Wookieepedia:Good article nominations/Neutralizer-class bomber


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

Neutralizer-class bomber

 * Nominated by:  Grunny  ( Talk ) 09:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Nomination comments: Nice and short at 433 words

(3 ACs/5 Users/8 Total)
Support
 * 1) SoresuMakashi ( Everything I tell you is a lie  the truth  ) 10:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Good work! Jonjedigrandmaster  ( Jedi Beacon ) 11:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Nice job Grunny. Kilson Likes PIE 17:18, 02 July 09 (UTC)
 * 4) Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research.svg (Comlink) 18:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Grunny!  Chack Jadson  (Talk)  18:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Noice, Grunny.  CC7567  (talk) 19:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Nice article from such a limited sourceOmicron 21:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) &mdash;Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 04:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Object
 * 1) The Grand Master
 * 2) * Characteristics (Nitpicking): "Featuring impressive shields for a fighter of its size, the Neutralizer-class fighter was nimble for a bomber..." You just mentioned how it was not as agile as the Predator, but now you're calling it nimble. I understand that both of these comparisons are relative to other things, however, this doesn't really give the reader a good idea of whether or not they are agile at all. Please clarify.
 * 3) **That's how the information is presented in the source without any clarification. I agree it's not the best wording but it's what I have to work with unfortunately :P.
 * 4) * History: "During the conflict between the Sith-backed Fel Empire and the Galactic Alliance beginning 127 ABY—known as the Sith-Imperial War—the Neutralizer-class bomber was developed by Sienar Fleet Systems' engineers by adapting the designs of the Predator-class starfighter." Lots of info packed into one sentence; maybe break it up into two to let it flow better.
 * 5) **I'd prefer not to. The information is important as context for the time and breaking it up would only disrupt flow unnecessarily.
 * 6) * History: using "compared to" and "relatively" in the same sentence is rather redundant.
 * 7) **Removed relatively :).
 * 8) *Good work, as always :). Jonjedigrandmaster  ( Jedi Beacon ) 18:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) **Thanks for the review as always, Jon :-).  Grunny  ( Talk ) 05:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) From the Council Chambers:
 * 11) * "[I]ts primary purpose was strafing enemy ground emplacements and breaking open defensible positions": This phrase is used in both the role and history sections with the exact same words in each one. Maybe this is nitpicking a little, but I feel it would be better if one was reworded.
 * 12) **Reworded a little.  Grunny  ( Talk ) 09:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 13) *And that's it. Great job. &mdash;Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 04:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments