Wookieepedia:Featured article nominations/Rawmat shortage of 1-2 ABY


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

Rawmat shortage of 1–2 ABY

 * Nominated by: jSarek 08:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Nomination comments: Finally, jSarekProject:Single Stage to Orbit has produced its first (and likely only, but I digress) featured article nomination.

(5 Inqs/1 Users/6 Total)
Support
 * 1) Pre-nom reviewed. Thefourdotelipsis 08:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) An excellent and comprehensive article. Well wrote. --Sinre 10:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Fantastic idea for an article! --Eyrezer 18:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) ...dang. Cull Tremayne 17:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 5)  Cavalier One [[Image:FarStar Logo.jpg|20px]]( Squadron channel ) 11:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Brilliant!

Oppose
 * 1) Few things from the pasta bowl:
 * 2) * "The shortage was a result of increased demand from the Imperial government, Rebel attacks, and a pre-existing downward trend in Mid Rim production capability." Should this read due to Rebel attacks? As it stands now, it is confusing how Rebel attacks without qualification are part of the shortage.
 * 3) **No, it's correct the way it is; the Rebel attacks included some that damaged major rawmat production centers. I've tweaked the sentence to (hopefully) better represent that.
 * 4) ***Thank you for clarifying. &mdash; Fiolli  {Alpheridies University ComNet} 23:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) * "These ships were traveling to undisclosed locations, possibly in the Core." Is the conjecture found in GNN 7, or is this personal conjecture? If it is personal speculation, please remove it. If it is in-universe speculation, I would suggest putting a citation mark at the end of that sentence to make certain that it is noted. The latter not being required by FAN rules, however.
 * 6) **It's in-universe speculation by Cynabar's Infonet, attributable to the article that the paragraph is already attributed to. I've added a brief bit of text clarifying that.
 * 7) ***That works. I just wanted to make certain that IU speculation is noted as such so that there is no question. &mdash; Fiolli  {Alpheridies University ComNet} 23:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) * "The publication of "Mid-Rim Experiencing RawMat Shortage," which hinted at broader secret activities within the Imperial Military, may have been responsible for the Empire's heated search for the creators of Cynabar's InfoNet on Nar Shaddaa less than a month later." Same here: Is this IU speculation or OOU speculation?
 * 9) **This is OOU speculation, based on the fact that no other Galaxywide NewsNets appearance for Cynabar occurred in either that issue or the one previous, that the article has the kind of info that would draw Imperial ire, and that the article is dated less than a month before the Empire launched its search. Given how much "reading between the lines" one has to do with Galaxywide NewsNets in general, I'm pretty sure this was what the author was looking to convey.
 * 10) *** Sorry, but this needs to be removed. Speculation like this, and OR along with it, does not belong in a FA and needs to be eliminated per rule four, referencing WP:ATT and WP:NOR. &mdash; Fiolli  {Alpheridies University ComNet} 23:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) ****Okay, I've replaced it with a speculation-free version. See if that works a bit better. jSarek 10:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 12) *****Thank you. &mdash; Fiolli  {Alpheridies University ComNet} 20:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 13) *&mdash; Fiolli  {Alpheridies University ComNet} 18:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 14) **I hope you don't mind that I edited one of your comments together; I thought it would be necessary for observers to follow the conversation without confusion. If you object, my apologies, and feel free to correct it and indent my follow-up comment accordingly. jSarek 03:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 15) ***No problem at all. &mdash; Fiolli  {Alpheridies University ComNet} 23:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments


 * What about moving the images in the participants section over to the right? That might work better with the Main template. --Eyrezer 18:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That was actually the way I originally had it, with them thumbed with small captions. When it was suggested I drop the thumbs, leaving them on the right looked somewhat disjointed.  I'm willing to take further suggestions on the matter. And also, thank you for the sentiment in your support comment. :-) jSarek 19:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)