Wookieepedia:Featured article nominations/XJ-2 airspeeder


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

XJ-2 airspeeder

 * Nomination by: Thefourdotelipsis 11:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Nomination comments: "Bill, I believe this is killing me."

(5 Inqs/0 users/5 total)
Support
 * 1)  Greyman ( Talk ) 17:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 2)  Chack Jadson  (Talk)  01:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Cull Tremayne 06:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Green Tentacle (Talk) 16:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Toprawa and Ralltiir 23:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Object
 * 1) Real minor thing: "was later put back into production by Narglatch during the Galactic Civil War." I'd suggest you remove this, or change it to something like "the line was later put back...". I'd do it myself, but I don't know if you'd prefer removing this info or rephrasing it. I think it's a bit irrelevant and confusing to the specific model and the article as it is now. Is that clear, or am I being a bit confusing here? Apologies if I'm not explaining myself well.  Chack Jadson  (Talk)  02:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) *Tweaked. Thefourdotelipsis 08:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) From the Chron-O-John of Green Tentacle:
 * 4) * Characteristics could be meatier and should not assume you've read the intro. I'd remove the "unique" bit since they ended up making more of them, or say that the original was unique or something. Mention that it's an airspeeder somewhere closer to the start of the section. You can also work in the manufacturer and XJ-series here. Bail's modifications of the original might also be worth mentioning.
 * 5) **Done some tweaking, but I didn't want to replicate too much info already in the history section.
 * 6) * Source or remove the lack of armament in the infobox. Green Tentacle (Talk) 22:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) **Removed. Thefourdotelipsis 07:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Toprawa:
 * 9) * Can you clarify this? The "but" doesn't seem to fit, and I'm not sure if the "it" is intended to refer to the predecessor or the successor: "The later reproductions of the speeder were good at handling, and boasted impressive speeds, but it excelled at both acceleration and climbing."
 * 10) **Huh. How very odd. Fixed.
 * 11) * I would always prefer that sources not be grouped together, such as the different pieces of Episode III, in an effort to properly designate each piece of individual media. Regardless, it is unfair to group all of them as the speeder's "first appearance," in respect to the fact that the speeder first appeared in the novel, not the film or the comic adaptation. If you must group these together, please at least designate an individual bullet for the novel to explicitly differentiate this as the true first appearance. Toprawa and Ralltiir 18:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) **"...many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view." :P Nevertheless, split. Thanks for the review. Thefourdotelipsis 01:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments


 * Never thought I'd say this but...thanks Galaxies. :S Thefourdotelipsis 11:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)