Also, no info from the NEGTV&V. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 19:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Short pshort--most nominated artricles here are 'short'. Well, I don't own the NEGTVV, but I'd imagine that it recycles information anyway. Someone who owns it can check. Unit 8311 20:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

'Comments

(-1)
Support
 * 1) &mdash; Darthtyler http://images.wikia.com/swfanon/images/1/18/Scuba_Diver.gif Talk 21:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose
 * All of the images are watermarked in some way, shape, or form. Thefourdotelipsis 23:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) The intro is in need of some better prose and general Wookification. Also, I would recommend expanding on why Solo was returning to Tatooine in the first place. It was more than just going to see Jabba, if memory serves. There's more info on his purpose in A Hunter's Fate: Greedo's Tale in Tales from the Mos Eisley Cantina. I'm sure there's also some content to be found in Rebel Dawn. Toprawa and Ralltiir 07:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm not sure it makes any sense that the Empire was interested in "a popular bounty" on Solo. That makes them seem like they're bounty hunters themselves, as if the Imperial forces are interested in collecting on Jabba's bounty. I'm pretty sure Solo already had an Imperial bounty placed on him by this time, a topic probably also covered in Rebel Dawn. Toprawa and Ralltiir 08:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Infobox not sourced. Writing isn't to the highest of standard either; like T&R said, particularly the intro. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 19:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments
 * Um, what exactly does "watermarked" mean...?&mdash; Darthtyler http://images.wikia.com/swfanon/images/1/18/Scuba_Diver.gif Talk 05:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Done.&mdash; Darthtyler http://images.wikia.com/swfanon/images/1/18/Scuba_Diver.gif Talk 05:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

(+4)
Support Oppose
 * 1) &mdash; Darthtyler http://images.wikia.com/swfanon/images/1/18/Scuba_Diver.gif Talk 05:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) &mdash;Graestan ( This party's over ) 05:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Absolutely. -- Ozzel 08:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Greyman ( Paratus ) 17:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments

(0)
Support
 * 1) I personally think it's a good article, and I've seen worse pages become GA's. I mean, what's so great about Cloak of Deception? TIEPilot051999 07:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) From the Grey of Man.
 * 2) *Incorrect use of commas throughout the article&mdash;could use a solid copy-edit.
 * 3) *Huge parts of the article are basically play-by-plays. These need to re-written properly.
 * 4) *Bullets used in the body of the article. Those pieces of information need to be worked into paragraph(s) with proper prose, per rule 1(a).
 * 5) *Has unsourced quotes, rule 2(a).
 * 6) *Categories are not placed correctly, and lack of proper categories.
 * 7) *Lead should be longer than one sentence.
 * 8) * Some of the images that are used have flawed "Summary" formatting. Rule 6(a), images are to be properly sourced, which includes formatting.
 * This is all just after a cursory glance, without even reading the majority of the article. This article needs more work before it will be ready for a check mark. Greyman ( Paratus ) 16:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment
 * Cloak of Deception is an OOU article which does not follow the same layout as IU articles, such as this one. As such, they are not on the same playing fields with regards to review. Likewise, Cloak of Deception is one of better put together novel articles on Wookieepedia. I really wouldn't suggest nominating articles simply because "I've seen worse"&mdash;instead, I would suggest putting work and effort into an article, and creating something you can be proud of. Simply nominating an article, without putting any work into it, suggests that the GAN rules laid out at the top of this page are most likely not adhered to. Greyman ( Paratus ) 16:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I solved the formatting problem with the images, but I agree with Greyman, this needs a lot of work. --Jedimca0(Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 17:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

(+1)
Support
 * 1) As nominator.  Chack Jadson  (Talk) 21:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Goodwood  [[Image:Rebsymbol2.png|20px]] ( For the Rebellion! ) 14:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) From the Forest of Goodwood:
 * 2) * Introduction could be expanded/fleshed out.
 * 3) * The line "Q9-X2 fitted himself with low-power repulsor pads he could hover above obstacles." needs to be fixed, with perhaps a link to repulsorlift added.
 * 4) * Infobox needs to be sourced.
 * 5) * The article's prose seems to be generally stilted; numerous small paragraphs blend awkwardly with each other. Either fix the transitions or blend the paragraphs. Still too many short, stubby sentences.
 * 6) * History paragraph could possibly be split, as well as the two P&T paragraphs merged.
 * 7) * BtS needs to be sourced.
 * 8) *TIMMMMMBERRRRRRRR!!!-- Goodwood [[Image:Rebsymbol2.png|20px]] ( For the Rebellion! ) 13:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) **Fixed your objections.  Chack Jadson  (Talk) 13:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Unsourced image. I haven't read the novels he appears in, but surely a fellow who appears in five novels could have a slightly longer history section. As I said, this is merely an assumption so please tell me if I'm mistaken. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 19:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments

(0)
Support
 * 1) As nominator.  Chack Jadson  (Talk) 21:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) From the Forest of Goodwood:
 * 2) * Introduction needs to be fleshed out a bit; add male Yevetha as well.
 * 3) * Biography section needs to be broken up into subsections.
 * 4) * There is an image of Nil Spaar from the NEC on the wiki; this should be added in.
 * 5) *Lots of little paragraphs in the Biography section, some of which transition awkwardly and others which consist of only one sentence. Please fix/merge as necessary.
 * 6) * The sentence "The Yevetha, talented shipbuilders, were used as slaves" is inaccurate, as the Yevetha had little in the way of spacefaring technology before their subjugation and enslavement. That paragraph is still a bit awkward.
 * 7) * P&T section needs cleanup; "choke" in last sentence does not need quote marks.
 * 8) * Tense issues: "Since vessels not capable of entering hyperspace cannot leave it, Nil Spaar was never seen again" needs fixing.
 * 9) *TIMMMMMBERRRRRRRR!-- Goodwood [[Image:Rebsymbol2.png|20px]] ( For the Rebellion! ) 17:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments
 * The article really needs to be rewritten; by and large, the prose is stilted and reads awkwardly.-- Goodwood [[Image:Rebsymbol2.png|20px]] ( For the Rebellion! ) 17:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

(+3)
Support
 * 1) As nominator. --Eyrezer 01:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Jedimca0(Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 13:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Cull Tremayne 09:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Comments Link title

(+3)
Support
 * 1) As nominator. Toprawa and Ralltiir 22:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Nice work tweaking the article, T&R. I'll give it my vote.  Master Aban Fiolli  {Alpheridies University ComNet} 03:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Bah, take this to FA ;) Greyman ( Paratus ) 17:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 20:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) From the squalid cubicle of Graestan:
 * 2) *Round One:
 * 3) * Intro desperately needs expansion.
 * 4) **Expanded intro. Toprawa and Ralltiir 08:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) ***I like what I see; we'll have to see about updating it as the article is further altered. &mdash;Graestan ( This party's over ) 05:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) * Article is rife with point of view and original research issues.
 * 7) **While still maintaining the same view point in the history section, I've reworded some things to try and make it more neutral overall; renamed section for greater neutrality; Sourced, reworded some things to try and remove original research items. Let me know. Toprawa and Ralltiir 04:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) ***I like the removal of POV info I've seen so far. Are you capable of checking the sources to make sure the info they contain is represented correctly? If not, you may want to ask around. &mdash;Graestan ( This party's over ) 05:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) ****Yes for all, except the information from Inside the Worlds of Star Wars Trilogy and the Clone Wars gladiator information. Will try to see who can confirm this info. Toprawa and Ralltiir 00:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) *****Much better. Great work. &mdash;Graestan ( This party's over ) 18:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) * Quotes appearing in places besides the beginning of sections should be moved, or the sections could be sub-sectioned.
 * 12) **Quotes removed from article body. Toprawa and Ralltiir 06:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) ***Excellent. We can talk about finding more quotes and/or more appropriate ones to head the rest of the sections after this round is complete. &mdash;Graestan ( This party's over ) 05:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) * Gallery = bad. Additionally, fewer and larger images would be preferable.
 * 15) **Gallery removed, relocated to its own page. Images reduced/replaced with better ones. As noted in the comments section, the wampa attack in Echo Base image is unsourced. It's too freaking cool looking to get rid of. I'm determined to source it eventually. Toprawa and Ralltiir 05:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) ***Good job; the article's images are much better placed. Do your homework on the attack image; users in the IRC, which you can visit without even a chat program, typically have this type of information at their disposal. I'm in there a lot, too. Also, Eyrezer is pretty handy with images. &mdash;Graestan ( This party's over ) 05:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 17) * "Behind the scenes" needs to be cleaned up and restructured, with all trivial or speculative information removed. See WP:TRIVIA in particular.
 * 18) **Removed what I believe to be the most trivial of information. Cleaned up and restructured. Toprawa and Ralltiir 06:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 19) *My Advice: Consultation of the Manual of Style would be a good idea. Don't think of these issues as a brick wall; instead see the opportunity to create a great article (this one could easily become a featured article) and learn the ropes of article writing and editing on the wiki at the same time. You're a good writer, T&R. Welcome to the Big Leagues. Yours, &mdash;Graestan ( This party's over ) 05:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) *Round Two:
 * 2) * Era tags for an animal?
 * 3) **Removed. Wasn't sure about this, though, like planets, for ex, it makes sense. Toprawa and Ralltiir 18:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) ***I have asked around, and there is strong consensus against such a notion. Graestan ( This party's over ) 06:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) *Find some more quotes to head up sections.
 * 6) * Move around/resize images for aesthetics. Line them up on alternating sides.
 * 7) **Resized, moved first article image to left side for alternating effect. Let me know how you think this looks. Toprawa and Ralltiir 18:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) *More basic information regarding appearance, etc. should be added to the BtS.
 * 9) *Try to make sure that information from every source listed it represented and cited somehow.
 * 10) **Does this also go for all of these ridiculous video game appearances where (in my opinion, at least) the canonicity is questionable at best? Toprawa and Ralltiir 02:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) ***Oh yes, unfortunately. Heck, at the least it should be in the BtS info outlined above. Graestan ( This party's over ) 06:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) ****As far as listing Databank entries in the Source list, is there any precedent as far as placing them at the beginning of end of the list, since it's pretty difficult to determine when they were published? Toprawa and Ralltiir 17:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) * Kill the Wikipedia link. We are better.
 * 14) **(Didn't put it there!) Yes, yes we are. Toprawa and Ralltiir 18:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) *My Conclusion: There is not far to go before GA on this one. I'd really consider nominating it for featured status sometime soon, also. I'm really liking what I see; more than one Inq has asked why it isn't a FAN. &mdash;Graestan ( This party's over ) 18:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) From the Family-sized Pasta Bowl of Fiolli:
 * 2) *Just some thoughts; hope they help.
 * 3) * Not to beat a dead tauntaun, but the Intro needs to cover the substance of the article as an overview or abstract.
 * 4) **Expanded intro. See above. Toprawa and Ralltiir 08:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) ***Really nice expansion.  Master Aban Fiolli  {Alpheridies University ComNet} 02:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) * The bold-facing of the subspecies is not really a common-practice thing, in my experience. I would remove them. In fact, I would actually make a subsection under Physiological dedicated to them. It's important enough.
 * 7) **Bold face removed; topic sub-sectioned. Toprawa and Ralltiir 01:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) * The section headings should be "Biology and appearance" first, then "Behavior and intelligence" second. This is parallel to the treatment of sentient species and confirmed with Inqs.
 * 9) **Sub-sectioned to be uniform with Manual of Style page. Toprawa and Ralltiir 01:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) ***It is per MoS, though I put up a CT to solidify that which was talked about on the IRC.  Master Aban Fiolli  {Alpheridies University ComNet} 02:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) * Fifth paragraph of section 1: "&hellip;enabling them to attack their prey completely unawares."
 * 12) **Reworded. Toprawa and Ralltiir 01:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) * "The wampa attack on Luke Skywalker in 3 ABY suggested a sort of pair bonding between male and female wampas, and that their lives may have been far from exclusively solitary. While Skywalker was attacked by a male wampa, he regained consciousness in the den of a female." Woah, ok. Where does this come from? Should be referenced.
 * 14) **Referenced at end of paragraph. Parts may still be a bit too speculative, though. Let me know. Toprawa and Ralltiir 01:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) ***Okay, it might still be a bit speculative, but I'm not sure how better to word it.  Master Aban Fiolli  {Alpheridies University ComNet} 02:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) * History, paragraph 4: "Although he had only knowingly seen one of the beasts, where there was one, there had to be more." Had to be or suspected there was?
 * 17) **Reworded. Toprawa and Ralltiir 04:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 18) * History, overall doesn't seem to fall into the NPoV category - though I know that it can be hard as in a case like this. It's really key words that do that, in this case.
 * 19) **Tried to "neutralize" the POV, while still maintaining the overal view point in the newly renamed "Attack on Echo Base" section. See above. Toprawa and Ralltiir 04:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 20) ***Nice work.  Master Aban Fiolli  {Alpheridies University ComNet} 02:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 21) * The last three "paragraphs" of Other Encounters could be consolidated. The entire section, though is kind-of listy.
 * 22) **Restructured History section; added "Wampas in the galaxy" section in an effort to break up the list. Toprawa and Ralltiir 04:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 23) * I say take two or three pictures from the gallery and use them in the article, else, I'd rid the gallery altogether.
 * 24) **Gallery gone. See above. Toprawa and Ralltiir 05:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 25) * The BTS is not really in a chronological-like order. The different ideas for the scenes in Episode V possibly could go first, that way it flows better through the section.
 * 26) **Addressed BTS. See above. Toprawa and Ralltiir 06:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 27) ***I really, really like how you did the BTS. Nice work on that.  Master Aban Fiolli  {Alpheridies University ComNet} 02:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 28) *Well researched. I am looking forward to seeing the final product! Good luck. Hope this helps.  Master Aban Fiolli  {Alpheridies University ComNet} 06:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 29) **I'd like to thank you, Fiolli, for the assist in the tweaking and shaping of this article. &mdash;Graestan ( This party's over ) 05:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Some things I noticed:
 * 2) * If tauntauns were so plentiful than why did wampas have to travel so far? Please clarify.
 * 3) **The word "relatively" acts as a modifier of the entire phrase to indicate a relation to the wampas themselves. They weren't necessarily plentiful on Hoth, but were in relation to the wampas. I could add a little bit to this sentence, such as, "in relation to the wampas," or, "in comparison," though I feel that would be adding an unnecessary redundancy. But let me know how you feel about this. Toprawa and Ralltiir 18:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) * Remove the line about how the caves reflected light.
 * 5) **Yeah. Gone. Toprawa and Ralltiir 21:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) *"After mating, female wampas would birth up to three cubs per litter. If, however, a cub wandered out of the den and made its first kill, other wampas would commonly give extreme attention to that cub." So did they treat them the same otherwise? If so, please add such a line.
 * 7) * I'd suggest making the last two sentences of the section "Society and culture" separate paragraphs (though they may be small).
 * 8) **Agreed - meant to address this earlier, but forgot. Good catch. Toprawa and Ralltiir 18:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) * Image:Wampa Echo Base.jpg needs a source.
 * 10) **Sourced, thanks to Ozzel. Toprawa and Ralltiir 18:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) * Rewrite the third, fifth and sixth paragraphs of "Attack on Echo Base".
 * 12) **Paragraphs tweaked and cleaned up; repetative phrasing reworded. Other than that, I contend that these paragraphs maintain good, clean, active-voice prose, while staying within the MOS/NPOV guidelines. Toprawa and Ralltiir 04:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) * I think the two quotes should be switched.  Chack Jadson  (Talk) 20:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) **Switched. Toprawa and Ralltiir 23:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) ***Good work so far, only one more thing to fix.  Chack Jadson  (Talk) 20:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) ***Will get to all concerns soon. Will need a few days break during finals week here. Toprawa and Ralltiir 16:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments
 * The only appearance not included in which the wampa isn't simply mentioned is The Bounty Hunters: Aurra Sing (according to App list). Also, the pic of the wampa attacking two Rebel soldiers in Echo Base in the gallery is not sourced. Toprawa and Ralltiir 22:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * In response to Round One BTS concerns, while I can see that much of the BTS info is trivial and worth removing, I fear that even after reading the WP:TRIVIA page I do not fully understand what is considered "good" BTS material. It would seem to me, at least in this case, almost all of the BTS information there is trivial, except for probaby the most basic, hard information. What would you recommend removing? Toprawa and Ralltiir 06:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Honestly? Check my contribs, then page down to where most of the edits were "1.4 Wookifications." These were mostly BtS massacres. It's what I call my Wookification Crusade, and it's a pretty clear example of the types of things that should stay or should go. Don't be afraid to trim the fat. &mdash;Graestan ( This party's over ) 05:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Updated page with info from the Aurra Sing comic. Toprawa and Ralltiir 23:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Updated page with info from Inferno. Toprawa and Ralltiir 05:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

(+2)
Support
 * 1) --  AdmirableAckbar  [Talk] 19:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Jedimca0(Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 13:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Comments
 * Isn't it frowned upon to say "His ultimate fate is unknown?" -LtNOWIS 20:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Addressed. --  AdmirableAckbar  [Talk] 22:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Bulk of the article written by Darth Culator some time ago; I expanded and sourced. --  AdmirableAckbar  [Talk] 19:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

(+4)
Support
 * 1) Havac 21:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Greyman ( Paratus ) 17:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 3)  Chack Jadson  (Talk)  20:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Jedimca0(Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 19:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Comments
 * Is it possible to expand P&A at all? I know there might not be enough information to do so, but please expand it if you can.  Chack Jadson  (Talk) 13:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not. Havac 18:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

(+3)
Support
 * 1) Nominated. Greyman ( Paratus ) 03:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Jedimca0(Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 12:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 20:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Comments

(+2)
Support
 * 1) Thefourdotelipsis 09:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Jedimca0(Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 15:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Comments
 * And on... Thefourdotelipsis 09:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

(+1)
Support
 * 1) Nominated.  Stake black   msg 19:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Comments