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 A forum will be used to nominate articles that have fallen out-of-date.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, the article body, 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.
 * 14) &hellip;if the nominated article reaches 200 words or greater, the nominator must either provide an intro or draft an intro and provide a link to the revision in the nomination, showing that the intro does not elevate the article over 250 words. Exceptions can be made for articles wherein the majority of the text is in the "Behind the scenes" section.

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 1 week.

Please remember to archive your nomination beforehand if you plan on taking it to the Good Article Nominations page.

71st Elite Mechanized Assault Group

 * Nominated by:  Gethralkin  Hyperwave 08:42, May 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * Nomination comments: Star Wars PocketModel TCG unit

(1 ECs/3 Users/4 Total)
Support Object
 * 1) &mdash; Axinal  Convocation Chamber 21:51, May 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Cal Jedi StarForgeSucksGas-KOTOR1.jpg (Personal Comm Channel) 13:05, June 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Nice.  Imperators II (Talk) 21:14, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * 4)  Cavalier One FarStar Logo.jpg( Squadron channel ) 21:28, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Ecks Dee
 * 2) * Very short article; characteristics and history could be merged into the intro.
 * 3) **Again, this is not against the CA rules. He can subsection the article if he wants to. NaruHina  Talk Anakinsolo.png 21:06, May 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) ***I haven't said it's against the rules; the appearance of the article is just better when half of it isn't headings. 1358  (Talk)  17:35, May 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) * You don't need to bold the subject outside the intro.
 * 6) **Done.  Gethralkin  Hyperwave 16:29, May 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) * Intro-exclusive info.
 * 8) **What do you mean? Please explain.  Gethralkin  Hyperwave 16:29, May 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) ***"an elite Imperial Remnant battle group during the Imperial Civil War." This information can not be found outside the intro. This could be fixed by just merging the sections. 1358  (Talk)  17:35, May 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * 10) ****Tell me if what I've got works. If not I'll rework it to merge it.  Gethralkin  Hyperwave 01:38, May 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * 11) * Please do not use parenthesis in the prose. 1358  (Talk)  14:55, May 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * 12) **Done.
 * 13) Imperators II
 * 14) * In the "Characteristics" section, only the info about the generic century tank can be sourced to the Databank, so it needs to be referenced accordingly.  Imperators II (Talk) 09:25, May 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * 15) **Done.  Gethralkin  Hyperwave 16:09, May 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * 16) *** "The 71st Elite Mechanized Assault Group was outfitted with dark gray century tanks" still can't be sourced to the Databank.  Imperators II (Talk) 16:22, May 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * 17) **** Please check again. You will find that the only statement sourced to the Databank is where century tanks are "Unofficially called TIE crawlers." This is appropriate and, as mentioned in the 98th CANom, is appropriate to identify the connection between the name "TIE crawler" and "century tank."  Gethralkin  Hyperwave 17:34, May 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * 18) *****Fixed per 98th comments.  Gethralkin  Hyperwave 16:40, May 25, 2011 (UTC)
 * 19) * Intro shouldn't be referenced (per the sourcing policy).  Imperators II (Talk) 07:45, June 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * 20) **Oops, how did that get there? Fixed.  Gethralkin  Hyperwave 15:23, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * 21) * Why is battle group capitalized in the "History" section?  Imperators II (Talk) 17:19, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * 22) **Don't know. Fixed. In both this and in the following CANom.  Gethralkin  Hyperwave 17:58, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * 23) Cav:
 * 24) * No era tags?
 * 25) ** tag restored.  Gethralkin  Hyperwave  07:08, May 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * 26) ***But there is no era specified. If you are claiming that the TIE crawlers were active during the period of in-fighting between the Imperial warlords, then it deserves at least a New Republic era tag, which would then be added to the infobox as well. The NR era stretches from 5 ABY-25 ABY, during which the Warlords rose, fought, fell, and were eventually consolidated into the Imperial Remnant. The tag should be applied. - Cavalier One FarStar Logo.jpg( Squadron channel ) 10:22, June 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * 27) ****Fixed. I couldn't previously figure a way to justify it against Jinzler's objection below. Thanks.  Gethralkin  Hyperwave 14:33, June 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * 28) * Affiliation is listed as the Imperial Remnant - my understanding was that the Remnant was not officially referred to as such until much later in the chronology. What is the reasoning for using this rather than "Galactic Empire"? - Cavalier One FarStar Logo.jpg( Squadron channel ) 09:53, May 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * 29) ** Santhe/Sienar Technologies sold the TIE Crawlers to the squabbling warlords trying to conquer Coruscant following the Empire's defeat. That can hardly be said to be the Galactic Empire.  Gethralkin  Hyperwave 07:08, May 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * 30) ***Sorry to butt in, but that wouldn't be the Remnant either --- the Remnant only began to exist after the warlords stopped squabbling and were unified. "Various Imperial Warlords" might be your best bet for the affiliation field. Menkooroo 15:30, May 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * 31) ****Excellent point. The Imperial Remnant did, however, continue to use them after they were organized, so I will add your suggestion to the affiliation field for this one and the one in the CANom below. Thanks.  Gethralkin  Hyperwave 21:56, May 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * 32) Cal Jedi
 * 33) * Any chance you can get a better picture for it. Its not too big of a deal, but a clearer and more detailed picture would be nice. Cal Jedi StarForgeSucksGas-KOTOR1.jpg (Personal Comm Channel) 20:14, June 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * 34) **There is none better than what is uploaded. Keep in mind that PocketModel images are of miniatures about half an inch or so (for the TIE Crawlers) to about four inches (a Star Destroyer) in length.  Gethralkin  Hyperwave 02:29, June 2, 2011 (UTC)

Comments

98th Elite Mechanized Assault Group

 * Nominated by:  Gethralkin  Hyperwave 08:42, May 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * Nomination comments: Star Wars PocketModel TCG unit

(1 ECs/3 Users/4 Total)
Support Object
 * 1) &mdash; Axinal  Convocation Chamber 21:58, May 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Bonslywizard  Naboo.svg ( Send a transmission ) 23:42, May 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * 3)  Cavalier One FarStar Logo.jpg( Squadron channel ) 21:29, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * 4)  Imperators II (Talk) 22:05, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) * The "Characteristics" section (or rather, sentence) could definitely be fixed up a bit. Right now, it's pretty confusing.
 * 2) **Reworked. How does that sound?  Gethralkin  Hyperwave 16:23, May 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) * The "History" section is pretty confusing also. Change that a little.
 * 4) **Removed. No specific history recorded that I know of, except that they participated in the Imperial Civil War.  Gethralkin  Hyperwave 16:03, May 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) * Only bold the name in the intro. Never the body.
 * 6) **Done.  Gethralkin  Hyperwave 16:03, May 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) * "Century tanks of the 98th Elite were often called upon to lead strikes on mission objectives." Okay, so what kind of strikes? Does the card say?
 * 8) **Removed. A different elite century tank unit was a lead position assault group, not this one.  Gethralkin  Hyperwave 16:03, May 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) * "Century Tanks" are capitalized the first time, but not the second. Which is it?
 * 10) **No caps. Done.  Gethralkin  Hyperwave 16:03, May 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * 11) * Parentheses are almost never used in articles around here, so it would be best if these were removed.
 * 12) **Done.  Gethralkin  Hyperwave 16:03, May 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * 13) *I'll have another look once these are addressed. Anyway, welcome to the CAN page! :D Bonslywizard  Naboo.svg ( Send a transmission ) 00:00, May 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * 14) *Okay, you really changed the article alot since last I checked, so I'll re-review. Bonslywizard  Naboo.svg ( Send a transmission ) 21:33, May 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * 15) * Are you sure that this unit existed during the Rebellion era, as the article currently states? Given that they are an Imperial Remnant unit, they could have existed during the Rebellion era, the New Republic era, or later eras. Therefore, you can't make any assumptions about which publishing era they feature in, unless the source dates their existance to a more specific time. If that is the case, then please cite the dating in the article. If not, then please remove any mention of the Rebellion era. --Jinzler 13:55, May 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * 16) **Removed.  Gethralkin  Hyperwave 16:27, May 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * 17) ***Removed the unverified "Era" tag, too. ;)  Imperators II (Talk) 09:33, May 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * 18) ****Oh, yes. Thanks.  Gethralkin  Hyperwave 16:00, May 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * 19) Jinzler
 * 20) * Could you perhaps include some context on what a century tank is?
 * 21) **I thought the link to the century tank article would suffice. It has in the other century tank Assault Group articles&mdash;like the 88th Mechanized Assault Group&mdash;that are nominated on this page. What did you have in mind?  Gethralkin  Hyperwave 04:32, May 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * 22) ***I was thinking maybe just something along the lines of stating that they were a type of attack vehicle developed by Santhe/Sienar Technologies. Given that a large proportion of the article is related to the tanks, I think that such additional detail would be useful here. What do you think --Jinzler 08:54, May 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * 23) ****Minor description put in, including reference to alternate name. Didn't want to go into too much detail. How's that?  Gethralkin  Hyperwave 16:27, May 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * 24) * century tanks of the 98th Elite were more formidable than standard units, such as used by the 88th Mechanized. What do you mean by "standard units" here? I presume this is referring to standard Imperial mechanized units, or something along those lines, but article is currently unclear. Please specify.
 * 25) **The 88th Mechanized used stock century tank units. They would be considered the standard. The 98th and other Assault Groups modified their century tanks to the needs of the particular group they were in.  Gethralkin  Hyperwave 04:32, May 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * 26) * I see that you have now added The New Essential Chronology to the source list. If the unit appears in the NEC, then that might be worth a mention in the "Behind the scenes" section. Also, as there is more than one source you will need a "1stm" template next to whichever one was the first to mention the unit.
 * 27) **Isn't enough?  Gethralkin  Hyperwave  04:32, May 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * 28) ***I see you logic in using that template, but the Layout Guide [Wookieepedia:Layout_Guide#Appearances advises] that the "1stID" template should only be used when a subject is not named in its first appearance and is first identified by a later source. A "1st" or "1stm" template is still needed for the source that mentions the subject first. --Jinzler 08:54, May 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * 29) ****Done. NEC was wrong source though, probably copied over accidentally.  Gethralkin  Hyperwave 16:27, May 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * 30) *I look forward to seeing more nominations from you in the future. And my use of timestamping here is correct, per my comments below :P Jinzler 17:09, May 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * 31) **Yeah, yeah, yeah... ;P  Gethralkin  Hyperwave 04:32, May 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * 32) Imperators II
 * 33) * Again, the whole "Characteristics" section cannot be sourced to the Databank, since the Databank doesn't mention this specific unit.  Imperators II (Talk) 09:33, May 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * 34) **The info about a TIE crawler vehicle being called a century tank can be referenced as per your comment for the 71st. It is important because the miniature is called a "TIE Crawler," not a "century tank," so the official designation has to be accounted for.  Gethralkin  Hyperwave 15:56, May 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * 35) ***Okay, citations have been distributed according to pertinent info.  Gethralkin  Hyperwave 16:19, May 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * 36) ****" 98th Elite Mechanized Assault Group was outfitted with gray and dark blue-striped century tanks" still can't be sourced to the Databank.  Imperators II (Talk) 16:23, May 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * 37) ***** Well, fortunately, that is not the statement that is sourced to the Databank. Please check again. You will find that the only statement sourced to the Databank is where century tanks are "Unofficially called TIE crawlers."  Gethralkin  Hyperwave 17:31, May 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * 38) ****** The common practice is that ref [X] references everything between it and the previous ref (i.e., "The Imperial Remnant's 98th Elite Mechanized Assault Group was outfitted with gray and dark blue-striped century tanks—compact assault vessels consisting of a TIE fighter cockpit linked between two large tank treads. Unofficially called TIE crawlers,"). If you choose to interpret that ref [1] only references the previous part of the same sentence (i.e., "Unofficially called TIE crawlers,"), then the first sentence of the "Characteristics" section is unsourced.  Imperators II (Talk) 21:03, May 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * 39) *******Understood. Fixed.  Gethralkin  Hyperwave 02:19, May 25, 2011 (UTC)
 * 40) Cav:
 * 41) * No era tags?
 * 42) **The is there, but any specific era has been removed per the objections stated already.  Gethralkin  Hyperwave  07:19, May 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * 43) ***But there is no era specified. If you are claiming that the TIE crawlers were active during the period of in-fighting between the Imperial warlords, then it deserves at least a New Republic era tag, which would then be added to the infobox as well. The NR era stretches from 5 ABY-25 ABY, during which the Warlords rose, fought, fell, and were eventually consolidated into the Imperial Remnant. The tag should be applied. - Cavalier One FarStar Logo.jpg( Squadron channel ) 10:24, June 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * 44) ****You know, I knew something was off about the objection that Jinzler made above. For one thing, I was pretty sure that they didn't even begin manufacturing them until after the Rebellion era was over and the New Republic was established. Second, the first customers were the warlords, so that pretty much cinches the time period. Thanks, I will fix it.  Gethralkin  Hyperwave 13:30, June 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * 45) * Affiliation is listed as the Imperial Remnant - my understanding was that the Remnant was not officially referred to as such until much later in the chronology. What is the reasoning for using this rather than "Galactic Empire"? - Cavalier One FarStar Logo.jpg( Squadron channel ) 09:54, May 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * 46) ** The squabbling warlords were no longer the Galactic Empire when Santhe/Sienar sold the century tanks to them&mdash;they were the remnants of the Empire.  Gethralkin  Hyperwave 07:19, May 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * 47) *** Here's a good anology: Certain tanks were in use in Europe during a war that, at the time, was referred to as "The Great War." Historically, we do not call them Great War tanks, we call them World War I tanks. Star Wars wikia articles are written in prose that reads in hindsight&mdash;or past-tense&mdash;giving the appearance of a historical in-universe record. The Imperial Remnant may not have been officially defined as such at the time that the Imperial factions began fighting each other (indeed, the war itself&mdash;similarly to Earth's European history&mdash;was called by different names: "The Imperial Civil War," "The Mutiny," "The Time of Destruction," etc.). However, it was what they were in relation to the previous regime that spawned them, thereby making the difference notable. Does that make sense?  Gethralkin  Hyperwave 00:45, May 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * 48) ****Fixed per the comment in the above CANom.  Gethralkin  Hyperwave 00:02, May 31, 2011 (UTC)

Comments
 * I'm curious to know why someone has added the "Unsigned" templates to Bonsly's objections above. While all user comments are required to be signed, this rule has always been interpreted in the context of nomination pages as meaning that just one timestamp is needed to sign all of the objections made by a user at one time. I don't see why things should be any different here. --Jinzler 13:55, May 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * Bonslywizard did not sign his objection vote at the beginning as is standard, so I could not tell who made the comments. There have been several times when comments were made and then other users addressed each itemization so it obscured who was who. Rules for signing comments is outlined in the Signature policy.  Gethralkin  Hyperwave 14:16, May 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am fully aware of our signature policy, but it seems that we have differing interpretations of it. Regarding your confusion, when users make a large number of objections to an article on a nominations page at one time, it is commonplace for them to choose only to sign the last objection. You can thus tell who made the objections and when by looking at the bottom of the listed objections, to see who has signed them. This is compliant with the signature policy, because where objections are made together, they can be seen as one combined comment, and so only one signature is needed to serve them, and this should be enough to show who made the comment. Furthermore, if you take a look at the Featured articles nominations page and the Good article nominations page, you will see that the method of making objections used by Bonsly above is regularly used by many users, including administrators and members of the Inquisitorius. It is therefore a seemingly valid interpretation of the signature policy and is used on Wookieepedia on a regular basis. If you believe this interpretation is incorrect, then I recommend you take your concerns to the Senate Hall. I urge you to reconsider your use of the "Unsigned" template on Bonsly's comments above, because he has done nothing wrong. --Jinzler 14:47, May 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * This topic is perhaps better suited to User Talk pages, as it distracts from this page's purpose. Please leave me a message if you wish to discuss it further. Thanks.  Gethralkin  Hyperwave 16:47, May 10, 2011 (UTC)

72nd Flight

 * Nominated by:  Gethralkin  Hyperwave 19:08, May 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * Nomination comments: SWPM

(1 ECs/2 Users/3 Total)
Support
 * 1) &mdash; Axinal  Convocation Chamber 00:18, May 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) * See below.&mdash; Axinal  Convocation Chamber 00:21, May 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * 3)  Cavalier One FarStar Logo.jpg( Squadron channel ) 21:34, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * 4)  Imperators II (Talk) 22:27, June 4, 2011 (UTC)

Object
 * 1) Axinal
 * 2) * If you're going to source the article, every bullet in the infobox must be sourced. However, since it only has one appearance, I would argue that sourcing is unnecessary, but the decision is yours.
 * 3) **Done for all.  Gethralkin  Hyperwave 13:42, May 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) * The article needs a Behind the scenes section.&mdash; Axinal  Convocation Chamber 22:22, May 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) ** The BTS requirement also applies to your other current CANs.&mdash; Axinal  Convocation Chamber 22:25, May 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) ***Done for all.  Gethralkin  Hyperwave 13:42, May 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) * I think Trade Federation ought to be listed in the affiliation field in the infobox in addition to the Confederacy of Independent Systems and the Confederate Navy; I'd say probably with one bullet under CIS. Again, this applies to all these articles, unless there's a specific reason you didn't include it. Otherwise, nice work.&mdash; Axinal  Convocation Chamber 19:14, May 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) ** That would probably work pre-CIS, but the TF and the Techno Union Droid Army and the IGBC all merged their droid militaries into the Separatist Droid Army, and it is difficult to determine which Flights are being represented from TPM to RotS by noting their markings&mdash;unless someone has the time to spend going frame-by-frame to do so. Much like the Retail Caucus-affiliated droid army that Whorm Loathsom commanded, droids are no longer really affiliated with the TF after they are shipped unless they are specifically a TF detachment.  Gethralkin  Hyperwave 23:44, May 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) * One more, applying to all these related articles; intro-exclusive information, such as the fighers' affiliation within the Trade Federation, needs to be added somewhere in the main body.&mdash; Axinal  Convocation Chamber 19:21, May 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * 10) **TF references removed.  Gethralkin  Hyperwave 07:59, May 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * 11) ***Forgive me, as I'm a bit confused. Is it confirmed canon that they were part of the Trade Federation at any point?&mdash; Axinal  Convocation Chamber 01:00, May 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * 12) ****I would have to study the markings of the Flights present on and above Naboo in TPM.  Gethralkin  Hyperwave 01:54, May 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * 13) *****I don't think that's necessary. As long as it's not mentioned in the TCG, it's fine.&mdash; Axinal  Convocation Chamber 09:58, May 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * 14) ******Nope, they are not identified as TF specifically.  Gethralkin  Hyperwave 07:41, May 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * 15) *******In that case, I would say the article is ready for CA. Nice work, Gethralkin.&mdash; Axinal  Convocation Chamber 00:18, May 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * 16) ********Forgive me, I was a bit hasty. The fact that they were in the service of the CIS during the Clone Wars needs to be mentioned somewhere outside the intro, perhaps in a History section.&mdash; Axinal  Convocation Chamber 00:21, May 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * 17) *********Good work. Please address the same intro-exclusive problems to the other articles, and I will support them as well.&mdash; Axinal  Convocation Chamber 02:28, May 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * 18) **********Done.  Gethralkin  Hyperwave 02:35, May 23, 2011 (UTC)

Comments
 * 1) Not really an objection, but is there no available image? Other articles from the same sources have them, so why not this? Are they unavailable for some reason? - Cavalier One FarStar Logo.jpg( Squadron channel ) 11:10, May 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) *In fact, consider this a blanket query to include the other three noms on flight groups below. - Cavalier One FarStar Logo.jpg( Squadron channel ) 11:12, May 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) **No good resolution photos have been taken yet of these. We uploaded highres images on our site, but the gallery only needed thumbnails for WizKids' purposes. The other sources that you mention are either higher resolution previews of miniatures by game sites, or that were taken by me for the purpose of uploading here. I am extremely busy, so a photo shoot is not something I can always spend time on. If you know of any images available then, by all means, upload and include them.  Gethralkin  Hyperwave 18:16, May 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) ***Sorry, but nope. I'm not really up on this game, hence my reason for asking but not for objecting. Hopefully, decent shots will become available. - Cavalier One FarStar Logo.jpg( Squadron channel ) 10:27, June 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) ****I am on the lookout for any, and if I get the chance, I will take them myself and upload them. Just too busy to do photography right now.  Gethralkin  Hyperwave 13:18, June 1, 2011 (UTC)

128th Flight

 * Nominated by:  Gethralkin  Hyperwave 19:08, May 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * Nomination comments: SWPM

(2 ECs/2 Users/4 Total)
Support
 * 1) &mdash; Axinal  Convocation Chamber 03:24, May 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Menkooroo 04:19, June 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * 3)  Cavalier One FarStar Logo.jpg( Squadron channel ) 21:34, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * 4)  Imperators II (Talk) 22:31, June 4, 2011 (UTC)

Object

Comments

28th Flight

 * Nominated by:  Gethralkin  Hyperwave 19:08, May 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * Nomination comments: SWPM

(2 ECs/2 Users/4 Total)
Support
 * 1) &mdash; Axinal  Convocation Chamber 03:24, May 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Menkooroo 16:18, May 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * 3)  Cavalier One FarStar Logo.jpg( Squadron channel ) 21:34, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * 4)  Imperators II (Talk) 22:32, June 4, 2011 (UTC)

Object

Comments

31st Flight

 * Nominated by:  Gethralkin  Hyperwave 19:08, May 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * Nomination comments: SWPM

(2 ECs/2 Users/4 Total)
Support
 * 1) &mdash; Axinal  Convocation Chamber 03:24, May 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Menkooroo 15:35, May 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * 3)  Cavalier One FarStar Logo.jpg( Squadron channel ) 21:34, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * 4)  Imperators II (Talk) 22:34, June 4, 2011 (UTC)

Object

Comments

Offices of the Imperial Head of State

 * Nominated by: Cal Jedi (Personal Comm Channel) 05:50, May 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * Nomination comments:I hope you'll look the article over.

(0 ECs/1 Users/1 Total)
Support
 * 1) &mdash; Axinal  Convocation Chamber 17:58, May 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) * See below.&mdash; Axinal  Convocation Chamber 09:56, May 20, 2011 (UTC)

Object
 * 1) Axinal
 * 2) *The article is currently missing a BTS section.
 * 3) * Also, try to add some context on the information. What was Coruscant? Who was Jaina Solo? What were their careers, and why did they take them on separate paths?&mdash; Axinal  Convocation Chamber 15:35, May 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) **OK, I added a BTS section and I added some more context. I also expanded it a little more.Cal Jedi (Personal Comm Channel) 16:49, May 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) *** Better, but now you have intro-exclusive information; specifically, you mention in the intro that Fel was the Imperial Head of State, and that Coruscant was the GA capital. This info must be in the main body as well. Also, take a look at the formatting in the BTS; you italicize FotJ once and leave it normal another time. Also, the wording in the first sentence, "Fate of the Jedi Allies" is a little awkward. Could you perhaps rearrange the sentence? &mdash; Axinal  Convocation Chamber 16:58, May 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) * Please fix links so they don't point to redirects; specifically, Imperial, Galactic Alliance, and vidscreen.&mdash; Axinal  Convocation Chamber 16:58, May 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) ** Imperators got GA and vidscreen, so just Imperial.
 * 8) * I apologize if I wasn't specific enough when I said "context." I'm afraid I think you went a bit overboard with detail, as much of the article as it is currently written is not relevant to the office. We really just need to know the gist of what was said during the conversation in the office, not a history of their relationship.&mdash; Axinal  Convocation Chamber 17:37, May 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) *I downsized on some of their relationship details to concentrate more on the office. Does it need more downsizing or not?Cal Jedi (Personal Comm Channel) 17:46, May 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * 10) **I'm satisfied, good work.&mdash; Axinal  Convocation Chamber 17:58, May 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * 11) Imperators II
 * 12) * I believe that the Imperial state that existed in 44 ABY was the Imperial Remnant, not the Galactic Empire.
 * 13) **I disagree; Jag consistently says Galactic Empire, and corrects those who refer to it as the Imperial Remnant.&mdash; Axinal  Convocation Chamber 17:33, May 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * 14) * All the infobox info must be referenced.  Imperators II (Talk) 17:13, May 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * 15) **Per CA rules, not if the subject in question only has one appearance.&mdash; Axinal  Convocation Chamber 17:33, May 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * 16) ***It's encouraged, though. (OK, not really an objection, then.)  Imperators II (Talk) 17:41, May 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * 17) ****True, it is encouraged, so I'd be okay if Cal wanted to do that. Doesn't matter to me.&mdash; Axinal  Convocation Chamber 17:58, May 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * 18) ***** I added references to the infobox now.Cal Jedi (Personal Comm Channel) 02:16, May 20, 2011 (UTC)
 * 19) * The "History" section should begin with mentioning the era during which the offices were on Coruscant.  Imperators II (Talk) 17:18, May 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * 20) *OK did I miss anymore redirect links?Cal Jedi (Personal Comm Channel) 17:34, May 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * 21) **Nope, you got them all, good work. Just see my remaining objection above.&mdash; Axinal  Convocation Chamber 17:38, May 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * 22) *OK good. Is there anything else that I missed that needs to be fixed up?Cal Jedi (Personal Comm Channel) 18:06, May 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * 23) *If you're going to source the article, you need to source the whole thing (except the intro).&mdash; Axinal  Convocation Chamber 09:56, May 20, 2011 (UTC)
 * 24) *I added the sources to the main article. Did I mess anything up?Cal Jedi (Personal Comm Channel) 14:33, May 20, 2011 (UTC)
 * 25) **Nope, nice work. Just note that you do not need the template outside the infobox, and you do not need to list the same reference with the full format after the first one. I went ahead and fixed that for you, just see the history for future reference.&mdash; Axinal  Convocation Chamber 21:48, May 20, 2011 (UTC)
 * 26) Cav:
 * 27) *The History section: the single sentence should be merged into the large paragrapg to create a single paragraph. There are POV issues in the text - calling Bwua'tu a "great" lawyer, for instance. Some context on Tahiri is needed as well, along with the reason for her being on trial.
 * 28) **I think I got it all. Cal Jedi StarForgeSucksGas-KOTOR1.jpg (Personal Comm Channel) 02:07, May 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * 29) *Ref tags are not needed in the BTS section for the Allies information as it is self-sourcing. - Cavalier One FarStar Logo.jpg( Squadron channel ) 11:34, May 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * 30) **Got it. Is that better? Cal Jedi StarForgeSucksGas-KOTOR1.jpg (Personal Comm Channel) 15:33, May 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * 31) Jujiggum
 * 32) *Requires a Conviction update. Jonjedigrandmaster  ( Talk ) 21:01, May 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * 33) **I updated the appearances section. But I've been trying to get my hands on a copy of Conviction without success. So if it needs to be expanded further, it might be a couple of days before I can check the book. Cal Jedi StarForgeSucksGas-KOTOR1.jpg (Personal Comm Channel) 22:15, May 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * 34) ***Yeah, it'll just need a little bit of expansion. Jonjedigrandmaster  ( Talk ) 14:24, May 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * 35) ****OK I finally got Conviction today, but when I glanced through it I didn't see any mention of the Offices of the Imperial Head of State. Is it mentioned by a different name or did I just miss it? Cal Jedi StarForgeSucksGas-KOTOR1.jpg (Personal Comm Channel) 20:16, June 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * 36) *****Appearances are at the beginnings of Chapters 15 and 29. Jonjedigrandmaster  ( Talk ) 20:37, June 3, 2011 (UTC)

Comments

Gaxxan brain-slug

 * Nominated by:  Exiled Jedi  Oldrepublic crest.svg (Greetings)  13:40, May 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * Nomination comments: Should stay on this page.

(3 ECs/2 Users/5 Total)
Support
 * 1) &mdash; Axinal  Convocation Chamber 22:35, May 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Doesn't sound pleasant. ~  Savage  BOB sig.png 02:58, June 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * 3)  1358  (Talk)  21:10, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * 4)  Cavalier One FarStar Logo.jpg( Squadron channel ) 22:16, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * 5)  Imperators II (Talk) 23:35, June 4, 2011 (UTC)

Object
 * 1) Axinal
 * 2) * The second sentence of the BTS should probably be sourced to the strategy guide rather than the game.
 * 3) **Oops. It is fixed now.-- Exiled Jedi  Oldrepublic crest.svg (Greetings)  21:39, May 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) * One question: The Gaxxa article says that the planet was "believed to be the home of the Gaxxan brain-slug." Does strategy guide make any mention of the planet Gaxxa, specifically a possible connection to the slugs? If so, this should be added to the article; if not, I don't think any change would be necessary.&mdash; Axinal  Convocation Chamber 19:09, May 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) **I do not own the book, but I will try to find out.-- Exiled Jedi  Oldrepublic crest.svg (Greetings)  21:39, May 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) ***This isn't a huge deal for me, but it would be nice to know. Would you be able to find out from the entry in KOTOR, sine the BTS says that they were the "same entry"?&mdash; Axinal  Convocation Chamber 01:13, May 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) ****I may be wrong, but I think that the statement in the Gaxxa article is derived from the fact that the authors of The Essential Atlas stated their intention to create homeworlds for various unplaced species, based on the implied context of their names. Thus, this would imply that Gaxxa is the homeworld of the Gaxxan brain-slug. However, I'm not sure exactly where the authors said this. I think that a species expert, like Eyrezer or SavageBob, might be able to help you. --Jinzler 10:44, May 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) *****SavageBob helped me through it. Gaxxa is the homeworld of the Gaxxan brain-slug.-- Exiled Jedi  Oldrepublic crest.svg (Greetings)  16:09, May 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) ******Cool, nice work, Exile.&mdash; Axinal  Convocation Chamber 22:35, May 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * 10) Ecks Dee
 * 11) * The last sentence of the intro (body? :P) should be moved to be the first / merge it with the first.
 * 12) **Done-- Exiled Jedi  Oldrepublic crest.svg (Greetings)  15:49, May 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * 13) * "The Gaxxan brain-slug was first mentioned in BioWare's video game, Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic" The comma before KOTOR is incorrect, as it makes it sound like the game was BioWare's only game.
 * 14) **Good catch, I fixed it.-- Exiled Jedi  Oldrepublic crest.svg (Greetings)  15:49, May 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * 15) * How exactly can a source be mentioned only? All sources are technically mentions only. 1358  (Talk)  06:54, May 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * 16) **Oops, fixed.-- Exiled Jedi  Oldrepublic crest.svg (Greetings)  15:49, May 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * 17) Cav:
 * 18) * No infobox? Surely there is one appropriate? - Cavalier One FarStar Logo.jpg( Squadron channel ) 11:36, May 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * 19) **Yeah, I just forgot to add it after it was confirmed that Gaxxa was its homeworld. Added. -- Exiled Jedi  Oldrepublic crest.svg (Greetings)  15:49, May 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * 20) Savaged&hellip;
 * 21) * I added that they're non-sentient to the infobox, but you'll need to add the reference that establishes this fact and add this to the article. If there is no indication of their sentience, remove it from the infobox and instead place them in Category:Species of undefined sentience.
 * 22) **Well this is the text for the entry for Jurgan Kalta's power suit which contains all the dirrect information about the Gaxxan brain-slug.
 * 23) ***"Aided by custom armor like this, Jurgan Kalta had no combat equal, so his enemies tried more exotic attacks. It was a gaxxan brain-slug left on a pillow that proved his undoing." from Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic
 * 24) **So I would say that its sentience is indeterminable. (I hope this was how to place a quotation from an entry form a video game. I am sorry if I messed it up.) I also added the category.-- Exiled Jedi  Oldrepublic crest.svg (Greetings)  02:49, June 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * 25) * Is there no indication who assassinated the guy?
 * 26) **I mentioned that it was one of his enemies.-- Exiled Jedi  Oldrepublic crest.svg (Greetings)  02:49, June 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * 27) ***You could probably make a stub for Unidentified assassin (Jurgan Kalta's enemy), but I'll leave that up to you. ~ Savage  BOB sig.png 02:58, June 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * 28) * Is there no indication of how they can kill people? Do they poison them? Eat them? Burrow into their brains? ~ Savage  BOB sig.png 02:36, June 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * 29) **No it did not provide that information.-- Exiled Jedi  Oldrepublic crest.svg (Greetings)  02:49, June 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * 30) Imperators II
 * 31) * Could you please rephrase the second sentence a bit? It's the "who was killed, [..] who left" part that bothers me.
 * 32) **Better?-- Exiled Jedi  Oldrepublic crest.svg (Greetings)  23:17, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * 33) ***Yup.  Imperators II (Talk) 23:35, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * 34) * How about giving the galactic region the Gaxxa system it's located in?
 * 35) **How about now?-- Exiled Jedi  Oldrepublic crest.svg (Greetings)  23:17, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * 36) ***Cool, though I removed the coordinates, as that seemed to be a bit too specific and not really necessary. I might be wrong, of course.  Imperators II (Talk) 23:35, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * 37) * Please correct me if I'm wrong. TEAOC lists only the Gaxxa system, and KotOR mentions only the Gaxxan brain-slug. So the planet Gaxxa, or at least its name, is, in fact, speculation.  Imperators II (Talk) 23:01, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * 38) **Yeah, I was wondering about this, you're probably right, changed.-- Exiled Jedi  Oldrepublic crest.svg (Greetings)  23:17, June 4, 2011 (UTC)

Comments

The next article in my series of Jurgan Kalta nominations.-- Exiled Jedi   (Greetings)  13:40, May 17, 2011 (UTC)

Phalanx Route

 * Nominated by: &mdash; TK-999  Era-imp.png( Rise of the Empire ) 09:46, May 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * Nomination comments: Here you are, SavageBob :).

(1 ECs/2 Users/3 Total)
Support
 * 1) &mdash; Axinal  Convocation Chamber 17:50, May 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Solid work, TK. Others may find there to be too many M-dashes, but I wanted to break up the very long sentences a bit. It may be better to break them up further if folks don't like the dashiness. ~  Savage  BOB sig.png 19:27, May 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, nice work, TK!  Imperators II (Talk) 18:41, May 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) *Thanks :) !&mdash; TK-999  Era-imp.png( Rise of the Empire ) 18:45, May 27, 2011 (UTC)

Object
 * 1) Could we just get some context on Cormit and Telupe? I believe that's all I have. Cool article, TK!&mdash; Axinal  Convocation Chamber 02:33, May 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) *If there's any precedent consensus and authors' comment regarding this issue&mdash;systems that share their name with a planet have that world located within them&mdash;, then I am willing to add it. However, if there's no such thing, then it would be speculation. Also, there's an ongoing discussion about this in the SH.&mdash; TK-999  Era-imp.png( Rise of the Empire ) 09:17, May 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) **So basically what you're saying is that, although TEA says "Prominent planets in Chiss Space include:", then gives a list of the planets and then a map showing their locations, connecting the dots on the map with the descriptions of the planets is speculation. IMHO, that goes completely against common sense. Just a thought.  Imperators II (Talk) 16:07, May 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) ***Realistic fanwankery facts added.&mdash; TK-999  Era-imp.png( Rise of the Empire ) 17:09, May 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Imperators II
 * 6) * I don't think you should pipelink the Catlia and Tenupe systems, because you don't identify them as such in the first sentence. And why pipelink them in the infobox?
 * 7) * The fact that the route began in the Ascendancy's core territory should be added.
 * 8) * I think the route's location in the Unknown Regions and the Wild Space should be mentioned earlier in the article.
 * 9) * I'm not sure if it's really necessary to reference the fact that the route appeared in TEA, but referencing it to page 222 doesn't make any sense at all. I suggest you remove the references 1.09 and 1.10 in the Bts section.  Imperators II (Talk) 16:07, May 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * 10) **Excess refs removed.&mdash; TK-999  Era-imp.png( Rise of the Empire ) 17:09, May 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * 11) * To be precise, "Chiss Expansionary Defense Force staging planet" has to be sourced to p.221, "jungle world" to p.223, "Chiss" to p.221 and p.223 (because the map doesn't give info about the planets' affiliation), and "star systems" to Appendix (p.229, p.235) (because, imho, the map refers to the planets, not systems).  Imperators II (Talk) 21:15, May 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * 12) **Done. Thanks for the advice!&mdash; TK-999  Era-imp.png( Rise of the Empire ) 11:14, May 25, 2011 (UTC)

Comments
 * 1) Bob
 * 2) * Yay, another hyperlane! :) Can you specify how the junction works out with the Vagaari Corridor? It looks like a T-junction, which I think is important to note, since the two routes meeting at Catlia seems to mark the terminus for the Phalanx Route. ~ Savage  BOB sig.png 17:03, May 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) **Done. Thanks to all for the reviews and diligence!&mdash; TK-999  Era-imp.png( Rise of the Empire ) 17:09, May 23, 2011 (UTC)

Way of Schesa

 * Nominated by: &mdash; TK-999  Era-imp.png( Rise of the Empire ) 11:56, May 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * Nomination comments: Bob's dream being fulfilled.

(2 ECs/1 Users/3 Total)
Support
 * 1) Nice article, TK. You're a welcome addition to the review pages here on Wookieepedia.&mdash; Axinal  Convocation Chamber 23:12, May 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) *Thanks! :)&mdash; TK-999  Era-imp.png( Rise of the Empire ) 13:41, June 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) What Axinal said. ~ Savage  BOB sig.png 02:44, June 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) A bit emdash heavy, but I'll let it slide this time.  1358  (Talk)  21:08, June 4, 2011 (UTC)

Object
 * 1) Ecks Dee
 * 2) * The Bts is too similar to your other trade route CANs. There is no point in just copypasting the same text into multiple articles. Please reword.
 * 3) **Done.&mdash; TK-999  Era-imp.png( Rise of the Empire ) 11:53, May 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) * "The Phalanx Route first.." I though the article was about the Way of Schesa...
 * 5) **Sorry&mdash;continuity error removed.&mdash; TK-999  Era-imp.png( Rise of the Empire ) 11:53, May 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) * "Chiss Ruling Families—, within" I don't think there should be commas or spaces after an emdash.
 * 7) **Spacing removed.&mdash; TK-999  Era-imp.png( Rise of the Empire ) 11:53, May 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) * Please do not abbreviate the CEDF.
 * 9) **Full name substituted.&mdash; TK-999  Era-imp.png( Rise of the Empire ) 11:53, May 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * 10) * You have two [2] after each other; should one of them be another reference?
 * 11) **Accident; fixed.&mdash; TK-999  Era-imp.png( Rise of the Empire ) 11:53, May 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * 12) * Reference 5 has an error: The Essential Atlas, p. i" Page i? 1358  (Talk)  06:49, May 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * 13) **Pages around the table of contents are marked with Roman numerals in the Atlas (i-x; non-capitalized). Otherwise, thanks for the review!&mdash; TK-999  Era-imp.png( Rise of the Empire ) 11:53, May 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * 14) ***I see. 1358  (Talk)  21:08, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * 15) Axinal
 * 16) * Do you think you could create an article for the civil war in which the "former Ruling Family" fought? Actually, an article for the ruling family itself might be good, too, even if both articles would require conjecture tags. Otherwise, good work.&mdash; Axinal  Convocation Chamber 00:01, May 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * 17) **Civil war article exists, and I now added the link. Ruling Family article created. Thanks for the review!&mdash; TK-999  Era-imp.png( Rise of the Empire ) 14:25, May 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * 18) Imperators II
 * 19) * The TEA description of Pesfavri also mentions that the Way of Schesa was "one of the only hyperlanes leading into the Redoubt". I suggest you add that info. Also, the bit about the route leading into the Redoubt would help the phrase "the other terminal point" make more sense.
 * 20) *In ref[1] you should specify that the grid F-8 is also in the Unknown Regions (and that Pesfavri is in the Unknown Regions, too).
 * 21) * You'll have to source the "Unknown Regions" in the first sentence to ref[1].
 * 22) * Imho, "planets owned" should be changed to "home planets", since this would be more accurate.
 * 23) * In the BTS section, why source with ref[2] only the second sentence when you could source both the second and third sentence?  Imperators II (Talk) 00:10, June 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * 24) **Done. Thanks!&mdash; TK-999  Era-imp.png( Rise of the Empire ) 08:31, June 5, 2011 (UTC)

Comments
 * You might consider pointing ref[1] to p.145 instead of p.4, as the map there shows much more clearly and distinctly that the Redoubt is located in the Unknown Regions. As you can see, this is not an objection, however.  Imperators II (Talk) 00:10, June 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. The map there is indeed of a higher quality. Thanks!&mdash; TK-999  Era-imp.png( Rise of the Empire ) 08:31, June 5, 2011 (UTC)

Senin Vant

 * Nominated by:  Clone Commander Lee  Talk 10:30, May 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * Nomination comments: Maybe expansion possible? Any ideas?

(0 ECs/2 Users/2 Total)
Support
 * 1) NaruHina  Talk Anakinsolo.png 02:11, May 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) &mdash; Axinal  Convocation Chamber 10:17, June 5, 2011 (UTC)

Object
 * 1) Rubedo
 * 2) * Context on the Battle of Utapau and the Clone Wars. Give a time reference.
 * 3) * You could also explicitly say the Skyforce was the Utapauan air force.
 * 4) * While we're at it, context on Utapau. NaruHina  Talk Anakinsolo.png 18:49, May 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) **All fixed. Any idea Naru if I can bring him up to 250 words. I added much context, but this stuff is all relevant to him.  Clone Commander Lee  Talk 18:59, May 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) ***Deja vu... NaruHina  Talk Anakinsolo.png 20:09, May 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) * How do you know if this is a male or female? They look very similar to me.
 * 8) **Said in the book.
 * 9) * Mention the Complete Cross-Sections in the BTS.
 * 10) **Added.
 * 11) * The page in the Cross-section was not about him. Clairify that it was on his ship.
 * 12) **Hope that's better.
 * 13) * His eyes don't look blue to me. They look black. If you include this in the infobox, include it in the article.
 * 14) **Changed and added.
 * 15) * How do you know he was affiliated with the Repuclic? Just because he fought alongside their forces to free his planet, does not mean there was an official partnership. NaruHina  Talk Anakinsolo.png 20:09, May 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * 16) **Agreed.
 * 17) Axinal
 * 18) * Since the Ep. III Incredible Cross-Sections includes the juggernaut and Grievous's wheel bike, it might be good to clarify in the BTS that the ICS is not exclusive to ships.
 * 19) **Added.
 * 20) *I gave the article a minor copy-edit, very nice overall.&mdash; Axinal  Convocation Chamber 23:58, June 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * 21) **Thank you.  Clone Commander Lee  Talk 17:49, June 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * 22) Imperators II
 * 23) * Doesn't Category:Resistance fighters apply here?  Imperators II (Talk) 00:47, June 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * 24) **Added.  Clone Commander Lee  Talk 07:32, June 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * 25) * Publishing years of the works should be added in the BTS section.  Imperators II (Talk) 17:38, June 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * 26) **Added. Not sure if that is neccessary.  Clone Commander Lee  Talk 17:43, June 5, 2011 (UTC)

Comments
 * 1) Has anyone an English version of the Complete Cross Sections to check? In the German version, his name is Senim Vant.  Clone Commander Lee  Talk 10:01, May 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) *I do. His name is spelled with an "n" there. Bonslywizard  Naboo.svg ( Send a transmission ) 21:59, May 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) **Thanks.  Clone Commander Lee  Talk 17:23, May 30, 2011 (UTC)

Tycho

 * Nominated by:  Clone Commander Lee  Talk 10:02, May 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * Nomination comments: Mopping up those small one-mention-articles

(1 ECs/1 Users/2 Total)
Support
 * 1) Menkooroo 04:45, June 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) &mdash; Axinal  Convocation Chamber 10:19, June 5, 2011 (UTC)

Object
 * 1) Whie?
 * 2) * Can you give a bit of context on the Battle of Honoghr (ie, mention that it was a Clone Wars battle and maybe a little more)?
 * 3) **Now fine?
 * 4) * Can you say what Whie's result was?
 * 5) **Nope.
 * 6) * Any quotes? Menkooroo 16:03, May 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) **Nope. Thanks for the reviw.  Clone Commander Lee  Talk 17:24, May 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) Axinal
 * 9) * Would it be proper to link "younger" to youngling?
 * 10) **I think not, because we only know that he taught Padawans and not the iniates.
 * 11) ***I see, makes sense.&mdash; Axinal  Convocation Chamber 10:19, June 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * 12) * I believe, but I'm not sure, that since the Jedi Order was part of the Galactic Republic, that the Republic should be listed first in the infobox, and Jedi Order should be indented to reflect the hierarchy.&mdash; Axinal  Convocation Chamber 00:03, June 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * 13) **Agreed. Thanks for the review.  Clone Commander Lee  Talk 17:51, June 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * 14) ***Nice work!&mdash; Axinal  Convocation Chamber 10:19, June 5, 2011 (UTC)

Question of Master Jrul

 * Nominated by:  Clone Commander Lee  Talk 17:14, May 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * Nomination comments: More such stuff

(0 ECs/4 Users/4 Total)
Support
 * 1) NaruHina  Talk Anakinsolo.png 00:18, June 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Hanzo Hasashi 19:28, June 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) &mdash; Axinal  Convocation Chamber 10:21, June 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * 4)  Imperators II (Talk) 17:59, June 5, 2011 (UTC)

Object
 * 1) I wanted this one. >.<
 * 2) * You need to state what the question is in the article itself. Be as literal as possible and don't get into interpereting it, though. Some context on why Obi-Wan considered the question in regard to Grievous. NaruHina  Talk Anakinsolo.png 22:08, May 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) **Context for the question added, but I fear there is no info why OWK considered this thing.  Clone Commander Lee  Talk 17:18, May 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) ***I think it may have something to do with Kenobi not wanting to approach the situation aggressively, but its rather ambiguous. Yay insignificant name drops... NaruHina  Talk Anakinsolo.png 00:18, June 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) ****Mention Grievous at least. NaruHina  Talk Anakinsolo.png 00:19, June 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) *****Done.  Clone Commander Lee  Talk 13:18, June 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) Hanzo Hasashi
 * 8) * Fix the sources section, get rid of The Complete Star Wars Encyclopedia, just keep the template. You got Jrul right. Hanzo Hasashi 18:37, June 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) **Done.  Clone Commander Lee  Talk 17:55, June 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * 10) Axinal
 * 11) * As I believe we established in the Jrul article, Jrul's gender is unknown, so the phrase "his Question" is not canonical. I suggest "the Master's Question" or something of the like, but how it is written is, of course, up to you.
 * 12) **Changed.
 * 13) * Why is the first sentence of the BTS sourced, but not the second? It makes sense to me to source the second one with CSWE.
 * 14) **Sourced.
 * 15) *Otherwise, very good.&mdash; Axinal  Convocation Chamber 00:08, June 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * 16) **Thank you.  Clone Commander Lee  Talk 17:55, June 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * 17) Imperators II
 * 18) * Era tag?  Imperators II (Talk) 21:03, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * 19) **Done.  Clone Commander Lee  Talk 07:52, June 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * 20) * Please add the publication date for TCSWE.  Imperators II (Talk) 17:53, June 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * 21) **Done.  Clone Commander Lee  Talk 17:55, June 5, 2011 (UTC)

Comments
 * Be sure to use CSWECite in both the sources and the reflist. The reflist includes the page number. I fixed the ref for you this time. Hanzo Hasashi 19:28, June 3, 2011 (UTC)

Wom-Nii Gnaden

 * Nominated by:  Clone Commander Lee  Talk 17:46, May 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * Nomination comments: Even more

(0 ECs/2 Users/2 Total)
Support
 * 1) NaruHina  Talk Anakinsolo.png 00:13, June 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2)  Imperators II (Talk) 18:03, June 5, 2011 (UTC)

Object
 * 1) Say which side the Tide fought for.  NaruHina  Talk Anakinsolo.png 03:44, May 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) *Added.  Clone Commander Lee  Talk 17:10, May 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Imperators II
 * 4) * Category:Individuals of unidentified species?  Imperators II (Talk) 21:46, June 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) **Added.  Clone Commander Lee  Talk 07:54, June 5, 2011 (UTC)

Comments

Crombach Nebula

 * Nominated by:  Clone Commander Lee  Talk 17:59, May 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * Nomination comments: ...and more

(0 ECs/0 Users/0 Total)
Support

Object
 * 1) Rubedo
 * 2) * Specify its galactic coordinates in the prose.
 * 3) **Added.  Clone Commander Lee  Talk 17:59, June 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) * Mentioning Gnaden's death in the nebula should be mentioned.
 * 5) **Added.  Clone Commander Lee  Talk 17:59, June 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) * Mention that that entry in the Cross-sections was reprinted in the CCS.
 * 7) **Added.  Clone Commander Lee  Talk 17:59, June 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) ***I'm sure glad we have the Department of Reduncancy Department. NaruHina  Talk Anakinsolo.png 20:13, June 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) *Specify the CSWE entry in the source list. Possibly mention this mention in the BTS.
 * 10) Imperators II
 * 11) * should be used in the "Sources" section and references.
 * 12) **Done.  Clone Commander Lee  Talk 18:11, June 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * 13) * Imho, something's not right with "The The" in the BTS section.  Imperators II (Talk) 11:22, June 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * 14) **Changed. Thanks for the review.  Clone Commander Lee  Talk 17:59, June 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * 15) *The first two sentences can't be sourced to Revenge of the Sith: Incredible Cross-Sections.  Imperators II (Talk) 18:34, June 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * 16) **Fixed.
 * 17) *Publishing years of the works should be added in the BTS section.  Imperators II (Talk) 18:36, June 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * 18) **Added. EAOC has no "real" publishing date.  Clone Commander Lee  Talk 08:03, June 5, 2011 (UTC)

Comments

NTB-630 naval bomber

 * Nominated by:  Clone Commander Lee  Talk 18:08, May 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * Nomination comments: ...

(0 ECs/0 Users/0 Total)
Support

Object
 * 1) Imperators II
 * Category:Incom Corporation products?  Imperators II (Talk) 18:44, June 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) **Added.  Clone Commander Lee  Talk 08:16, June 5, 2011 (UTC)

Comments

Ado Eemon

 * Nominated by:  Clone Commander Lee  Talk 18:19, May 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * Nomination comments: ...

(0 ECs/0 Users/0 Total)
Support

Object
 * 1) Exiled Jedi
 * 2) * You should probably directly mention (and link) that he was a male in the body of the article. -- Exiled Jedi  Oldrepublic crest.svg (Greetings)  20:11, June 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) **Added.  Clone Commander Lee  Talk 18:00, June 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) *I am going to look it over one more time before supporting.-- Exiled Jedi  Oldrepublic crest.svg (Greetings)  19:25, June 3, 2011 (UTC)

Comments

Battle of Crombach Nebula

 * Nominated by:  Clone Commander Lee  Talk 18:46, May 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * Nomination comments: and another one

(0 ECs/0 Users/0 Total)
Support

Object
 * 1) Exiled Jedi
 * 2) *Could you use a Template:CSWECite for the The Complete Star Wars Encyclopedia source in the article? (This will show what entry/entries the battle was mentioned in.)
 * 3) *It would be good to mention what entries it was in from the encyclopedia in the behind the scenes as well.
 * 4) * You linked Wom-Nii Gnaden twice in the infobox
 * 5) **Fixed.  Clone Commander Lee  Talk 18:01, June 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) *Other than that, it looks pretty good.-- Exiled Jedi  Oldrepublic crest.svg (Greetings)  18:56, June 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) **Thank you.  Clone Commander Lee  Talk 18:01, June 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) Imperators II
 * 9) *Gnaden's rank of a General is infobox-exclusive.  Imperators II (Talk) 21:53, June 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * 10) **Fixed.  Clone Commander Lee  Talk 08:26, June 5, 2011 (UTC)

Comments

Unidentified assassin (Jurgan Kalta)

 * Nominated by:  Exiled Jedi  Oldrepublic crest.svg (Greetings)  03:45, June 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * Nomination comments: This one is for you SavageBob.

(1 ECs/1 Users/2 Total)
Support
 * 1) Goodie (: –Tm_T (Talk) 07:08, June 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * Aw, my very own assassin! :) ~ Savage  BOB sig.png 22:28, June 4, 2011 (UTC)

Object
 * Tm
 * 1) * As a start: I would remove "'s enemy" from the article name, what do you think? –Tm_T (Talk) 18:24, June 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) **I agree, done.-- Exiled Jedi  Oldrepublic crest.svg (Greetings)  18:29, June 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) * I would like to have something about the timeframe he lived earlier than in the very end.
 * 4) **How is this?-- Exiled Jedi  Oldrepublic crest.svg (Greetings)  20:07, June 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) ***Now its repetitive, vary the wording or remove latter mention of the JCW altogether. –Tm_T (Talk) 20:19, June 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) ****How about now?-- Exiled Jedi  Oldrepublic crest.svg (Greetings)  20:27, June 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) * "Inventory entry"? I would say "item description" or something less game mechanicy. –Tm_T (Talk) 19:23, June 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) **Yeah, that did sound bad, fixed.-- Exiled Jedi  Oldrepublic crest.svg (Greetings)  20:07, June 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) * Hmm, perhaps remove the repetition in the Bts too, you could simply say "the item was also in the guide" or something, I would assume it's apparent the guide has the same item description than the game. (I don't usually even mention the guide in the Bts) –Tm_T (Talk) 20:19, June 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * 10) **I trimmed it somewhat.-- Exiled Jedi  Oldrepublic crest.svg (Greetings)  20:27, June 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * 11) ***Included, included, repetition. Would it be ok if you just state "the same item description" or such and not reiterating what item and how is that item description relevant?
 * 12) ****Fixed.-- Exiled Jedi  Oldrepublic crest.svg (Greetings)  20:40, June 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * 13) * Ah, as it's the very same text in the game and in the guide (correct me if I'm wrong), shouldn't it be Mo for the guide too? –Tm_T (Talk) 20:34, June 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * 14) **All sources are supposed to be mentions only. (I was told not to call it a mention only for a previous nomination.)-- Exiled Jedi  Oldrepublic crest.svg (Greetings)  20:40, June 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * 15) ***I disagree on this: if it were describing the article subject, it wouldn't be mention only like it is now. But I leave this matter be for now. (:
 * 16) * One more, AFAIK the name in the infobox should not have "unidentified" nor "(Jurgan Kalta)" as both are OOU identifiers(?). –Tm_T (Talk) 20:51, June 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * 17) **Do you have any suggestions, because there isn't much else to go on and I'm stumped.-- Exiled Jedi  Oldrepublic crest.svg (Greetings)  21:36, June 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * 18) ***Just remove those so it says "Assassin" as it's the only "name" we have for they IU wise. (: –Tm_T (Talk) 21:41, June 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * 19) ****I would like to say that I hav found numerous good and comprehensive articles with this sort of OOU information in the infobox. Just look at almost any unidentified character on the GA list or CA list and you will see what I mean.-- Exiled Jedi  Oldrepublic crest.svg (Greetings)  21:47, June 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * 20) *****Apparently there's no consistency nor policy on this yet, I would get rid of those but do as you feel best. (: –Tm_T (Talk) 07:08, June 3, 2011 (UTC)

Comments The next Jurgan Kalta nomination.-- Exiled Jedi   (Greetings)  03:45, June 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey Tm T, I switched out the mention only in the appearances section for an indirect mention only, and I added an indirect mention only to the sources section. (both of which seem correct to me) Please tell me what you think of this change.-- Exiled Jedi  Oldrepublic crest.svg (Greetings)  12:17, June 3, 2011 (UTC)

PS-29-3

 * Nominated by: Hanzo Hasashi 17:15, June 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * Nomination comments: And now, the final JKTCG-exclusive character, to complete one of my ongoing projects.

(0 ECs/1 Users/1 Total)
Support
 * 1) Looks good to me.-- Exiled Jedi  Oldrepublic crest.svg (Greetings)  19:56, June 2, 2011 (UTC)

Object Comments
 * 1) Exiled Jedi
 * 2) * It seems to me that if you have a personality and traits section then you should be able to do a short biography section.
 * 3) *And since you have some sectioning you need to link items once in the intro and once in the rest of the article.
 * 4) *Perhaps more later. -- Exiled Jedi  Oldrepublic crest.svg (Greetings)  18:45, June 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) **Responded to all. Hanzo Hasashi 19:46, June 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) could to try to improve P and T? Darth Needham 18:15, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * The Scum and Villainy and Masters of the Force cards both seem to show him flying around the Death Star. Is this solid enough proof he fought in the Battle of Yavin, or could it also have been just a drill? Hanzo Hasashi 17:15, June 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think that you can assume he fought in the battle.-- Exiled Jedi  Oldrepublic crest.svg (Greetings)  18:45, June 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * With intro, it is currently 247 words, just short of GA quality. As is, I can't think of ways to further increase its word count. Hanzo Hasashi 20:09, June 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * Now, upon seeing DS-181-3 and DS-181-4's GA's, have gotten rid of one sentence from the intro. Article now 232 words, and not so much borderline GA. Hanzo Hasashi 13:30, June 3, 2011 (UTC)

Denarii Station

 * Nominated by: &mdash; TK-999  Era-imp.png( Rise of the Empire ) 19:33, June 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * Nomination comments: Obscure construction hiding in the Denarii Nebula.

(1 ECs/3 Users/4 Total)
Support
 * 1) &mdash; Axinal  Convocation Chamber 10:47, June 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) I have a feeling Axe will soon be adding the EC tag to his vote. :P MasterFred Commerce Guild.svg(Whatever) 14:00, June 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * 3)  Jonjedigrandmaster  ( Talk ) 14:57, June 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * 4)  Imperators II (Talk) 16:06, June 3, 2011 (UTC)

Object
 * 1) Axinal
 * 2) * Just two problems, regarding the phrase "the remnant of a double-star system that exploded millennia before": First, millennia before what? 43 ABY? And second, if I'm correctly interpreting "double-star system" as a solar system with two suns, I think it would be appropriate to link it to binary star.
 * 3) *Otherwise, another fine article.&mdash; Axinal  Convocation Chamber 00:14, June 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) **Done. Thanks for the review.!&mdash; TK-999  Era-imp.png( Rise of the Empire ) 09:03, June 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Imperators II
 * 6) * Imho, the date of the destruction of the Denarii binary system can be specified to 5,000 BBY, for Tales of the Jedi: The Fall of the Sith Empire 5: End of an Empire, set in that year, depicts Naga Sadow causing the destruction of those stars.
 * 7) * "[..] a brief description in the list accompanying the map." The list of what?  Imperators II (Talk) 11:09, June 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) **Thank you for the information! Context added.&mdash; TK-999  Era-imp.png( Rise of the Empire ) 11:48, June 3, 2011 (UTC)

Comments

L-2832

 * Nominated by:  Gethralkin  Hyperwave 08:36, June 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * Nomination comments: SWPM/TCW tie-in

(0 ECs/0 Users/0 Total)
Support

Object

Comments
 * 1) I believe this article should be able to reach 250 words with a bio and a detailed description of the ship itself.  Clone Commander Lee  Talk 09:12, June 5, 2011 (UTC)

Third Legion

 * Nominated by:  Clone Commander Lee  Talk 16:43, June 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * Nomination comments: After a while, a little bit WP:TCW from me

(0 ECs/0 Users/0 Total)
Support

Object

Comments

Balith

 * Nominated by:  Clone Commander Lee  Talk 16:53, June 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * Nomination comments: And one more

(0 ECs/0 Users/0 Total)
Support

Object

Comments