Wookieepedia:Featured article nominations

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


 * /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
 * 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)
 * 1) 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)
 * 2) 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)

Comments
 * 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)

Naga Sadow

 * 1) --MarcK [talk] 22:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Mandalorian Crusader 21:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) SFH 01:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Objections
 * 1) Lacks a Behind the scenes section and some external links. And to be honest it's not THAT long (though this character hasn't really appeard in many works). --UVnet 06:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) *There really isn't anything to say in a BTS section, nor are there any interesting links to put in external links. As for the length, see Galactic Republic Chancery election, 32 BBY. --MarcK [talk] 06:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Besides, BTS' are not requirements, they just look nice. My only problem with this is that he doesn't have a lead in quote, but, same with BTS. -- SFH 01:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments
 * I'll stop nominating TOTJ articles soon, promise. --MarcK [talk] 22:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Zsinj

 * 1) Becd22 01:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Darth Benobi 8:52, 15 Feburary 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) &mdash;Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 23:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC) Now that the redlinks are all gone.
 * 4) SFH 00:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Hmm. It took me over a month to vote for my own article. (This just confirms my belief that I'm my own most demanding critic.) &mdash;Darth Culator   (talk)  16:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Objections
 * 1) You're being a little premature. Still too many redlinks and not long enough since it was posted.  &mdash;Darth Culator   (talk)  03:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Not yet. No Behind the Scenes section and some other yet minor problems. --UVnet 06:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments
 * I wrote it, and I wouldn't vote for it until the redlinks are filled. I've been nibbling away at them slowly, but I've been distracted by deploying the new ship template. Once the redlinks are filled, and there has been time for people to proofread it and edit it for style and POV, then maybe it will be featured material. I'm happy that so many people like it, though. &mdash;Darth Culator   (talk)  03:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Add a BTS, and I'll vote for it. ;-) KEJ 10:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I could always put in a note about Zsinj's NEGC picture having an incredible resemblance to Harcourt Fenton Mudd. http://media.ign.com/boardfaces/4.gif &mdash;Darth Culator   (talk)  03:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Redlinks are gone folks. Lets go. -- SFH 00:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep. Redlinks are gone. Plus, it's been in Peer Review for some time and I've fixed everything that I was really worried about. Except the section headers (though I changed a few already), and I don't think those are enough of a problem to stress about (but if someone can think of better ones that would be super). And I added a small BTS section about the character's development (and I wasn't joking about the Harry Mudd thing. http://media.ign.com/boardfaces/9.gif) &mdash;Darth Culator   (talk)  16:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Kashyyyk (Clone Wars)
Objections
 * 1) --Xilentshadow900 22:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) --TIEPilot051999 04:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) --SkywalkerPL 11:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) I would really love to see a battle on the front page, but this is not yet there. A few examples: I know we can't tell the exact numbers yet, but on Casualties, seeing "many droids", or "many wookies/clone troopers" just looks bad; also one picture has no heading; under combatants: "wookies". I mean, come on; also, intro is too short. --UVnet 23:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) I've done a little bit of reworking.TIEPilot051999 04:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Where are sources? SkywalkerPL 11:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments
 * This would be the first battle on the front page, and because it's a great, detailed article, it should be featured.--Xilentshadow900 22:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Grievous

 * 1) --TIEPilot051999 07:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) --Rune Haako 12:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 02:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) --User:Grievous7318 03:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) --DarkShroud 9:31, 16 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) SFH 02:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Objections Comments
 * We need to settle the question of the title first. &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 12:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Dan; articles with ongoing disputes are a no-no for FA's. --MarcK [talk] 12:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * As soon as the title discussion is over, though, I'll put my vote in support. &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 20:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, now that the title dispute is solved, now can it be nominated?TIEPilot051999 00:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 02:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I remember a time, not too long ago, where this article was pegged to be a featured one. Unfortunately, around that time, I was left without internet access. Well, it seems that since I've been back, someone went to work on it. That, combined with the fact that both Unknown Soldier: The Story of General Grievous and The Story of General Grievous II: Lord of War gave even more info on him, makes me believe that now is the time to make it a featured one.TIEPilot051999 07:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This is actually a pretty good article. -- SFH 02:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with SFH. I would love to see this article as a featured article.-- DarkShroud 10:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Pre-Republic
Objections
 * 1) TIEPilot051999 07:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) MoffRebus 11:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Kuralyov 05:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)

Comments
 * 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)

Kadann

 * 1) Thanos6 15:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Objections

Comments Gah...now you've actually made me work on the page again!! It needs a longer opening crawl before it can be featured at the very least. S'all I can really think of besides that. &mdash;Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 02:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)