Wookieepedia:Featured article nominations/Death Star


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

Death Star
Support
 * 1) Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 01:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) .  .  .  .  07:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) -- IG-Prime (Sentience Core)[[Image:Cislogo.png|20px]] 22:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Master Secura
 * 5) Roron Corobb 21:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Chack Jadson 01:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Objections

Comments
 * When I first saw it, the only things that jumped out at me were a short summary (which I fixed) and a minor typo. Lots of good quotes and images. No infobox should be needed because it is not about a particular Death Star, but the project as a whole. Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 01:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I say withhold until post-Death Star novel. Cutch 01:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sort of in agreement. This article will be undergoing MAJOR changes and be unstable for a while next year when that article comes out. Since we don't have a way to un-feature articles, that is a problem.  - breathesgelatin Talk 02:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well I didn't know about the novel when I featured it. Sorry. Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 02:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think that we should have to hold off something from FA status just because of an upcoming book. I think, however, that once the book is released, we should block editing of the page, and have someone set up additional information relating to the Perry book, and get it all in there in one fell swoop. .  .  .  .  04:13, 17 October 2006 (PDT)
 * Well, I'd strongly oppose that. Locking a page for no good reason is contrary to the very principle of this wiki. The idea is that people would enter the new information until it became stable.  - breathesgelatin Talk 11:11, 17 October 2006 (PDT)
 * That makes no sense at all. Why would we lock a page except for vandalism or an edit war? Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 19:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Fine, don't lock it, but I don't think that upcoming material should have an impact on FA. .  .  .  .  07:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree, particularly since we have no way to un-FA articles at this point; an article that has a whole book coming out about it is likely to not be FA quality when the book comes out and it's going through many, many edits. It's something where I will actually object to it, but I'm not going to vote for it, either.  - breathesgelatin Talk 14:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should wait for stuff to come out before featuring things. I mean, that didn't stop us when we featured Boba Fett, Tenel Ka, and Lumiya. -LtNOWIS 19:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't use to think so either; I've just become increasingly frustrated with the inability to de-FA articles (eg articles like Leia Organa Solo which were FA'ed very early on and then the status of wookieepedia's best articles surpassed it, leaving it behind to the point where it is now on IDrive). It's definitely a respectful disagreement on my part and I won't actually oppose this nomination for the reason of upcoming material. If that makes sense.  - breathesgelatin Talk 23:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I feel your frustration, but remember that Wookieepedia is dynamic- our standards and variations increase as a function of time, and that major and even some minor characters are also dynamic- almost all of them can have more information about them added as a result of new works. If we waited until a character was "stable" then Palpatine and maybe a few others would be the only FAs. Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 17:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)