Wookieepedia:Good article nominations/Variable Geometry Self-Propelled Battle Droid, Mark I


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

(+6)
Support
 * 1) Nominated. Sourced more or less everything and crammed in all info as I could think of in there. Unit 8311 17:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 2)  Chack Jadson  (Talk)  13:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Goodwood  [[Image:Rebsymbol2.png|20px]] ( For the Rebellion! ) 14:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Good enough.  Stake black   msg 20:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) I'll give it my vote with the strong desire that someone will come along and vastly expand the history section. Toprawa and Ralltiir 23:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Per Toprawa. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 14:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) I haven't read it, but there's no unsourced statements in the infobox. --  AdmirableAckbar  [Talk] 17:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) From the Forest of Goodwood:
 * 3) * Quote is not sourced.
 * 4) * Infobox needs to be fully sourced.
 * 5) **Source tag needed for name (as in the name given for "Model").
 * 6) * The sentence "The Variable Geometry Self-Propelled Battle Droid, Mark I, or Vulture droid starfighter, was a lethal droid starfighter used by the Trade Federation[4] and later, in much vaster numbers, the Confederacy of Independent Systems." needs to be rewritten for clarity and grammar.
 * 7) * "Lethal" in above example is POV.
 * 8) * Grammatical error here: "and could reach 1200 km/h in an planet's atmosphere." Link to atmosphere also needed.
 * 9) * Please break up and/or reword this sentence: "While in this walking mode, a droid starfighter could also latch onto surfaces in zero gravity, allowing the fighters to patrol from the outside hulls of capital ships instead of wasting energy in flight or using valuable hangar space."
 * 10) * The third paragraph in the Description section is a single sentence. Either merge it with another paragraph or expand.
 * 11) * Same for the last paragraph.
 * 12) * Prose issues throughout the article.
 * 13) * Please rewrite the BtS section, clarifying the mechanics of the Battlefront games in relation to vulture droids.
 * 14) * Last two statements in BtS need to be sourced and could possibly be expanded (first from the specific Clone Wars episode, second from the games).
 * 15) *TIMMMMMMBERRRRRRR!!-- Goodwood [[Image:Rebsymbol2.png|20px]] ( For the Rebellion! ) 21:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) **Just when I thought everything was sorted...okay, quote sourced, infobox sourced, done, done, done, done that, done that, that as well, please clarify what you mean by prose isssues--as far as I'm concerned, the prose is nice, formal and encylopedic, done that. Unit 8311 09:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 17) ***Though there's a couple small nuggets yet to fix, thank you for addressing these objections. The article is much better for it.-- Goodwood [[Image:Rebsymbol2.png|20px]] ( For the Rebellion! ) 01:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 18) ****BTS sourced, I think the source for that is the NEGVV, but could somebody please do me a favour and check. Unit 8311 18:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 19) *****There. EVERYTHING is now sourced. There is now no reason why this should not become a GA. Unit 8311 11:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 20) ******You'll notice it's called Good Article, and not Sourced Article. Being sourced is not the only factor involved in an article becoming a GA; being well-written and comprehensive is as important (I'm not saying this article lacks said requirement; just a general comment). -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 20:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 21) No info from the NEGTV&V. I'm sure some info could be added from some of the non-referenced appearances/sources. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 20:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 22) *Oh for...just like before, I don't own the NEGVV, but I'm sure any information from there is already in the article. In any case, it's far more comprehensive than it once was. And doing the second one would make the article, as you once said, very 'listy'. Unit 8311 20:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 23) *Whether or not you own the book is irrelevant. And "far more comprehensive" than it once was does not mean it is comprehensive enough. And unless you or someone else trustworthy can categorically tell me that no additional info can be added from it, then my objection stands (I would do it myself, but I don't own the book). I'm sure you can add the info without making it listy. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 20:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 24) **I can check, and add any missing info.  Chack Jadson  (Talk) 20:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 25) ***Please do that Chack, I would appreciate it. Unit 8311 20:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 26) ****Just checked and almost everything appears to already be covered in the article. I added a small bit from the book, and now it looks good.  Chack Jadson  (Talk) 20:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 27) *****Okay, that objection's been struck. Just noticed an unsourced statement in the infobox which needs fixing; other objection stands, I'm afraid, at least for the moment. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 20:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 28) ******Sorted that. I'll see what I can do about the other one, Your Fishiness. :) Unit 8311 21:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 29) *Alright, I understand you may not have some of the sources, and I acknowledge you've put in a lot of hard work on this, so I'm willing to waive my earlier objections. However, I won't strike all my objections until you've satisfied one or two other things: They apparently appear in The Last of the Jedi: Secret Weapon, which is set 18 BBY. I haven't read the book, and you probably haven't either, but at least a note saying they were still in existence in 18 BBY would be desirable. Same with the Galaxies appearance. Like Toprawa, I'd still like to see a proper history section incorporating more of the sources and appearances, thought I'm willing to (reluctantly) let it go for GA. Though I would like to mention, 8311, that you did support Greyman's proposal on improving GA; if it had of passed, then what I was demanding earlier would have been the rules. Just something to consider. And I agree with T&R about the objections thing: try to think of us as customers. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 23:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 30) **Okay then, I've added in two admittedly rudimentary notes concerning LOTJ and Galaxies. Point taken; I've resolved to be welcoming to complaints from now on. Unit 8311 14:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 31) Baktoid Armor Workshop in the infobox needs a reference tag. I'm pretty sure this is the same thing that Ack mentioned above ;)  Greyman ( Paratus ) 20:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 32) *Sorted that. Unit 8311 15:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 33) Toprawa says:
 * 34) * The intro nees to be expanded, including a mention that they participated heavily in the Clone Wars, and particularly important battles.
 * 35) * Rephrase this sentence. I don't like when sentences start off with "but": "But the Trade Federation solved this issue by sending Vulture droids into battle in timed, rotating swarms."
 * 36) * Rephrase this. Is there such thing as a non-deadly blaster cannon? "In combat, these wings split up to reveal these deadly blaster cannons."
 * 37) * What do you mean "they were followed by"? Rephrase: "The blaster cannons were followed by two energy torpedo launchers that would weaken enemy targets before the starfighter delivered a laser cannon barrage"
 * 38) * I dislike the way you begin this section. It seems like you stole this sentence right out of a source. Don't assume the reader knows what happened at Naboo, especially considering you didn't link anything to a specific battle: "Like the Armored Assault Tank and other Trade Federation vehicles, the droid starfighter endured rigorous testing before its deployment at Naboo."
 * 39) * Do a better job of going through and making sure important things, i.e. battles, are linked.
 * 40) * This sentence is confusing. Rephrase: "were also produced by bodies such as Baktoid rather than their original Xi Char developers"
 * 41) * This sounds awkward: "They were deployed by the Confederacy forces in their millions against"
 * 42) * Oh, please do not link something to Wikipedia in the main article body. This is acceptable in the BTS only. If you've done this somewhere else that I've missed, get rid of it: "General Grievous also used them for suicide attacks designed to sow chaos, by making them perform kamikaze attacks on civilian targets"
 * 43) * At the end of the first paragraph in the "Clone Wars" section, you structure three sentences in a row in identical fashion, by using "also." Reword.
 * 44) * Capitalize "Clone Wars": "Years after the clone wars"
 * 45) * Reword this empty construction, "of this": "However, the Galactic Empire learned of this"
 * 46) * Include where the droid first appeared in the BTS. Hint: I'm guessing it's not the Episode I novel. Toprawa and Ralltiir 02:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 47) **My mistake, I meant to say "not the Episode I movie." Toprawa and Ralltiir 20:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 48) **Groan...fine, sorted all of that. Just one thing--this sentence is confusing. Rephrase were also produced...etc''...er, how is that confusing? Unit 8311 18:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 49) ***Further work on the unstricken objections is still needed. Toprawa and Ralltiir 18:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 50) ****Done now. So, is the article finally worthy? Unit 8311 19:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 51) *****One objection remains. Toprawa and Ralltiir 20:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 52) ******Done that--is it what you had in mind? Unit 8311 21:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 53) Some more things:
 * 54) * Reposition the images to they alternate from left-right down the page.
 * 55) * Position the last image at the bottom of the page so it is within the appearances scroll box.
 * 56) * Reposition the new "first appearance" BTS info at the top of that section, and properly format the "Episode I" title, including it's full name in italics. Toprawa and Ralltiir 23:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 57) **Done. Anything else? Unit 8311 18:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 58) ***Need to throw a ref at the end of the Ep 1 novel appearance info, as with the other BTS info. Also, the last two pictures within the article body itself are still poorly positioned. You need to stick the Naboo pic somewhere farther up the article, still on the right side, which can be difficult, I understand, given the small amount of information. Toprawa and Ralltiir 18:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 59) ****Think that's kinda pointless, but still done. I've adjusted the two pics so they look better positioned on my browser, but I can't do anything else about it without repositioning them to the wrong sections. Nonetheless, that's sort of sorted, and it's not totally ruining the article anyway. Unit 8311 21:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 60) *****Since it's clear the pics don't fit well, one of them needs to go. I suggest the Naboo pic, since it's pretty much identical to the infobox picture. Also, make sure the source list is in chronological order by date of OOU publication. The Databank entry needs to be the last thing in the list. Toprawa and Ralltiir 21:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 61) ******Naboo pic chucked out, then. Sources ordered. Anything else you've got to throw at me? Unit 8311 22:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 62) *******I've switched the remaining picture to the right hand side of the page and increased size. It's looking better, but I would strongly recommend a history expansion. There are ways to include everything without making it "listy." That is the mark of a true writer. And for the future, Unit, you might want to apply the quote from this page to the attitude you have towards peoples' objections: "Droids don't talk back, they don't question your orders, and they never complain when you send them on suicide missions." Toprawa and Ralltiir 23:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments
 * I'd just like to point out that everything has to be sourced to be a GA, not just "oh, well, most of it is, why not?" Please don't nominate an article if you recognise everything is not sourced. --  AdmirableAckbar  [Talk] 17:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about this, but shouldn't the intro be left unsourced?  Chack Jadson  (Talk) 23:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If possible, yes. It is not hard to put the information that one wants to source into the actual body of the article in question, thus creating a clean looking introduction. However, there are a small number of examples where this doesn't work. This should answer any questions about where/when to source. Cheers, Greyman ( Paratus ) 01:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Just curious, but what was the consensus on sourcing the name? Does it need to be ref'd or not? Hobbes ( Tiger's Lair ) 19:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The main name doesn't need to be referenced in the infobox, if that's what you're talking about. However, there's nothing wrong with providing a citation for it in the main body of the article, if it's something you feel requires one. Greyman ( Paratus ) 20:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Heh, that was a bit of stupidity on my part. Goodwood objected to the name not being sourced earlier, and I didn't notice that it was sourced in the infobox. He forgot to strike the objection, and I thought it might have just slipped his mind, so I commented. Never mind. Hobbes ( Tiger's Lair ) 00:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I would nominate this article for sure! It's one of the most comprehensive articles I've read! Two thumbs up! Oh, yeah, and I don't really think that one missed source or whatever it was is a super huge deal! Keep up the good work!J Wilson 05:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)J Wilson
 * Unit, I wish you wouldn't take criticism for your articles so begrudgingly. You can't really expect to submit something and not have people object towards it. Accept criticism with open arms, for we are here to help turn articles into the best condition possible. Toprawa and Ralltiir 18:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Per T&R. Moaning about objections is unlikely to make the objector want to strike them. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 19:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know. I'm just not in the best mood today, that's all. I just want to thank you for helping me make the article better. Unit 8311 19:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)