Wookieepedia:Good article nominations/X-83 TwinTail starfighter


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

(+5)
Support
 * 1) Lord Hydronium 07:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Elephanto 19:18, 3 March (UTC)
 * 3) By the way, I'm not Swedish. --Imperialles 22:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) AdmiralNick22 14:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Toprawa and Ralltiir 19:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) *Rather than quantifying this timeframe with an individual, please replace Krayt with an actual date: "used in the time around the rise of Darth Krayt."
 * 2) **I drop a date in the sentence afterwards. I wanted to avoid using "130 ABY" too much, so I went with SOTG's wording.
 * 3) ***For greater comprehensibility for casual readers, I would really like to see the "130 ABY" moved into the opening sentence. "The rise of Darth Krayt" has no meaning to someone who doesn't know who he is. I've never read the Legacy stories, and I myself didn't even know who he was. Now imagine a more casual SW fan. Toprawa and Ralltiir 01:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) ****It's in the very next sentence. If the Krayt thing has no meaning to someone, then it's explained immediately. I don't think it flows nearly as well the other way, either. - Lord Hydronium 02:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) * This sentence is really saying nothing. Is any starfighter not maneuverable in atmosphere and vacuum? You could spice this up a little bit more with some more facts/descriptions. Was it particularly known for its maneuverability, as opposed to others? "It was a maneuverable fighter as well, in atmosphere or vacuum."
 * 6) **Added "particularly".
 * 7) * What does untreated mean? "...giving the ship its own "personality" if left untreated"
 * 8) **Clarified.
 * 9) * Please reword so each clause doesn't end with the same word: "The fighter was chiefly used in front-line combat, where it was a match for most fighters in one-on-one combat."
 * 10) **Changed.
 * 11) * Any target? Seems like an over-the-top generalization: "the X-83 could produce a high-energy blast that would destroy any target"
 * 12) **That's what the source says.
 * 13) ***Geez. :/
 * 14) * The BTS could really benefit from a picture of the Lockheed for comparison. Toprawa and Ralltiir 04:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 15) **Not much room for another image, but if you want to hold to this objection, I can try to fit one in. - Lord Hydronium 06:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 16) *I would really be against adding a picture of the Lockheed fighter from WWII. Simply because a) the article is not long enough to warrant more pictures, and b) it would set a dangerous precedent for adding similar OOU pictures to IU articles. To my knowledge and experience, we actually try to curb that, but of course as with everything it's up for discussion and the final say is up to LH and whether he sees the need to ultimately add the picture or not :) Greyman ( Talk ) 14:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 17) **Yeah, I'm not in favor of adding one either. - Lord Hydronium 21:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 18) ***I made this suggestion while looking at the article from the editing view. I agree that there is no room to fit one. As far as adding an OOU picture, I see Grey's point, and hadn't considered the ramifications. Bad idea. Toprawa and Ralltiir 01:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 19) **** After looking back over this, I would like to see another sentence added to BTS covering first appearance and what author created the ship. Toprawa and Ralltiir 01:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 20) *****First appearance is already stated. And we don't know who created it; could have been Ostrander, Duursema, or Cooke. - Lord Hydronium 02:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 21) ******It was created by Jan. Please see this link to the JC forums where I posted the question to Sean Cooke. http://boards.theforce.net/Message.aspx?topic=24604377&brd=10003&start=27958457 AdmiralNick22 14:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 22) *******Thanks, added. - Lord Hydronium 23:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments
 * The "Model" field is unsourced&mdash;you may want to look into that. --Imperialles 22:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As a major fan of Legacy, I am happy to see this article developed to this level. My own goal is to get other craft from this era like the Scythe-class up to GA status as well. Great job! I would, however, edd one thing. According to both Jan Duursema and Sean Cooke (who I have communicated with a fairly regularly), the X-83 is actually one of the few ships Jan developed for the series. IIRC, the only others were the Sith fighter, Jedi Shuttle, and maybe the Mynock. All this info should be on one of the pages in the link I provided to Lord Hydronium above. AdmiralNick22 14:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)