Wookieepedia:Featured article nominations/TIE/sh shuttle


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

TIE/sh shuttle

 * Nomination by: Toprawa and Ralltiir 22:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Nomination comments: Got it over 1,000 words.

(6 Inqs/2 Users/8 Total)
Support
 * 1) Grand Moff Tranner [[Image:Imperial Department of Military Research.svg|20px]] (Comlink) 22:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) No problem with this when it was up for GA. Cull Tremayne 09:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) I visit this page after getting bored with GAN, and this is what I end up with. 10:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Green Tentacle (Talk) 19:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 5)  Cavalier One [[Image:FarStar Logo.jpg|20px]]( Squadron channel ) 11:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 6)  Graestan ( Talk ) 04:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) --  Darth Culator  (Talk) 04:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 8)  Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.svg|20px]] ( Talk page ) 17:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) From the desk of Atarumaster88
 * 2) * "As an alternative to passengers, the shuttle could hold one metric ton of cargo, and contained consumables for two days." Not relevant to description.
 * 3) **Why not? That section is intended to provide an overlay of the entire ship class and its specifications. Is there someplace else in the article you would like me to stick this? I include it because I don't believe in leaving information respective to the infobox. And if you're going to object to this, you might just hate Executor. :P Toprawa and Ralltiir 23:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) ***Well, you have a role section. IMO, it would serve much better there. I'm all for having information in the article, just preferably in a different, and IMO more appropriate section. When I think of description, I think of its exterior features, systems, etc. When I think of role, I think of usage, which the cargo bit would seem to fit better in. Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.svg|20px]] ( Talk page ) 19:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) ****Done, but you couldn't have done this yourself? I would suggest perhaps adapting more readily to your reviewing process. Toprawa and Ralltiir 16:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) *****I could have and indeed almost did, but decided to err on the side of caution, as it was highly possible that I might have missed something or you could have had a really good reason for placing it there. I'll remember this for future edits. Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.svg|20px]] ( Talk page ) 17:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) * "essentially a TIE bomber without the bomb-chute" This is not self-sourcing and doesn't appear to be from ESB.
 * 8) **My bad. It's sourced directly to the Databank, just a reference error on my part. Fixed. Toprawa and Ralltiir 23:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) *Not sure on the whole ambiguous thing. Seems like OR to me, but my more knowledgeable colleagues appear to have no problem with it, so I will defer to their judgment. Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.svg|20px]] ( Talk page ) 23:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) **I agree it's kind of iffy, but the ship in question is either a TIE boarding craft or TIE shuttle, and I went ahead made an editorial decision, which the CSWE seems to backup more or less, while making sure to explain my reasoning. Toprawa and Ralltiir 23:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments