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 A forum will be used to nominate articles that have fallen out-of-date.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.

Ree Ohr

 * Nominated by: QuiGonJinn  Senate seal.svg(Talk) 12:15, May 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * Nomination comments: A character so obscure, nobody has bothered to create an article for her for all these years. A rarity, to say the least.

(1 ECs/2 Users/3 Total)
Support
 * 1) &mdash; Axinal  Convocation Chamber 15:29, May 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) ~  Savage  BOB sig.png 06:47, May 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) And I am sure there are many more.-- Exiled Jedi  Oldrepublic crest.svg (Greetings)  14:22, May 19, 2011 (UTC)

Object
 * 1) Axinal
 * 2) * I think some of the phrases in the first sentence should be swapped around, as the way it's written right now implies that the Clone Wars was the site of a battle between the Republic and the CIS. Otherwise, a well-written article.&mdash; Axinal  Convocation Chamber 16:10, May 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) **Addressed. QuiGonJinn  Senate seal.svg(Talk) 14:53, May 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) "Republic female Human" sounds weird. It sounds like "Republic Human" is a type of Human. Maybe reword? Menkooroo 16:48, May 20, 2011 (UTC)

Comments

132nd Forward Division

 * Nominated by: Eyrezer 09:43, May 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Nomination comments:

(1 ECs/2 Users/3 Total)
Support
 * 1) &mdash; Axinal  Convocation Chamber 23:13, May 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2)  Imperators II (Talk) 10:59, May 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Menkooroo 12:13, May 25, 2011 (UTC)

Object Comments
 * 1) Axinal
 * 2) * Could you add an ?
 * 3) * Would it be possible to specify "unit" here? I'm presuming this was part of the Alliance army, so maybe say army unit; if we can't confirm it was part of their army, per se, maybe just "military unit".
 * 4) * Also, I don't believe "Division" should be capitalized in the second sentence. Correct me if I'm wrong.
 * 5) *Other than that, good work.&mdash; Axinal  Convocation Chamber 18:43, May 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Would the "members" field of the infobox be a better place for Belyssa? I feel like the "leaders" field is reserved for leaders of the whole operation rather than any named officer. Let me know what you think. Menkooroo 04:00, May 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) *A bit of a 50/50 call. I don't mind either way, so if you prefer yours, I am happy for you to change it. --Eyrezer 10:53, May 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) **Either one is good. I'm OK leaving it. Menkooroo 12:13, May 25, 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) Imperators II
 * 10) * A link to Galactic Civil War?  Imperators II (Talk) 08:53, May 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * 11) **Snuck in there. --Eyrezer 10:53, May 24, 2011 (UTC)

71st Elite Mechanized Assault Group

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

(0 ECs/1 Users/1 Total)
Support
 * 1) &mdash; Axinal  Convocation Chamber 21:51, May 15, 2011 (UTC)

Object
 * 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)

Comments

98th Elite Mechanized Assault Group

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

(0 ECs/2 Users/2 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)
 * 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)

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)

Alain (Human)

 * Nominated by: Hanzo Hasashi 20:49, May 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * Nomination comments: Unit Scrounge

(0 ECs/1 Users/1 Total)
Support
 * 1) &mdash; Axinal  Convocation Chamber 15:40, May 16, 2011 (UTC)

Object

Comments
 * 1) Hanzo Hasashi
 * 2) * I believe there is no evidence that he necessarily fought the 501st during the events of ANH, as the card never explicitly states it, nor does his CSWE entry. Does anybody else believe otherwise? Hanzo Hasashi 20:49, May 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) *Text from his Quick Draw card: fighting against oppression can be dangerous business. Oppressors carry blasters, and so does Alain. I do not believe any of this is necessarily from his POV, and chose not to include it as any new info in his bio. As with above, if somebody else believes otherwise, please respond. Hanzo Hasashi 21:07, May 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Axinal
 * 5) * In the Personality and Traits, you mention a Hakin. Who is Hakin? I figure this is supposed to be Alian and would therefore qualify as a Sofixit, but I want to be sure Hakin's name isn't there for some other purpose.
 * 6) **Right, that was just a careless mistake on my part, Hakin was another Rebel trooper I brought to comprehensive status. Hanzo Hasashi 14:28, May 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) * Could you tell us what a scrounge is?&mdash; Axinal  Convocation Chamber 22:09, May 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) **A scavenger, will write. Hanzo Hasashi 14:28, May 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) ***Nice work!&mdash; Axinal  Convocation Chamber 15:40, May 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * 10) Imperators II
 * 11) *Is there any indication that Alain still served by 0 BBY? He could have served aboard Tantive IV at any point between 2 BBY (the formation of the Rebel Alliance) and 0 BBY, and, imho, it would be more accurately stated that way. Or does "by 0 BBY" really cover it?  Imperators II (Talk) 09:47, May 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * 12) **To be honest, I'm not sure. For Precht's nomination below, the user Menkooroo felt that what I had was fine. All I was saying was Alain's service could have been no later than 0 BBY. Hanzo Hasashi 14:29, May 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * 13) ***Imperators see if you like the change I have just made. Hanzo Hasashi 16:06, May 25, 2011 (UTC)

Precht

 * Nominated by: Hanzo Hasashi 20:49, May 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * Nomination comments: Green Recruit

(1 ECs/1 Users/2 Total)
Support
 * 1) &mdash; Axinal  Convocation Chamber 22:14, May 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Menkooroo 14:46, May 23, 2011 (UTC)

Object
 * 1) Can you give a little more detail in ref [2]? Does the card indicate that he was a recent recruit at the time of the Tantive IV destruction?
 * 2) *His year of service was never given, however, it could have only been 0 BBY at the latest. Should I change it to simply say during the Galactic Civil War, also getting rid of ref [2] in the process?
 * 3) **I think the ref is OK. Maybe just a little more explanation within ref [2] itself as to why it says what it does (something at the end like "Therefore, Precht must have blah blah blah...").
 * 4) ***See if it's better now. Hanzo Hasashi 14:09, May 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) I'd say that ref [5] probably isn't necessary. If it's visually a DH-17 on the card, I think you can just source the card. Like, if there was an X-wing fighter on the card, you wouldn't need to source anything else to say so. Menkooroo 02:49, May 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) *Gotten rid of. Hanzo Hasashi 03:48, May 23, 2011 (UTC)

Comments
 * Same as above with Private Alain. Hanzo Hasashi 20:49, May 8, 2011 (UTC)

72nd Flight

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

(0 ECs/1 Users/1 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)

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

128th Flight

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

(0 ECs/1 Users/1 Total)
Support
 * 1) &mdash; Axinal  Convocation Chamber 03:24, May 23, 2011 (UTC)

Object

Comments

28th Flight

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

(0 ECs/1 Users/1 Total)
Support
 * 1) &mdash; Axinal  Convocation Chamber 03:24, May 23, 2011 (UTC)

Object

Comments

31st Flight

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

(0 ECs/1 Users/1 Total)
Support
 * 1) &mdash; Axinal  Convocation Chamber 03:24, May 23, 2011 (UTC)

Object

Comments

Nala Hetsime

 * Nominated by: Hanzo Hasashi 22:18, May 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * Nomination comments: Same first name as The Lion King main female character

(1 ECs/1 Users/2 Total)
Support
 * 1) &mdash; Axinal  Convocation Chamber 22:42, May 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Menkooroo 08:50, May 22, 2011 (UTC)

Object
 * I think the fact that the full card image features an AT-AT in the top corner is a prime indicator that he fought at Hoth. Also, being in Rogue Squadron and flying a T-47 while stationed at Echo Base implies this as well. Reference to the Battle of Hoth should be included. - Cavalier One FarStar Logo.jpg( Squadron channel ) 14:43, May 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * Written. Hanzo Hasashi 19:56, May 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * Eight days have gone by, and I see you have been active on this website during that amount of time, as well as earlier yesterday and today. Can you please respond to your objections? Thanks. Hanzo Hasashi 14:39, May 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks like that's the Rebel insignia on his helmet. The Rogue Squadron insignia wasn't created until a couple years after the Battle of Endor. Menkooroo 03:51, May 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * You are right, fixed my mistake. Hanzo Hasashi 15:47, May 21, 2011 (UTC)

Comments

Ururur

 * Nominated by: Hanzo Hasashi 22:18, May 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * Nomination comments: "The Sandpeople are easily startled but they will soon be back and in greater numbers."

(1 ECs/1 Users/2 Total)
Support
 * 1) &mdash; Axinal  Convocation Chamber 22:28, May 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Menkooroo 16:44, May 20, 2011 (UTC)

Object

Comments

Merumeru's battle staff

 * Nominated by: GTQ ( Problems? ) 03:24, May 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * Nomination comments:

(0 ECs/2 Users/2 Total)
Support Object Comments
 * 1) &mdash; Axinal  Convocation Chamber 01:26, May 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) * See below.&mdash; Axinal  Convocation Chamber 01:07, May 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Assuming Ax and Bob's objections are dealt with.  Bonslywizard  Naboo.svg ( Send a transmission ) 00:46, May 20, 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Bonzlywizard
 * 2) * Context on Mermeru.
 * 3) * If the staff's only mention is in the DB, what info did you get from the Campaign Guide?
 * 4) * Could you maybe try to get a picture of it, assuming it's what Mermeru's holding in the DB pic?
 * 5) **Okay, better, but the pic's waaay too small. Could you see if you can get a bigger version? If you can't I could give it a try. Bonslywizard  Naboo.svg ( Send a transmission ) 21:57, May 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) *This your first nom? If so, welcome! If not, er...welcome back. Bonslywizard  Naboo.svg ( Send a transmission ) 18:12, May 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) **Context added on Merumeru picture added too. The campaign guide mentions nothing that is not there but I have made mention of it in behind the scenes GTQ ( Problems? ) 21:43, May 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) ***I'll give the pick another shot GTQ ( Problems? ) 22:03, May 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) ****Quality of the pic is bad but when aiming for such a small area of an already small pic It is hard to get good quality GTQ ( Problems? ) 22:13, May 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * 10) Axinal
 * 11) * Because the article has multiple sources, it needs referencing.
 * 12) * I'd argue that the article could be expanded. Does TCWCG mention when specifically Merumeru used the staff? Even if it doesn't, the pic is from Episode III, so it's probably safe to say he wielded it during the Battle of Kashyyyk.
 * 13) *I removed the 250px designation from the picture, as it became too blurry.&mdash; Axinal  Convocation Chamber 22:37, May 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * 14) **TCWGC only mentions what is in the databank according to Jinzler as I do not have TCWGC but I referenced it. I added ROTS to the appearances and mentioned he used during the battle  GTQ ( Problems? ) 23:35, May 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * 15) ***Good work, the picture is much better, as well. I'd just rearrange the BTS to make it a little more chronological, as RotS came before TCWCG and the Databank entry.&mdash; Axinal  Convocation Chamber 00:31, May 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * 16) ****Done GTQ ( Problems? ) 01:05, May 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * 17) *****Better; I gave the article a copy-edit, removed the template from the text, since it's only needed in the infobox, and also moved some of the refs around in the BTS so the entire paragraph isn't sourced three times. I also rewrote the BTS a little to make it more accurate.&mdash; Axinal  Convocation Chamber 01:26, May 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * 18) ******Thanks for all the help GTQ ( Problems? ) 01:31, May 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * 19) Is there any reason to believe this is a unique item and not, simply, a staff used in battle? In other words, why is "battle staff" worth giving its own article when we wouldn't do the same for "tall Human" or "open door"? If there is no evidence it's a unique item, I suggest moving the article to Merumeru's battle staff or, potentially, Wookiee battle staff if any source explicitly calls it such. ~  Savage  BOB sig.png 16:23, May 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * 20) *Merumeru's Databank entry puts "battle staff" under his "Weapons" list, but it's safe to assume it wouldn't put "Tall Wookiee" under his Species category. I personally don't see a problem with this having its own article.&mdash; Axinal  Convocation Chamber 16:28, May 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * 21) ** OK, but what distinguishes "battle staff" from "staff", an article we already have on long poles used to hit people with? ~ Savage  BOB sig.png 16:51, May 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * 22) ***Hmm, fair question, but again, I would point to the fact that the DB's infobox specifically identifies it as a battle staff, whereas it would not identify Merumeru as a tall Wookiee or Luke's lightsaber as a green lightsaber.&mdash; Axinal  Convocation Chamber 17:05, May 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * 23) **** I see what you mean, and I guess on that basis I can live with an article called "battle staff," but it needs to be generic and cover every battle staff used in Star Wars, not focus only on Merumeru's weapon. Otherwise, the article should be renamed "Merumeru's battle staff." I mean, Kenner and Hasbro alone have introduced tons of "battle staffs" into canon, and these all would need to be included in a generic "battle staff" article. ~ Savage  BOB sig.png
 * 24) *****Yes, I see what you mean. Perhaps GTQ could move it to "Merumeru's battle staff"; would that then need a Conjecture tag?&mdash; Axinal  Convocation Chamber 18:27, May 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * 25) ****** Probably would need a conjecture tag, yes. There's also an issue of folks in the past not liking articles on specific weapons used by specific characters; the SH is here. I don't think there was ever any consensus, but just beware that "Merumeru's battle staff" will likely meet with grumbles from some. ;) ~ Savage  BOB sig.png 01:31, May 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * 26) *******I think I should keep it here because as Axinal has said it is specifically calls it a battle staff in the DB so I think it is good as it is unless it is met with a general consensus that I should move it then I will move it  GTQ ( Problems? ) 01:52, May 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * 27) ********I agree; I, too, would like to hear another opinion on this, but I say keep the article as is for now until we can reach an agreement on whether the subject is worthy of an article, and if so, what it should be named.&mdash; Axinal  Convocation Chamber 02:01, May 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * 28) *********Upon going to the staff article I found it listed multiple kinds of staff so maybe a battle staff is just a different kind of staff GTQ ( Problems? ) 02:04, May 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * 29) ********** You're welcome to keep the article at "battle staff," but, again, it will need to cover all battle staffs, not just Merumeru's. You'll have to incorporate the Massassi battle staff and the Gungan battle staff from here at the very least; I suspect there may be other weapons out there called "battle staffs." ~ Savage  BOB sig.png 02:28, May 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * 30) ***********Ya know what I'll move it but I need some help doing that as last time I tried i duplicated not moved the article GTQ ( Problems? ) 15:43, May 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * 31) ************Check that moved it GTQ ( Problems? ) 23:11, May 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * 32) * OK, a few more issues: You should provide a physical description of the weapon at some point. What color was it? Is it possible to tell how long it is in comparison to Merumeru's height from the film? How did Merumeru carry it and wield it?
 * 33) * Next, you should probably link to the staff article at some point in the article. ~ Savage  BOB sig.png 23:32, May 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * 34) **added staff link told how long it was the only problem with this is that you never actually see him fight with the staff just hold it up in the air but if you really want me to do it I can try. GTQ ( Problems? ) 23:39, May 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * 35) ***Better! I think you still need to go into some detail about the context in which he wielded it. Check out the articles on Guanta and Lachichuk and see how we've described the situation where Merumeru waves the staff over his head. I think you should probably describe this event too. ~ Savage  BOB sig.png 15:47, May 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * 36) *Another concern: Why are "appearances" being privileged in the BTS rather than sources? I'd suggest simply saying what the staff's first appearance was, then saying that a promotional image of Merumeru wielding the staff has since been printed in several sources. You can list them if you want, but it might be enough to say "several sources" and then add footnotes for all of them. ~ Savage  BOB sig.png 15:47, May 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * 37) **All have been dealt with GTQ ( Problems? ) 19:57, May 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * 38) A few problems now arise that you have moved it. It will need a template at the top, and you should probably remove the  template from the sources section. You could, however, mention in the BTS that the weapon was identified as a "battle staff" in Merumeru's Databank entry. Also, the article should be renamed "Merumeru's battle staff" (note the lowercase b). Once these have been addressed, I will be willing to support again.&mdash; Axinal  Convocation Chamber 01:07, May 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * 39) *all have been addressed GTQ ( Problems? ) 02:01, May 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * 40) **Not quite. Please remove the template from the sources section, and, instead, mention in the BTS that the item was called a "battle staff" in Merumeru's DB entry.&mdash; Axinal  Convocation Chamber
 * 41) ***Ok sorry I miss read your objection they have been fully addressed now GTQ ( Problems? ) 01:15, May 20, 2011 (UTC)
 * 42) ****Good work, I'm satisfied.&mdash; Axinal  Convocation Chamber 01:18, May 20, 2011 (UTC)
 * 43) The Wookiees are back!
 * The image that the battle staff appears in (which we've taken to calling the "Rawr" image over in the Barnburner HQ) appears in quite a few sources, so I've gone ahead and updated this article's Appearances and sources sections. They're all just, so you don't need to research them to find any information. However! As I've added two items to the "Appearances" section, the sentence in Behind the scenes that states "The battle staff's only appearance to date in Star Wars canon is in Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith." is now incorrect. Please revise.
 * 1) *"The Wookiees Are Back!" from the Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith DVD shows some behind-the-scenes footage of the staff. It's available on youtube here, and beginning at about 4:50, it shows Axel Dench filming the scene where he holds the battle staff. Using that as your source, you should talk about the filming of the scene, describe the prop that Axel used, and mention that it was digitally turned into a battle staff during the film's post-production. Let me know if you need any help with this. Menkooroo 07:25, May 20, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) **Done thanks for the review Menk assuming your done GTQ ( Problems? ) 21:02, May 21, 2011 (UTC)

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 Comments
 * 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)
 * OK did I miss anymore redirect links?Cal Jedi (Personal Comm Channel) 17:34, May 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope, you got them all, good work. Just see my remaining objection above.&mdash; Axinal  Convocation Chamber 17:38, May 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * I added the sources to the main article. Did I mess anything up?Cal Jedi (Personal Comm Channel) 14:33, May 20, 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)

Gaxxan brain-slug

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

(0 ECs/1 Users/1 Total)
Support
 * 1) &mdash; Axinal  Convocation Chamber 22:35, May 19, 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)

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/1 Users/2 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)

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)

Ebon Squadron

 * Nominated by:  Gethralkin  Hyperwave 03:50, May 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * Nomination comments: SWPM

(0 ECs/2 Users/2 Total)
Support
 * 1) &mdash; Axinal  Convocation Chamber 21:42, May 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Looks good. Smells good. Feels good. Nice job.&mdash; TK-999  Era-imp.png( Rise of the Empire ) 19:29, May 24, 2011 (UTC)

Object
 * 1) Axinal
 * 2) * Could you perhaps just specify that the supplement was called the Imperial Power-up Pack in the BTS?
 * 3) * Also, if the squadron's era is confirmed as the Rebellion era (as opposed to, say, the Rise of the Empire era or the New Republic era), it should be added to the infobox. If not, the tag should be removed.
 * 4) *Other than that, nice work.&mdash; Axinal  Convocation Chamber 17:54, May 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) **Done and done.  Gethralkin  Hyperwave 18:01, May 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) *** My second objection, regarding the eras, has not been addressed.&mdash; Axinal  Convocation Chamber 18:28, May 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) ****Oops. Thought I got it. Thanks for the catch.  Gethralkin  Hyperwave 21:21, May 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) *****No problem, nice work.&mdash; Axinal  Convocation Chamber 21:42, May 23, 2011 (UTC)

Comments

Jinx

 * Nominated by: &mdash; TK-999  Era-imp.png( Rise of the Empire ) 19:26, May 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * Nomination comments: One of the youngling trio on Wasskah.

(0 ECs/0 Users/0 Total)
Support

Object
 * 1) Axinal
 * 2) * "Description" should be merged with Personality and traits, since it usually falls under the "traits" portion.
 * 3) *As the article is currently 191 words and is missing a Behind the scenes section, I think this could easily make Good Article with some effort. Even if the BTS isn't 59 words, it's guaranteed to be at least 9, which will bring it to 200 and require you to make an attempt at an intro.&mdash; Axinal  Convocation Chamber 20:37, May 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) *Also, could we possibly get a quote and a link to the Clone Wars somewhere?&mdash; Axinal  Convocation Chamber 20:41, May 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) **OK, but how will I swing this off as a GAN?&mdash; TK-999  Era-imp.png( Rise of the Empire ) 11:30, May 25, 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) ***Sorry, what do you mean, "swing it off"? You mean how do you move it to the WP:GAN page from the this page? I'm not sure what the specific rules are on that, but I think it's best to write under the Comments section that you intend to GA the article rather than CA it, and let someone from the EC archive the current nomination, at which point you can go ahead and nominate it on the GAN page.&mdash; Axinal  Convocation Chamber 18:49, May 25, 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) ****Thanks for the info.&mdash; TK-999  Era-imp.png( Rise of the Empire ) 18:56, May 25, 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) *****No problem. I'll be sure to review this again once it's on the GAN page.&mdash; Axinal  Convocation Chamber 19:05, May 25, 2011 (UTC)

Comments
 * 1) *Since the article is now well above the 250 words limit, I would like to signify my intention to pass the article over to the GAN page.&mdash; TK-999  Era-imp.png( Rise of the Empire ) 18:56, May 25, 2011 (UTC)

Unification Policies

 * Nominated by: Cal Jedi (Personal Comm Channel) 13:33, May 25, 2011 (UTC)
 * Nomination comments:I like this page!

(0 ECs/0 Users/0 Total)
Support

Object
 * 1) Axinal
 * 2) *I think a would be appropriate here.
 * 3) **I added an infobox. But it was my first Law infobox. Did I do it right?Cal Jedi (Personal Comm Channel) 21:29, May 25, 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) *I believe the Ruusan Reformation was first mentioned in The Essential Chronology, making the BTS as it's written somewhat inaccurate.
 * 5) **I removed the part about the Ruusan Reformation in the BTS.
 * 6) *The fact that Valorum was the Supreme Chancellor is currently exclusive to the intro. Could it, along with the fact that the Ruusan campaign ended in 1,000 BBY, be worked into the body somewhere?
 * 7) **I added that Valorum was Supreme Chancellor in the body, and that the Ruusan campaign ended in 1,000 BBY.Cal Jedi (Personal Comm Channel) 21:33, May 25, 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) *Also, Paak's opposition to the policies are currently only represented by the quote. Because his feelings towards the policies affected his actions in the novel quite prominently, I believe he probably deserves a specific mention somewhere.&mdash; Axinal  Convocation Chamber 19:02, May 25, 2011 (UTC)

Comments