Wookieepedia:Featured article nominations

The featured articles of the wiki are articles that represent the best Wookieepedia has to offer.


 * /History
 * /2005 History
 * /Queue
 * Community vote on the renomination of previous FAs

So just what makes a featured article? Well, we've prepared a list just in case someone should ask that, and it is as follows.

An article must...


 * 1) ...be well written and detailed
 * 2) ...be unbiased, non-point of view
 * 3) ...be sourced with all available sources and appearances
 * 4) ...follow the Manual of Style and the Layout Guide
 * 5) ...not be the object of any ongoing edit wars
 * 6) ...not be tagged with any sort of improvement tags (i.e. more sources, expand, etc)
 * 7) ...have a succint proper lead that can be used for the front page featured box
 * 8) ...have a reasonable amount of red links; use common sense
 * 9) ...have a complete, detailed biography if it's a character article

For more information on what makes a featured article, see Wikipedia:What is a featured article.

How to nominate:


 * 1) First, nominate an article you find is worthy of featured status, putting it at the bottom of the list below; see criteria above.
 * 2) 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 (errors, style, organization, images, notability, sources).
 * 3) Supporters adjust the article until the objectors (with reasonable objections) are satisfied.
 * 4) The article is placed on the featured article list and added to the front page queue.
 * 5) Also, if, at least a week after the article's nomination, that article has 5 supports and no objections, it will be added the queue, and will be officially known as a "featured article".

How to vote:


 * 1) Before doing anything, be sure to read the article completely, keeping a sharp eye out for mistakes.
 * 2) Afterwards, 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.
 * 5) Once all objectors' complaints have been solved (or the article has 5 supports and no objections after at least a week), the article will be added to the queue and be officially known as a "featured article".

Also remember to add nominated at the top of the article you are nominating.

Every Sunday the next article in the queue will be highlighted on the Main Page as featured, marked with the featured template and removed from the list of nominations. The beginning of the article then appears on the Main Page via the featured article template. Nominees that are inactive for a month will be eliminated from the nominations list.

Imperial Ruling Council
Objections Comments
 * 1) Cull Tremayne 21:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) &mdash; Silly Dan 00:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Thanos6 02:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) KEJ 10:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC) (could use some more images though)
 * 5) Kuralyov 04:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Sikon [ Talk ] 16:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Needs a better introduction that focuses less on its name. It also needs a picture to go with the introduction. --Imp 07:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not bad, but: No Behind the scenes, no 1st appearance, no databank, WP or CUSWE links (there has to be at least one), no note on where the photo came from, and some other minor things. --UVnet 06:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't get it. There has to be at least one what? Link to databank, WP or CUSWE? Doesn't say so in the nine points under An article must... KEJ 12:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * UVnet seems to have established his own rules, with the required behind the scenes and all. --MarcK [talk] 13:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the introduction currently there is good, and although there's no picture the DS II group shot would work. Kuralyov 21:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that one of the images at the bottom should be bumped up to the top. Is this featured in any comics? I will go see if I can find some pictures. - Breathesgelatin 05:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well written and provides an insightful look into the progression of the Empire after Palpatine's death.Cull Tremayne 21:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Pre-Republic era

 * 1) TIEPilot051999 07:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) MoffRebus 11:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Kuralyov 05:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Sith Lord Remi 03:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Lord Hydronium 12:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Orpheus 12:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Breathesgelatin 20:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Adamwankenobi Talk to me!  My home. 12:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) KEJ 11:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC) (yeah, it's pretty good now)

Objections Comments
 * I just like this subject too much to see it being awarded so soon. I think it could do better, and i'd love to help. This is a perfect example where a wikipedia style peer review could help. Any suggestions? --UVnet 14:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with UV. This can be expanded a hole lot more. And it also needs more sources. --Imp 14:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Heck, I'll agree with that, though I appreciate the nomination. I'd be curious what you feel can be added, so I've put it up for Peer review.  I basically culled the NEC for this, but I'm sure I missed things from other sources (the Sharu are mentioned on the talk page, for example). - Lord Hydronium 04:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Previous objection withdrawn. Here's a new one, though: the introduction should be shortened somewhat so it fits better in the main page blurb. --Imp 14:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Can't we just trim the page intro for that? I noticed we did that on Quinlan Vos, Coruscant, and particularly Zsinj. - Lord Hydronium 01:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This reminds me of the Rokur Gepta article: a sorry state of affairs one week, FA worthy the next. Many props to Lord Hydronium for that. TIEPilot051999 07:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Being the originator of its first poor and hopeless version, I concur. MoffRebus 11:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Sith Lord Remi 03:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)   I have an immense interest in pre-Republic time, although this article was copied nearly word for word from the new essential chronology.
 * Actually owning the NEC, I can tell you that you're definately incorrect. QuentinGeorge 10:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think the article looks great. Have the issues people had with it been resolved in peer review? - Breathesgelatin 05:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * There weren't really a lot of issues brought up to cover. UVnet had a few on the talk page, which I think were covered, the sources were filled out, and I brought up a few potential issues that nobody addressed, so I'm guessing they didn't think they were problems.  Most of the discusson has been about whether to call it an "era". - Lord Hydronium 12:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * So, UVnet and Imperialles, do these objections still stand? - Lord Hydronium 03:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Stark Hyperspace War
Objections Comments
 * 1) Kuralyov 05:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) SFH 22:12, 7 April 2006 (PDT)
 * 3) Cull Tremayne 04:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) KEJ 10:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) EAGLES610 01:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Short intro. Also, shouldn't The Phantom Menace novelization, Cloak of Deception and HoloNet News Vol. 531 45 be in appearances instead of sources? And as I see it the article could use a better division into sections instead of a very big overview. And finally, how 'bout a timeline maybe?--UVnet 20:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) The lead-in is no shorter than other featured articles. 2) Why should those be in appearances? They only mentioned the war or its aftermath, not actually showing it. 3) What do you mean, "better division into sections"? And why exactly shouldn't an article about an event give a detailed overview of it? Would you prefer I deleted half of it so the events seem vague and open-ended? 4) What's there to timeline? The war takes place over a short time, no specific time passage is given in the comic, and both the overview and list of battles in the article cover that. Kuralyov 21:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Mistakes of the past shouldn't re-occur in the future. 2) What is supposed to be for? 3) What I meant was, that maybe the article formatting could be better if it weren't a very long section called overview divided into sub-sections followed by the standard Behind the scenes, Appearances, etc. but rather a number of sections relative to the event followed by the standards. 4) Hey, just a suggestion, no need to get aggravated. --UVnet 00:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * UV, you need to stop making arbitrary rules for this, especially since the majority of your contributions to this site appear to be for this section and no one else agrees with your arguments. Nothing has changed since the other articles with short intros were accepted, so that is not a reason to reject this article. "Mentioned only" is stupid and I don't use it, and since there's no requirement to I don't have to. Besides I have all appearances and first mention listed. And all that is in the overview because it is the overview. Nothing is against the manual of style in either regard. Kuralyov 17:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, so if I am not contributing ENOUGH for your taste I shouldn't be allowed to participate in FA discussions? Or perhaps we should limit FA discussions only for users with specific contribution requirements? Or maybe just do the simple thing and limit it only to admins? The last time I remembered this was a WIKI, meaning that every user (and even not registered users) have the right to express their opinions about a subject, especially when they don't try to interfere or go against the basic rules of the community. Everybody has a right to have their own standards, regardless of the requirements an article must stand up to. If articles where given featured status solely upon meeting requirements couldn't there have been an automated procedure for this? Articles vary greatly in quality and each must be treated individually. --UVnet 07:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a great article, but I agree that the introduction is too short for the main page. -LtNOWIS 21:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I just spent a heckuva lot of time going over the comic and adding in details, so much that it caused my new TPB to separate from the cover. The only thing I think I need more of is images, due to the fact that I don't have a scanner and I think the school's might cost money. But other than that, I think it looks pretty shiny. Kuralyov 05:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Very impressive. -- SFH 22:12, 7 April 2006 (PDT)
 * Looks good but I agree it needs more images, especially since this was basically described in comics. Get some more pictures and I'll give you a vote! - Breathesgelatin 22:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I really hate this arc in the Republic series, but aside from that, the article is great. I really admire the way the article lays out the reasons for the conflict and how it affects the rest of the Star Wars galaxy. Another very professional job Kuralyov. Cull Tremayne 04:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Second Battle of Coruscant (Clone Wars)

 * 1) Stake black 13:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Maaul 15:34, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) --LandoSystem1138 01:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Weak support. KEJ 10:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) SkywalkerPL 16:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Darth Cow 9:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) --Mr. Perfection 02:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) ThrawnRocks 18:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Wstonefi 19:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Cato Neimoidia 23:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Objections Comments
 * I find the article to have grammar/writing style lapses that need to be cleaned up. - Breathesgelatin 05:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Short intro, no BTS, needs to be in more categories, and I'd like to see more background to the events that preceded the battle. --UVnet 20:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * How can it be in more categories? -- SFH 01:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. Ok you got me there. --UVnet 07:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * There definitely needs to be something about the immense contradictions concerning this battle in Labyrinth of Evil, Star Wars: Clone Wars and Reversal of Fortune. &mdash;MarcK [talk] 12:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with MarcK. The CW/LOE/ROF info needs to be cleared up first. Adamwankenobi Talk to me! My home. 16:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

A very important page, for a very important battle.
 * Agreed with unsigned comment =P -Stake black 18:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a good article, but I think the Battle of Kashyyyk should be featured before this one.---LandoSystem1138 01:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It's good, but I'm wondering if the section called Participants is necessary, given that they should all be included in the info-box anyways. I also think there should be one or two images from Battlefront II. KEJ 10:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see some more images, honestly. EAGLES610 19:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It's already kind of full of pics. But I agree, it should have at least one Battlefront II screenshot.  Stake Black talk - Contribs at 21:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * What I meant was a picture that isn't from Episode 3 or Star Wars: Clone Wars. Sorry, I didn't make that clear...at all. EAGLES610 01:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Mayby finally We'll get battle in Featured article. SkywalkerPL 16:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The Battle of Kashyyyk (Clone Wars) is actually going to be featured next week. - Breathesgelatin 18:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Anakin Skywalker

 * 1) Adventfear 06:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) KEJ 07:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 3)  Stake Black talk - Contribs at 21:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) EAGLES610 01:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Darth Vader 15:16, 06 May 2006 (UTC)

Objections
 * As far as I can tell (I have not read/do not own the books in question), the entry has little to no information about any of the events in the Jedi Quest novel series, nor about Outbound Flight. For a major character (indeed the central SW character), this should be a prerequisite before it is a featured article. - Breathesgelatin 05:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Haven't read it completly, but in a quick run it looks kinda messy. --UVnet 07:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Breathesgelatin. The article only makes passing reference to the Jedi Quest series. -- Ozzel 19:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I haven't read the whole article yet, but looking at it briefly, there are way too many pictures. &mdash;Mirlen 20:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments
 * It's a nice article with ALOT of deatil.Adventfear 06:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes but wouldnt it be nice NOT to get a main charcter posted!! I think an article not known by many (but still a good article) should win.--Bobafett122005 05:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Darth Maul
2006(UTC) Objections Comments
 * 1) MaulYoda 13:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Darth Kevinmhk 02:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Breathesgelatin 05:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) KEJ 10:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Though I think we should move the resurrection stories into the main article with non-canon tags and make them be in chronological order. &mdash;Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 20:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Darth Cow 09:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Well... all the resurrection stories except Resurrection, now that we know better. Featured article! Cutch 14:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Zakor1138 18:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Palpy 13:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Jasca Ducato 09:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) LandoSystem1138 05:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) OOM-30 12:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) The article is great, but I don't think those non-canon tags belong in an in-universe section. I think any non-canon info should be moved to the BtS section. Adamwankenobi Talk to me! My home. 01:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) ThrawnRocks 16:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Mirlen 20:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Wootjedi 11:01, 22 May
 * Real short about pretty much everything that happened befor episode I. Real short intro. --UVnet 20:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think all the non-canon disclaimers are correct, as it ends before the last story of Maul's brain fighting Luke.--LandoSystem1138 05:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No, the non-canon tags are correct. They're split into two sections, the first around the Old Wounds storyline and the second around that one. - Lord Hydronium 09:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Lots of detail with great pictures and information plus information that lots of people don't know.MaulYoda 13:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * How can I say no to Maul? This article is great, cover almost everything of Maul's life (because his life was short enough to be able to completely cover XD). And yes, lots of great Maul pics, especially non-canon resurrected Maul. Darth Kevinmhk 02:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Not a big Maul fan, but it's very comprehensive. - Breathesgelatin 05:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I really hate those stupid resurrection stories... but still the article's pretty good. KEJ 10:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Per Breathesgelatin and KEJ. &mdash;Mirlen 20:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Second Imperium

 * 1) MyNz 20:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) SFH 04:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) --Eyrezer 10:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Breathesgelatin 09:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Objections
 * A little short don't you think? Also: No BTS (I know it's not a must but it could be a nice addition), and the intro is just one line! --UVnet 20:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It has quite improved... a little clean up (better distribution of images) and a little thicker intro and it's there. --UVnet 05:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments
 * I managed to improve it to a higher standard in one night. I think its good enough to be a featured article despite appearing only in the Young Jedi Knights series. Can someone also check the Shadow Academy and Diversity Alliance  article? MyNz 20:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The "Members" section seems to be screwed up somehow.  StarNeptune Talk to me! 04:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I just fixed that. - Breathesgelatin 04:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it is looking pretty good. Perhaps too many pics? --Eyrezer 10:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Mitth'raw'nuruodo
Support
 * 1) Herbsewell - no date, invalid
 * 2)  StarNeptune Talk to me! 11:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Darth Kevinmhk 12:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) I've been waiting on someone nominating this. :) &mdash;Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 12:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) TIEPilot051999 16:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) SFH 19:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Orpheus 05:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) One of the few interesting EU characters, and a good article, too. KEJ 07:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Even though I'm not fond of Thrawn, it is a good article.  Stake Black talk - Contribs at  21:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) SkywalkerPL 17:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) ThrawnRocks 04:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Kir Kanos (Hail the Empire!) 21:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC) Yes, it finally fits the new requirements.
 * 13) Adamwankenobi Talk to me!  My home. 22:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) EAGLES610 00:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Cato Neimoidia 23:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) LandoSystem1138 03:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Object
 * I hate to ruin the party, but there are really a lot of redlinks in this article. The intro could probably also use some beefing up. Both of those things can be fixed very easily though, and after that I will throw my support behind Thrawn as well. :) - Breathesgelatin 09:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. The intro could actually be better and I would also like to see perhaps a nicer BTS. Also I sure would like to know where Image:Thrawn.jpg came from (and who is the actor) and the same for Image:Thrawndeathjpg.jpg, Image:Vadergrandadmirals.jpg and Image:Thrawn.JPG (and perhaps renaming it?). --UVnet 07:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * And you know what? I don't care how many times we've been over this but I still think this should be moved to Thrawn. --UVnet 04:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It's already been decided in Consensus Track. Mitth'raw'nuruodo is the proper title by the consensus of Wiki members. - Lord Hydronium 06:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * As I said, I'm sorry but I don't care how many times we've been over this... --UVnet 02:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think, other than the quote, it mentions Thrawn's ability to glean info from a species just from their art, and that is a cool and key aspect of the character worth mentioning .LandoSystem1138 00:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments
 * 1) If memory serves, and it often does, he's already been a FA. TIEPilot051999 16:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * He's deffinately not been, but many people confused the Chiss being FA as Thrawn. &mdash;Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 16:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, then. TIEPilot051999 16:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a good, solid article, and definitely seems to be FA material. Orpheus
 * Thrawn is one of the most influential and important warlords during the time of the New Republic. He is also one of the most complex and brilliant characters in the entire Expanded Universe.  The article not only needs to be well written, but known to be about a critical role in the Star Wars Sega.
 * Agree SkywalkerPL 17:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Exuse me, but the fact that the article has a "few" red links has nothing to do with why it should not being a featured article. If you see it says "reasonable amount of red links", and I think that 12 red links should be able to be ignored considering that the article follows every other requirement to be a FA.
 * I respectully disagree. I think 12 is a large number of redlinks, and furthermore, some of those redlinks contain information that is necessary to understand important aspects of Thrawn's life. It should be easy to clear up the redlinks, however. - Breathesgelatin 12:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I almost agree, but still think that it is FA material. Kir Kanos (Hail the Empire!) 21:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Is this going to become a FA, or not?

Mara Jade Skywalker

 * 1) Orpheus 12:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Objections
 * The Dark Nest and Swarm War sections seem to be more of a recap of the Dark Nest trilogy as a whole than focusing on Mara's involvement (especially the Swarm War section, which talks about Luke more than it does Mara). Other than that, I have no problems with it.  StarNeptune Talk to me! 12:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments
 * I've looked through this and I think it's almost at FA quality, however, I feel that the Swarm War and Dark Nest sections might need to be trimmed a little. If I had the books I would, but I don't want to touch it without the solid references in front of me. Otherwise, I think it's suitable for a FA. Orpheus 12:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * This would then be a more suitable candidate for the improvement drive. Only nominate if they're already of featured quality. &mdash;MarcK [talk] 13:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Just FYI, Mara was on improvement drive back in February. I will try to work on the Swarm War section soon, but yes, let's remember to only nominate articles that are already at FA level. - Breathesgelatin 04:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Galactic Civil War

 * 1) User:Herbsewell - no date, invalid
 * 2)  Stake Black talk - Contribs at 22:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) KEJ 07:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Objections Comments
 * Sorry, but no. Intro is too short. Normally I'm not a stickler about BTS but for a topic as big as this I'm sure there's something that can be said. The images that have been selected seem odd to me... I feel like there should be more images or at least more representative images. There are some formatting issues. The article includes mostly movie information, which is fine, but there is lots of EU information that is left out. Obviously not all the EU information can be included on the main page, but the EU information that does appear doesn't necessarily seem to be the most important EU aspects of the war. Am I way off on this one? Maybe it's just too late for me to think properly. - Breathesgelatin 09:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm with you on the EU thing. Totally. Intros etc. are not my forte, so I can't tell you. But 2 paragraphs post endor? There are 15 years left!-- The Erl of the  talk  What I do 23:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * See above comments. Adamwankenobi Talk to me! My home. 12:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I also agree with pretty much all of the above. -- Ozzel 20:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The Force
Objections
 * 1) LandoSystem1138 21:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Herbsewell - undated, invalid
 * 3) Tinwe 17:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Sikon [ Talk ] 17:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Adamwankenobi Talk to me!  My home. 22:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) EAGLES610 00:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) SkywalkerPL 09:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Eh... I dunno... I mean it's good but... the force? I mean this article could (and should) probably be one of the longest articles around. A simple check up, brought to my attention that, for example, there is not a single mention that the ysalamiri are force-free. I am sure that other subjects are absent or neglected. --UVnet 02:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that hand picture at the beginning is kinda stupid. You have to chnage that before it gets anywhere. --MaulYoda 02:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There are still three uncaptioned pictures. That's my only objection. - Breathesgelatin 09:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Ditto. I'll add my support when all of the pictures are captioned. &mdash;Mirlen 20:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments
 * By the Force, it's the Force!
 * This is a great article... It'll get my vote whenever that picture gets a caption... - Breathesgelatin 23:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm actually kind of surprised this hasn't been nominated earlier. And Breathesgelatin... Aiddat has added that caption you wanted :) --Tinwe 17:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * UVnet may have a point with his objection. Should this be an improvement drive subject instead?--LandoSystem1138 03:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, whoever nominated the article thought that it was up to featured article standards &mdash; so it would depend on one's judgment and perspective of the article. &mdash;Mirlen 20:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I brought this up on the talk page, but it's getting no attention, so I'll say it here. Should the light-side, dark-side, etc sections have the quotes from main articles?

Battle of Nar Shaddaa

 * 1) DarthLumiya 19:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Objections

Comments
 * It seems to me like it could use a better intro. EAGLES610 00:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think I've done all I can with this article, but I don't know if I'd say it's good enough to be featured. As for the into...that's not something I'm too good at. If somebody thinks they can improve it, plesae do so. Red XIV 01:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Now that I think about it, something should be inserted about this being the first large-scale battle that Han Solo fought in. Seeing as he later became an important military leader for the Rebellion/New Republic, that's a fairly significant fact in Galactic history. Red XIV 04:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Padme Amidala
Objections
 * 1) DarthVaderwillriseagain 19:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)DarthVaderwillriseagain
 * 2) Breathesgelatin 09:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) EAGLES610 02:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Adamwankenobi Talk to me!  My home. 21:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Sikon [ Talk ] 05:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments
 * I'm all for featuring more articles about Star Wars women. - Breathesgelatin 09:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Clone Wars

 * 1) Wstonefi 19:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) LandoSystem1138 22:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Adamwankenobi Talk to me!  My home. 22:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Novajoe23 17:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Objections
 * I hate the picture thing at the beginning, but definitely detailed. Too major a topic. --MaulYoda 00:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm confused...what's too major of a topic?EAGLES610 00:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It means that it's too important a topic, like too well known or, you know. --MaulYoda 02:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree about the picture intro. What was the rationale for having that in the first place? - Breathesgelatin 09:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments
 * It talks about every important battle and campaign in the war. It's also absolutely freaking huge. Definitely featured-worthy, IMO.Wstonefi 19:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Big article with cool picture thing at the beginning. Might need battle infobox. --MaulYoda 23:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I accidentally deleted the objections when trying to add my comment. Could someone revert it back please? Sorry!--LandoSystem1138 03:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Fixed the objections back, but for the major topic objection, what about Yoda, Leia, Palpatine, Obi-Wan, etc...
 * Very comprehensive and well-written. The fact that it is a major topic is irrelevant. If something is featured quality, its featured quality. Besides, we've had major topics be featured before, like Anakin Skywalker and Yoda.

Jacen Solo
Objections
 * 1) EAGLES610 01:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) SFH 02:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) MyNz 9:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Wstonefi 20:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Pretty nice... Would just like to know where Image:Jacen2.jpg, Image:Jacensolo.jpg, Image:Star wars jacen solo1.JPG and Image:Jacen3.jpg came from. And a nicer oraganized BTS could be nice. --UVnet 06:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * How is it that you came to be appointed Featured Article moderator? Community discussion? Administrator vote? Bureaucratic fiat? Can I see the text of the discussion that appointed you featured article moderator? -- SFH 15:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments
 * I spent some time on the intro, and I think that it's a great article with some nice information on a good character. EAGLES610 01:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Pretty indepth on some places, but I admittedly have a problem with the Legacy section, on how it is pretty much a culling of the publisher's summary. Still, with Betrayal out soon, someone will fix it. -- SFH 02:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I really didn't know what could be done about the Legacy section, considering the thing isn't out yet. EAGLES610 02:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Never mind, that has been fixed. -- SFH 20:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Tahiri Veila

 * 1) Breathesgelatin 01:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) SFH 20:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Objections

Comments
 * I think this article is really well put-together. I realize it needs a longer intro but that can easily be written. In fact, I would do it now if I weren't so drunk. Seriously. - Breathesgelatin 01:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You were too drunk to change it, but sober enough to properly nominate and format it? -- SFH 20:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't have nominated if I couldn't have formatted... but I didn't trust myself to write a paragraph. heh. - Breathesgelatin 04:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)