Wookieepedia:Good article nominations



This page is for the nomination of good articles. This is not a way to showcase the articles of your favorite characters, spaceships, or the like. For a list of good articles, see Category:Wookieepedia good articles.

What is a Good article?
A Good article is an article that adheres to quality standards, but cannot reach FA status due to its limited content.

A Good article has the following attributes.

1. It is well written. In this respect:


 * (a) it has compelling prose, and is readily comprehensible to non-specialist readers;
 * (b) it follows a logical structure, introducing the topic and then grouping together its coverage of related aspects; where appropriate, it contains a succinct lead section summarizing the topic, and the remaining text is organized into a system of hierarchical sections (particularly for longer articles);
 * (c) it follows the Manual of Style, Layout Guide, and all other policies;
 * (d) necessary technical terms or jargon are briefly explained in the article itself, or an active link is provided.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect:


 * (a) it provides references to any and all sources used for its material;
 * (b) sources should be selected in accordance with the guidelines for reliable sources;
 * (c) it contains no elements of original research.

3. It is broad in its coverage, addressing all major aspects of the topic (this requirement is slightly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FA, and allows shorter articles and broad overviews of large topics to be listed);.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy. In this respect:


 * (a) viewpoints are represented fairly and without bias;
 * (b) all significant points of view are fairly presented, but not asserted, particularly where there are or have been conflicting views on the topic.

5. It is stable, i.e., it 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. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. In this respect:


 * (a) the images are properly sourced and have succinct and descriptive captions;
 * (b) a lack of images does not in itself prevent an article from achieving Good Article status.

Nomination of Good articles
To nominate an article for Good article status, list it here. Nominated articles must meet all six requirements stated above. If an article has a net total of five votes of support (+5) after at least a week since it was nominated (beginning the day of its nomination), the article will be considered a "Good article" and tagged with the template. The talk page will also be tagged with the GA template. For complete instructions on archiving nominations please see here.

(+3)
Support
 * 1) Sourced everything, images sourced, expanded much of the article. Unit 8311 19:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well detailed, well written, has enough images without going nuts, looks like a good one to me. Jedibob5 22:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC) (Vote struck per Single issue voters policy.  Greyman ( Paratus ) 01:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC))
 * 1)  Chack Jadson  (Talk)  22:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) &mdash; Darthtyler http://images.wikia.com/swfanon/images/1/18/Scuba_Diver.gif Talk 05:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Kilson 07:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Domlith 10:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 5)  Stake black   msg 19:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Just from a quick glance:
 * 2) *The "Droideka series and variants" should be expanded somewhat to discuss the main differences between the models mentioned -- right now, that section does not meet GAN rule 1(a).
 * 3) * The BtS needs to be de-triviaized, and the bullets need to be removed -- again, per rule 1(a).
 * 4) * The two pictures in the "Appearances" section need to be incorporated into the main body or removed entirely. Remember that pictures need to support text so as not to break Fair Use.
 * 5) *Still way to many pictures&mdash;article looks cramped and cluttered. See comment above this.
 * 6) * Having two pictures in the "Description" section makes it looked cluttered. The best of the two should be picked and enlarged a tiny bit to fill the space.
 * 7) * All reference links need to be linked per policy.
 * Greyman ( Paratus ) 16:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) *Done that, done that, done that, to me it doesn't look cluttered--not on my browser anyway, done that. Unit 8311 21:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) **Simply moving the pictures from the Appearances section up a bit has now cluttered that section&mdash;two pictures in the "Droideka series and variants" section are not needed at all. Not every picture of a Droideka needs to be included in the article&mdash;only the ones that support the text. Likewise, I still feel that the same applies to the "Description" section, especially since I'm looking at it from three different browsers + two different computers and it still looks cramped. Also, the "Droideka series and variants" objection still has not been met: What's the main differences between the P, W, and Q series? Right now, Rule 1(a) is still not met there as those three sentences should be expanded. The Grapple model -- You say "melee", but does that mean that it was strictly a hand-to-hand fighting droid? Any information on why they were made? etc. The BtS looks good, no further concerns there, and the reference links as well. Greyman ( Paratus ) 22:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) ***Okay, done that, done that, no major differences between those series are ever specified, clarified that. Unit 8311 08:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) ****I've cut down slightly and rearranged the images. It doesn't look particularly cluttered any more to me. Unit 8311 18:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Seems a bit listy, with lots of small paragraphs. I'd like to see some of them fleshed out or merged, preferably the former. Could also be expanded a bit, I reckon; no real info from the NEGTD or Galaxies. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 19:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) *Doesn't seem listy to me. In any case, I've added in a bit more info from galaxies. Most information from the NEGTVV is recycled from previous sources to the best of my knowledge, and in any case I don't own it. Unit 8311 20:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) **There are many two or three line paragraphs. I'm sure more info could be added from Galaxies, though consider that part of my objection null. Per above, if you can categorically state that no info can be added from the NEGTV&V, then I'll strike it. Otherwise, it stays. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 20:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Toprawa says:
 * 9) * The intro needs to be expanded.
 * 10) *There are too many pictures given the limited amount of article text. Remove some so that the pictures alternate from left to right down the body of the page.
 * 11) *I severely dislike the way you incorporated the origin of the word into parentheses. Shorten what you have in parentheses to just the alternative names, and include the description of how the name came to be in the article.
 * 12) * Clean up this quote caption: "Obi-Wan Kenobi, upon seeing a droideka upon Saak'ak"
 * 13) *What is this hiding in the "Editing" view of the article? "" Seems important enough to incorporate into the article.
 * 14) * Bullet points in the article? Unnecessary, especially in this case. Incorporate the bulleted items into prose.
 * 15) *Expand the BTS, including notable appearances, etc.
 * 16) *The "Description" section is poorly written in general, specifically:
 * 17) * The section is in need of a better written introductory sentence.
 * 18) *You kind of jump into the idea that droidekas were produced as a sort of improved alternative to B1's. Expand on and clarify this.
 * 19) * Rephrase, clarify this: "These shield generators were somewhat powerful"
 * 20) *Clean up this phrase; it is confusing and rather POVish: "light-based trickery"
 * 21) *Move their origin and creators to the beginning of the section, then rename the section to correspond with this restructuring
 * 22) * Avoid this one sentence paragraph: "Droideka dispensers were sometimes used as transport and dispense for these droids." Expand on what a droideka dispenser is.
 * 23) *Granted this is not a FAN, but it still seems like there is much too little information considering the length of the appearance list. A much more expansive history section is needed.
 * 24) * Move the Databank source entry to the bottom of that list. Toprawa and Ralltiir 02:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 25) **Yay, another list of complaints. Okay, sorted most of that, but I have some things to say: clean up this phrase; it is confusing, etc, etc...how is that confusing and POV-ish? And as for the history section, as I said below, I can add some more if I delve deep enough, but bearing in mind that lots of droideka appearances are essentially background decoration, I feel it would simply clutter it up. Nonetheless, I will expand it by a bit. Also, regarding your complaint about the name origin in the intro, I disagree, and I feel that there is nothing wrong with it. Unit 8311 18:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 26) ***Unstricken objections remain. When someone says clean up or rephrase something, that's a nice way of saying it's written poorly, and needs to be rewritten for purposes of greater prose. All in all, you've still got a long way to go on this one. You've got large, glaring sections of poorly written material, POV issues, reference issues, your pics are still poorly aligned, you haven't even begun to address some of the issues that I've listed already. As far as the name origin in the intro, that's fine that it sits there, what's wrong with it is that it's new, unsourced material, and I will not vote for a GAN that has referencing in the intro when it could so easily be incorporated into the body. Frankly, this article isn't even close to GA standards. Toprawa and Ralltiir 18:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments
 * Considering the number of appearances and sources, I think the Clone Wars section should be expanded.  Stake black   msg 12:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I don't own every single EU piece involving the Clone Wars. Most of those appearances are probably just background ones anyway, and mentioning every single one would turn the Clone Wars section into a long list of battles droidekas appeared in. Unit 8311 13:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, that makes sense :)  Stake black   msg 19:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The standard is every known source. You can always ask around either on the irc or in the Knowledge Bank for help with this. I've had to do it and there's no shame in asking.  Master Aban Fiolli  {Alpheridies University ComNet} 18:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

(+3)
Support
 * 1) Thefourdotelipsis 10:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) ;-) --Azizlight 22:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) I wish I could go there someday... Harrar 19:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 4)  Chack Jadson  (Talk)  20:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Source the infobox exports. Toprawa and Ralltiir 03:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments
 * Beat, et al. Thefourdotelipsis 10:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

(+1)
Support
 * 1) NEGAS rocks.  Chack Jadson  (Talk) 17:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) After some correction of style, it is fine. Domlith 12:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Toprawa says:
 * 2) * Expand that intro. Describe physical appearance, how they like aquatic environments to quantify their ability to survive on the "barren" world of Geonosis, more on their involvement in the Clone Wars
 * 3) **Fixed. Can try to add more if you feel it's needed.
 * 4) ***I might consider saying something about it being killed by Kenobi during the Battle of Geonosis. Toprawa and Ralltiir 00:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) ****Did that.
 * 6) * Add to the physical distinctions in the infobox
 * 7) **Fixed.
 * 8) * You could reword this. Avoid "a lot of" when describing something...that's just lazy writing: "which gave them a lot of energy"
 * 9) **Fixed.
 * 10) * This sentence kind of bugs me. Could be reworded better: "Acklays were aggressive creatures, making them common in battles between beasts or executions where creatures where used."
 * 11) **Fixed.
 * 12) * Additionally, every paragraph in the Biology section starts with either "Acklays," "The acklay," or "an acklay"...mix it up a little bit better.
 * 13) **Fixed.
 * 14) * Wow, this sentence is unnecessarily long...break it up, and clarify what hives they destroyed: "The Geonosians also took to breeding them..."
 * 15) **Fixed.
 * 16) * Chack, I'm going in and cleaning up a lot of "lazy" modifiers that have made the History section very confusing...too many ambiguous "he's" and "its" and the like, as well as lazy spelling errors and in many cases, a total lack of apostrophes indicating possessiveness. I know you're a better writer than what you've left behind here.
 * 17) **Fixed.
 * 18) * POV up the wazoo: "putting the hapless acklay out of its misery"
 * 19) **Fixed.
 * 20) * Condense the two paragraphs concerning their presence on Felucia that sandwich the Geonosis info into one entity.
 * 21) **Fixed.
 * 22) ***I moved the Felucia info after the Geonosis paragraph to fit chronologically. Toprawa and Ralltiir 00:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 23) * Do me a favor and link velociraptor to wikipedia.
 * 24) **Fixed.
 * 25) * Include a sentence in the BTS that identifies the creature's first appearance in SW media.
 * 26) **Fixed.
 * 27) ***I'm willing to bet the acklay's first appearance is actually the Ep II novel. Make sure you check on that. Toprawa and Ralltiir 00:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 28) ****It is. That was just me not thinking. Got it now.
 * 29) * Make sure the reference note to the acklay Databank entry actually links there...don't just type it out.Toprawa and Ralltiir 17:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 30) **Fixed.
 * 31) Toprawa, Rd. 2:
 * 32) *You would probably do well the switch around the two images in the article of the body for chronological purposes and to avoid pushing the subsection titles out as they are now. Toprawa and Ralltiir 19:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 33) **Any better?

Comments
 * Toprawa, I knew going in this likely had some errors. Thanks for pointing them out. I feel the article is much better than it was before I fixed your objections.  Chack Jadson  (Talk) 23:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

(+6)
Support
 * 1) -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 18:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) -- Harrar 18:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 3)  Chack Jadson  (Talk)  20:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) FA this badboy. Toprawa and Ralltiir 23:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Nikto jedi! Agree with Top&Rall, FA him! - Skippy Farlstendoiro 08:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Okay, Acky. I'm voting for this on one condition: This thing gets nominated for FA status as soon as this vote goes through. :)  Master Aban Fiolli  {Alpheridies University ComNet} 04:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

Comments
 * 1) Very nice Acky. But why not FA? Oh, also&mdash;is the past tense of "to bear" "bared"? I thought it was "bore". Then again, I'm English! Harrar 18:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) *Thanks. I'm not really sure why I chose GA for this one, it just seemed right for some reason. I'll probably shoot for FA after this goes through. About bore, you're right, AFAIK. I'm Irish -- and so use proper English -- but I'm not above confusion at times ;). Thanks, -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 22:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

(+5)
Support
 * 1) Per Eyrezer's recommendation, this was already close to GA standards, so I dusted it off and took it the rest of the way. jSarek 05:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) --Eyrezer 09:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) I have a soft spot for short articles like this. Toprawa and Ralltiir 23:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Inside joke here.  Chack Jadson  (Talk) 23:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Jedimca0(Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 14:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Toprawa says:
 * 2) * Remove the parenthetical prose. Really unnecessary, especially in the intro. If it's important enough to be in the article, include it.
 * 3) **I removed the first instance, but the second (about the death of her sister) is more difficult to reconcile, since it can't be chronologically placed precisely and disrupts the flow of the article if put elsewhere. jSarek 21:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) ***In that case, I might suggest removing the parenthetical text entirely. It does not seem her sister's death or her father's blaming the Imperial governor has anything directly to do with Bettle herself, unless it was part of why her father later encouraged her to join the Rebellion, in which case that would be the most appropriate place to stick that little tidbit. Toprawa and Ralltiir 23:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) ****I would, but it seems the fact her sister was killed as a result of Graeber's actions is the sort of important stuff that the article would be remiss in omitting. jSarek 00:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) * The intro could be fleshed out a little bit more.
 * 7) **More fleshy; if I add much more, it will start to simply reduplicate the article. jSarek 21:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) * This line could be clarified to explain that they were illicitly moving goods into the planet, not out from within: "Bettle and Jaxa became one of many groups of smugglers who attempted to run the blockade."
 * 9) **Clarified. jSarek 21:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) * I quote Graestan when I say, avoid "weasel words" like "apparently": "This disagreement apparently led to them splitting up for a while,"
 * 11) **Reworded; on rereading the passage in question, it isn't totally clear that they actually split up anyway. jSarek 21:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) * This line is confusing...was she on Endor? Ralltiir? "Eventually, Bettle got caught up in the Rebellion more directly. Following the Battle of Endor, she was present with her father in an underground communications center on the planet"
 * 13) **Ralltiir, as the article now reflects. jSarek 21:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) * Definitely needs a "Personality and Traits" section, as brief as it probably will be. Toprawa and Ralltiir 17:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 15) **Added. jSarek 21:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 16) *From the Bridge of Chack Jadson:
 * 17) ** "She began by returning to running guns to Ralltiir with Jaxa." Please rephrase.
 * 18) ***Rephrased. jSarek 22:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 19) ** "She frequently swore, and was not above a malicious grin or wicked laugh when her enemies faced setbacks." Again, change this. Maybe make it two sentences.
 * 20) ***I've rephrased, though since I'm not sure exactly what the problem with the original was, I'm not sure if it's better. I didn't split it; that would just make two choppy sentences that weren't any clearer. jSarek 22:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 21) ****Nah, it's fine. Just bugged mer earlier.
 * 22) ** "Bettle was one of two daughters of Ralltiir resistance leader Jerell (her sister was dead by the time of the liberation of Ralltiir, a death her father blamed on Imperial governor Dennix Graeber)." Is it possible to add that parenthetical info to the part later in the article where she joins the Rebellion? Could it be a reason, or is that too much speculation?
 * 23) ***I think it would be too much speculation. We don't know when her sister died, other than it was after Graeber came to power and before the fall of Ralltiir; it could have been long before she joined, it could have been after.  And we know that her father had to persuade her to join, which means if her sister's death was a motivator, it wasn't by itself enough to bring her in. jSarek 22:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 24) * Chack Jadson  (Talk) 22:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments