Wookieepedia:Good article nominations/Battle of unidentified planet (shielded city)


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

Battle of unidentified planet (shielded city)

 * Nominated by:  JMAS  Hey, it's me! 23:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Nomination comments: Wrote this one a while back, thought I'd give it a GA makeover.

(3 ACs/2 Users/5 Total)
Support
 * 1) &mdash;Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 19:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Actaully, no, you were my second, so be slightly less honored. :P Kilson Likes PIE 12:31, 28 June 09 (UTC)
 * 3)  CC7567  (talk) 05:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 4)  Graestan ( Talk ) 01:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 5)  Cavalier One FarStar Logo.jpg( Squadron channel ) 08:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Object
 * 1) Before anything else, can you please try to check the length of the intro against the rest of the article? Right now, they seem to be about the same size.  CC7567  (talk) 23:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) *Trimmed some of the fat off, as it were, while still trying to fully summarize the article. -  JMAS  Hey, it's me! 23:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Kilson's back to reviewing (unfortunately for you guys)
 * 4) * I agree with CC, the intro is way to long. The second paragraph really doesn't have anything to do with the battle itself, just what happens after words. You could shorten the intro up to three or four sentances.
 * 5) * You should add Low Altitude Assault Transport/infantry to the inforbox's strength section if they trully did participate in the battle like the article says.
 * 6) **Done. I was mistaken. Removed LAAT/i gunships and re-added HAV-5s. Also made some minor factual corrections about the conclusion of the battle and aftermath. Oh, and to preempt a potential objection, I didn't put the Acclamators and Venators in the infobox because they only show up as they are departing, so they weren't really a strength of the battle. More like they were just there to pick them up. -  JMAS  Hey, it's me! 00:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) *Other than that, looks fine. Nice job. Kilson Likes PIE 00:12, 26 June 09 (UTC)
 * 8) **Am I your first review back? I'm honored. :) -  JMAS  Hey, it's me! 00:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) From the Council Chambers:
 * 10) * "High Generals Obi-Wan Kenobi and Anakin Skywalker": Anakin wasn't a High Jedi General yet, just a Jedi General.
 * 11) **I changed it. But I'm curious how you know this? Thanks to a really screwed up Clone Wars timeline, we don't really know when this battle occurred. I therefore put him as a High General because he's not listed on the Jedi General page except as a High General. *shrug* Is there any source that states clearly "Anakin was a Jedi General from ___ to ___BBY and ascended to High General in ___ABY"? -  JMAS  Hey, it's me! 19:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 12) ***A High Jedi General was a member of the Jedi Council, and Anakin didn't become a member of the Council until partway through ROTS. the Jedi General page lists characters only by the highest rank they attained. &mdash;Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 19:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 13) *Other than that, looks good. &mdash;Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 18:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 14) **Thanks for the review, and the copyedit as well. :) -  JMAS  Hey, it's me! 19:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 15) Attack of the Clone
 * 16) * Can you try only bolding "battle" instead of "on an unidentified planet" as well? Per a CT that I'm having trouble finding, the less links that are in the bolded name, the better.
 * 17) **The planet is linked to in the infobox and the beginning of the body (not really fond of the article anyway), so I left it bolded but removed the link in the intro. -  JMAS  Hey, it's me! 03:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 18) ***Nevertheless, it would be better to keep the link to the planet in the intro but simply move it. You can try rephrasing like "a city on the planet" and link it there or something, but it would be preferable if the link is still present in the intro.  CC7567  (talk) 03:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 19) ****Done -  JMAS  Hey, it's me! 03:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 20) * Is the aftermath of the battle really necessary to the intro?
 * 21) **Gone -  JMAS  Hey, it's me! 03:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 22) * Can you get the date in the body of the article as well? Also, are you sure it's referenceable to the CW episode?
 * 23) **Added and referenced. Leeland Chee confirms the Battle of Nelvaan takes place partially concurrently with the Battle of Coruscant. This particular battle immediately precedes the Battle of Nelvaan, therefore it is also in 19 BBY. -  JMAS  Hey, it's me! 03:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 24) * Is Skywalker's lunch really necessary? This article is about the battle, and while I understand that the siege was prolonged, I'd like to hear your reasoning for this.
 * 25) **I find it necessary, because where he got the "meal" directly ties into the way the Jedi were able to infiltrate the city, thereby bringing down the shield, allowing the Republic forces to swarm the city leading to a Republic victory. -  JMAS  Hey, it's me! 03:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 26) * What kind of explosives were used? If it's known, please link appropriately.
 * 27) **Unknown. -  JMAS  Hey, it's me! 03:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 28) * Can you please find a better image caption instead of the nondescriptive "Attacking the city", which lacks a sentence subject?
 * 29) **Done -  JMAS  Hey, it's me! 03:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 30) * Was it Acclamator I or Acclamator II that prepared to depart the planet? Again, I'm asking because it needs to be linked accordingly, instead of to a disambig page.
 * 31) **There is no way to know, based on the brief appearance in the episode, hence why I just list them as Acclamator-class. -  JMAS  Hey, it's me! 03:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 32) * Also, for the Acclamators and Venators, did they arrive to pick Kenobi and Skywalker up, or did the Jedi arrive on the planet using the Star Destroyers? If it was the latter, it needs to be mentioned that they used them to arrive, and they need to be listed in the infobox under "forces". I know that you mentioned it to Kilson earlier, but it's still not very clear.  CC7567  (talk) 00:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 33) **Again, there is no way to know based on the appearance in the episode being limited to the very end of the battle only, that lends to the theory that they were there to pick them up. As they had been there a month already, if the Venators and Acclamators had been there the whole time, they would have been utilized to bombard the shield from orbit. Since they were not, we can only surmise that the Republic forces were dropped off for an extended campaign, then picked up again when the battle was over. I had to leave their presence vague in the article, because putting anything more that I already have would be speculation. -  JMAS  Hey, it's me! 03:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 34) **Thanks for the review. -  JMAS  Hey, it's me! 03:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 35) * Even though this has been in debate recently, I feel the need to cite the CT on using clone designations instead of nicknames and its reinforcement. This hasn't been enforced lately, but it's still prominent. Since there's only one clone trooper that's named (and who subsequently has a known designation), this shouldn't be a problem.  CC7567  (talk) 03:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 36) **That particular CT is in regards to the names of the character's articles, not the use in another article. Cody is what he is most commonly known by, that is the only name by which Obi-Wan refers to him. His CC-designation is shown in the infobox and in the intro now. I don't believe there is a precedent for only using a clones numerical designation throughout an article for GAN or FAN. -  JMAS  Hey, it's me! 04:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 37) ***No, it applies both to the naming of characters and usage in other articles. What you've done is fine, but please keep that in mind. While there isn't a directly defined precedent, the designations still need to be used if they're known.  CC7567  (talk) 05:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 38) "The battle" is far too play-by-play. Summarize more, please. Furthermore, the BtS note about the reference quote belongs in the article for the episode, not the battle. Finally, and this is just a reminder, statements like "unidentified" and "unknown" are OOU and inadmissible in the articles.  Graestan ( Talk ) 01:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 39) *Trimmed as much as I feel I can without the article suffering too little information. Removed BTS reference quote. Reminder duly noted. Thanks for the review. -  JMAS  Hey, it's me! 02:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments
 * As there is only one appearance, I did no ref tagging on the article. If that's an issue, I'll add them. -  JMAS  Hey, it's me! 23:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)