Wookieepedia:Good article nominations



This page is for the nomination of Good articles. 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. If it has more than five votes after a week, 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 see here.

Force lightning (+1)
Support
 * 1) User: jediknight19bby
 * 2) General Layton
 * 3) T8-13
 * 4)  Stake black   msg 18:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Domlith 12:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) --Windu223 18:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Azra Namor 19:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Object
 * 1) Cut down on the images.  .  .  .  .  22:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) *Which images do you suggest we remove? - User:General Layton
 * 3) *I think the images are fine.  Stake black   msg 18:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Superfluous Palpatine.  Sarendipity  Talk [[Image:Atrissig.jpg|20px]] 07:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Vary the images. Way too many from one source. And dare I say it? No mention of Stagorr's powers with Force lightning... :-P Cull Tremayne 11:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Too many of them seem to be from ROTJ, in the final duel scene. Hobbes15 ( Tiger Headquarters ) 05:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) No references. -Fnlayson 04:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) What Fnlayson said. Humbone 16:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Verpine (+6)
Support '''Object'"
 * 1) Inquisitor Culator said it's GA material on IRC just now.&mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 02:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) --Eyrezer 04:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3)  Gonk  ( Gonk! ) 13:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Domlith 21:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Yes. -Darthtyler
 * 6) Ajrand 22:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Jedipilot94  (*Fo-Shizzle*)  00:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) --Kosure 21:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) I know this undermines my nomination, but the article's still missing a source for the lead quote, and there's one claim in the infobox ("no heart") I can't source. Please strike this out as soon as that's fixed without waiting for me to do it.  8) Never mind, the quote's sourced and the unsourced infobox tidbit was removed. &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 12:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) I think something needs to be added to the paragrah on antenna about how defective antenna resulted in Verpines criminals etc. I remember reading that somewhere. Also, I thought it was a coup attempt rather than a direct invasion by the Killiks. If so, I think that paragraph should be reworded. --Eyrezer 04:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) *I'm pretty sure the source for that was The Courtship of Princess Leia Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 02:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) ** So, could you put it in? There's also some info on Talk:Verpine which should be incorporated, assuming someone with access to the primary source can confirm and work it in. &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 02:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) ***Just added it. Sorry it took so long. --Eyrezer 04:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) **** Thanks! Now if someone could clear up the bit about Verpine queens from The Swarm War, we're set. &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 11:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) ***** Looks like the Verpine queens thing was taken care. I don't see it that mentioned now. -Fnlayson 13:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) ****** I still think it needs explanation about the role of hive-mothers in Verpine society, since it's only mentioned in one source. &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 21:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments
 * Any other objects on this one? -Fnlayson 13:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Duel in the Senate (+1)
Support Object
 * 1) T8-13
 * 2) --Kosure 21:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support, I've read this article many times and I thinks its well written. And although it lacks references, the film and the comic stand as a reference; and people who hadn't seen any of the films probably wouldn't know what the "Duel in the Senate" was  Anon vote struck by Atarumaster88 on 16:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments
 * I sourced two of the images, but I think some of the images have to go. There's just to many of them. --Jedimca0 (Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 07:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * We can lose "YodaDuel.jpg" - the one where they "lock blades" - ...that'll square it away a bit. --School of Thrawn 101 08:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I also think that the ones from the comic at the end of the article don't ad much, perhaps one of them could go too? --Jedimca0 (Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 10:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that the flying yoda image can replace the one that talks of him fleeing with Organa. The flying yoda pic is really the only one that's necessary as it's demonstrating a difference  between the comic and the movie. --School of Thrawn 101 13:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, the diference between the comic and the movie should be in there. The other one has to go. --Jedimca0 (Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 13:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I with you guys, too many pics. Humbone 16:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I removed those two pics from the article, and it already looks a lot better. Are there any other things that need to be improved before this article is ready for GA status? --Jedimca0 (Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 11:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It certainly looks better, now. I'll give it a full run through later.  Well done, Jedimca. --School of Thrawn 101 11:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It lacks references. -Fnlayson 04:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thermal detonator (+1)
Support Objections Comments
 * 1) Jedipilot94 20:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Botbillder 17:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Needs some serious cleanup. a source for the first picture would be a good start. Tutos Lumenarious 13:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) *I'll see if can source that picture. --Jedimca0 (Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 14:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So far I've been unable to source the main image, for the relevant discussion see here, I also asked the person who uploaded it about the source but haven't received a reply yet. If the image can't be sourced we should consider replacing it. --Jedimca0 (Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 12:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it might be from The New Essential Guide to Weapons and Technology, can someone with this check it for me. Darth Seth [[Image:Stormtrooper helmet.jpg|20px]]( Imperial Lieutenant ) 14:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I looked through the The New Essential Guide to Weapons and Technology, but could not find that picture. Greyman ( Paratus ) 14:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I hoped this would not be necessary but perhaps replacing that picture is needed if we want this to become a GA. --Jedimca0 (Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 14:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If the article is to become a GA, then it needs to meet rule 6(a) since it has pictures available. I'll take a look through some sources I have and see what I can come up with.   Greyman ( Paratus ) 15:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I replaced the image, are there any other objections? --Jedimca0 (Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 11:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Buzk (+4)
Support Objections
 * 1) --Eyrezer 08:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) --Master Fetty 18:05, 8 May 2007 (GMT)
 * 3) It reads well. Greyman ( Paratus ) 03:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Green Tentacle (Talk) 12:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments
 * Nicly cleaned up after my first attempt.

Lushros Dofine (+1)
Support
 * 1) --AdmiralD'orl001 06:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Objections

Comments
 * Can someone make the James Lord article, because red in an article is just so ugly. Darth Seth [[Image:Stormtrooper helmet.jpg|20px]]( Imperial Lieutenant ) 17:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Tarfful (+1)
Support
 * 1) --User:OOM-10 10:32 6 May, 2007
 * 2) Skippy Farlstendoiro 16:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Objections
 * 1) Intro needs work, expansion —Xwing328 (Talk) 05:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments
 * I think the intro should be expanded some. Humbone 01:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Needs to be expanded to the point where the Character-stub is not needed anymore. Greyman ( Paratus ) 01:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll get to work on it soon (maybe) to save you some timeOOM-10 16:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)OOM-10
 * The main image needs to be sourced, I'll see what I can do, but I don't know if I've got time for it. --Jedimca0 (Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 08:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've left a note on Redemption's talk page about it. --School of Thrawn 101 08:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Aaannddd, he doesn't remember. Also, the only site that he can find it requires payment to order it. --School of Thrawn 101 11:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Cannok (+3)
Support Objections
 * 1) --Eyrezer 05:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Greyman ( Paratus ) 18:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Domlith 11:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Laigrek (+3)
Support Objections
 * 1) --Eyrezer 05:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Greyman ( Paratus ) 18:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Looks good. --School of Thrawn 101 06:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments

RZ-1 A-wing interceptor (+2)
Support
 * 1) Nominated Tutos Lumenarious 10:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Jedimca0 (Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 12:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) School of Thrawn 101 12:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Humbone 13:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Objections
 * 1) Unlike the B-wing starfighter, which I got to GA, this article doesn't really discuss much of the History behind the A-wing's use, aside from Endor. Case in point, I'd like to read more about the A-wing slash, maybe the Battle of Thyferra, Madine's use of an A-wing when infiltrating the Darksaber, and any other significant uses that I missed. Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Talk page ) 15:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) *This change found its apex in a devastating tactic known as the A-wing Slash. A group of X-wings would approach an Imperial convoy, hiding A-wings in their drive exhaust. The X-wings would then pull away, diverting attention away from the speedy A-wings, which would launch HM-6 concussion missiles against the convoy and pull away. That's directly from the article. It also links to this article. --School of Thrawn 101 11:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) ** But that's about it for operational use. Kinda lacking, don't you think? -Fnlayson 04:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Article lacks sourcing to meet attribute 2 above.  Only some of the specs are sourced now. -Fnlayson 16:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments
 * He who nominates, vote for their nomination, they must, or deleted it will be. Pardon the Yoda talk, my ego got the best of me :) Hobbes15 ( Tiger Headquarters ) 05:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I informed the nominator about it, I suggest we give him a day to vote for his nomination. --Jedimca0 (Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 06:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Wait, why does the nominator have to vote for it? --School of Thrawn 101 06:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I don't know, just assumed Hobbes15 was right. And I can remember a nomination being removed for this reason a while ago. --Jedimca0 (Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 06:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, ok...but is that just a traditional practice or is there a policy in place for that kind of consequence? --School of Thrawn 101 06:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it is just a way to identify the nominator, I'll see if I can find a policy about it. --Jedimca0 (Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 07:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up jedimcca0, I thought I wouldn't be allowed to vote! Tutos Lumenarious 10:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. --Jedimca0 (Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 10:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * In any case, back to the article...one of the images needs sourcing. Other than  that, it looks pretty darn good. --School of Thrawn 101 07:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm working on it. --Jedimca0 (Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 12:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The image has been sourced, Thanks JMAS. --Jedimca0 (Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 12:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And with that, I'm all for it. --School of Thrawn 101 12:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I just finished looking over this, and it feels to me like the pictures make it looked a little cramped. Would anyone object to the removal of the pic at the beginning of the section "Early production", since it is almost the exact same picture as the Infobox picture?  I think if we could space the pictures out some, then the article would  'visually' flow better.  I did enjoy the writing in this article, nicely done.  Greyman ( Paratus ) 02:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Good call, Greyman, I'm surprised we didn't catch that. I say nuke that pic. --School of Thrawn 101 03:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Good idea, I hid that image. -Fnlayson 04:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Emperor's Royal Guard (+3)
Support Object Comments
 * 1) Nominated. (see comments) --School of Thrawn 101 16:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Jedimca0 (Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 16:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Tutos Lumenarious 22:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Good job, School o' Thrawn. Darth Seth [[Image:Stormtrooper helmet.jpg|20px]]( Imperial Lieutenant ) 17:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Still needs citations--other than that it's fine. Unit 8311 13:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) *Can you tag what you'd like cited? --School of Thrawn 101 12:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Images are now sourced, article has undergone a relatively minor formatting clean-up and redlinks have been eliminated. --School of Thrawn 101 16:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Super Star Destroyer (+1)
Support Oppose
 * 1) Unit 8311 12:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) VT-16 08:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Frabby 14:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC) (see comments for reasons)

Comments
 * Several images need to be sourced, other than that the article looks great. --Jedimca0 (Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 12:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I am quite surprised by this suggestion, as I feel the article really needs a serious rework and should in fact get a "Sorry about the mess" tag instead. It does not at all appear "wholesome" or concise, but rather as a patchwork of the compromises of several heated arguments about content to me. Following up on my initial contribution idea on the "combat performance" I am currently preparing a proposal for a complete rewrite of the article. Frabby 14:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sourced the images and the quote. Darth Seth [[Image:Stormtrooper helmet.jpg|20px]]( Imperial Lieutenant ) 17:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't see why not, the article contains an exhaustive amount of official references, usually reserved for main character articles. As for combat performance, if there's a problem with their depiction in games, it can either be left out or rewritten. I personally see no official depictions of them as weak or with poor performance, and agree that the section could need some tweaking. Also noted that the portion about its size being connected to command facilities is a bit misleading. Command ships don't require that big a size to coordinate fleets (see Thrawn's command ship for instance), only to deliver more firepower, as noted in Starship Battles Preview 1. That could also do with some changing. VT-16 08:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Durrei (+3)
Support
 * 1) Nominated. Greyman ( Paratus ) 17:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) --Eyrezer 00:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Humbone 16:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Comments

White Witch (+7)
Support
 * 1) Green Tentacle (Talk) 17:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) It looks great. --Jedimca0 (Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 17:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Jinko 17:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) --Eyrezer 00:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Cull Tremayne 21:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 18:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) A couple of redlinks in there, but otherwise fine. Unit 8311 18:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Comments

Jedi Order (0)
Support
 * 1) Jediknight19bby 20:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) AdmirableAckbar 21:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Coments
 * 1) It has no references (requirement 2a). --Jedimca0 (Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 20:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) For now. See my comments below.  Greyman ( Paratus ) 19:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What do they mean by 'references'?Jediknight19bby 22:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay. I learned to do references, and I did a couple. I might be working on it later. Any other help is appreciated. Jediknight19bby 17:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that there is a nice oppurtunity here to make this a good article by expanding the Timeline of major events in Jedi history. Specifically, expanding each event that is listed there into its own sub-section, which would essentially explain the Jedi's role in those respective conflicts and events.  Also, I believe that the different branchs of the Order should be examined in the article as well, ex. The Agricultural Corps.   Greyman ( Paratus ) 19:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay. I did it, except for the sub-section part. If you have time on your hands to complain, then you do to work on the page. Jediknight19bby 21:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Greyman wasn't complaining. he's trying to help you make the article better. AdmirableAckbar 21:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks AdmirableAckbar, you're right&mdash;I wasn't complaining. Jediknight19bby, firstly you had some questions about how to reference, and I pointed you (on your talk page) in the right direction, so that way you could take a look over it and see why Wookieepedia wants us to source articles.  From the looks of it, you managed to look at the Sourcing article and put it to good use, nice job!  Secondly, above I gave you some points about the article from which you can expand upon, it's completely up to you if you want to pay attention to them or not.  However, since you're the one who nominated this article, be prepared to do some work&mdash;that's what nominating GA's and FA's is all about.  Anytime you nominate or post anything on this wiki, be prepared for constructive critisim.  Anyways, I look forward to see the direction that you take this article.  Cheers,  Greyman ( Paratus ) 22:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. Jediknight19bby 23:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No worries at all. I've got some projects on the go right now which are keeping me pretty busy, but if you need any help with finding info, or anything, don't hesistate to drop me a line.  Greyman ( Paratus ) 23:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd like to point out that you shouldn't nominate articles that are a work in progress. Both GA and FA are places for articles that are virtually finished products. This article should be longer than the New Jedi Order article when it is done, and at the moment it is not even close. --Eyrezer 03:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I find the GA/FA nom process to be an entirely useful method for pushing a slightly good article into good or great territory. --School of Thrawn 101 10:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * yeah, when I nominated Ephant Mon for FA it was an OK article, but after countless suggestions and tips, it's looking really good at the moment. AdmirableAckbar 10:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * All pics are sourced. There's sufficient reference material. The timeline subsections, AgriCorps and Medical Corps section is completed. Anything else you guys want me to do, because I've run out of things to check. Use your imagination, and it can be a good article soon.
 * The Timeline subsections still need some expansion, try to explain what happened during those periods. The Old Sith Wars are described as a series of problems, it was a war, it was actually multiple wars, name a few notable battles, Jedi, Sith. And I'd like to read a bit more about the Clone wars and the fact that many Jedi died during the war and that most Jedi were hunted down and killed by the Empire and Darth Vader/Anakin Skywalker. I'd help you if I had time, but unfortunately I don't. I'll see what I can do about it later today or tomorrow. If you need help improving this article, just ask. --Jedimca0 (Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 09:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Fondor (+1)
Support
 * 1)  Gonk  ( Gonk! ) 14:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Comments
 * It looks good, but it needs references (requirement 2a). --Jedimca0 (Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 19:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Bubo (+2)
Support
 * 1) AdmirableAckbar 20:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Jedimca0 (Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 21:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) It could use a bit more work in the creativity department, but it's not breaching any of the requirements. I've done some minor spelling/grammar related stuff, like always, and I'll toss my support in with the rest of you. --School of Thrawn 101 10:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Comments
 * I know it's short but it seems to fill all the criteria AdmirableAckbar 20:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It looks good to me. --Jedimca0 (Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 21:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)