Wookieepedia:Good article nominations/First Battle of Empress Teta


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

(+5)
Support
 * 1) Nominated. Greyman ( Talk ) 18:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Supported.  Tommy9281 ( Ouch!! ) 2:20pm, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Graestan ( Talk ) 23:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 21:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Jedimca0(Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 18:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Object

Comments
 * Expect a lot more TOTJ noms on this page, folks ;) WP:TOTJ is back. Greyman ( Talk ) 18:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It concerns me somewhat that for all of these TOTJ GAs, all it takes for them to get through is for each of the TOTJ members to vote for them. This nom is a case in point: 5 votes, all from the 5 TOTJ Project members. --Eyrezer 09:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Two of which are inquisitors, one of which is an FA writer, and one of which votes on this page frequently. No-one's gonna vote for the article if it isn't up to scratch. Non-TOTJers have a week to find any problems with it; that's enough time. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 10:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Really, Ey. Do you think I would promote a project, or system like that? ;) You know me better than that, I hope :) Currently, as per Forum:Updates_to_WP:TOTJ (posted on WP:TOTJ), the new main focus is cleaning up smaller articles and nominating them for GAN. That being said, below and above are prime examples of the project's members helping out. Aleema, Nazzar, Battle of Foerost (Great Sith War), etc. have all received both major and minor objections from project members, including others. I've objected to other project member's GANs, and they've objected to mine. I'm not going to vote for any GAN, whether it be a TOTJ nom or not, if I don't think it's ready or doesn't meet the requirements. To lay your heart to rest, let me assure you that there is no cabal of WP:TOTJ members. If I received five votes on this nomination, it's because after reading it, those users thought it was good&mdash;they know I don't nomination crap. My whole point with creating WP:TOTJ has never to been to "pad our stats", so to speak. I created the project to make sure that TOTJ articles are as complete as possible, and as well written as possible. That being said, if there is something specific about this particular GAN that you feel needs to be fixed, please bring it to my attention via IRC, my talk page, or here on it's nomination and myself or another project member will correct it :) Thanks, Ey. Greyman ( Talk ) 13:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Eyrezer, I've read every article that I've ever voted on... Yesterday I spent hours reading the TOTJ articles that are on this page. If an article should not be a GA (yet), I'll either oppose on this page or tell the nominator what needs to be fixed in IRC. --Jedimca0(Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 16:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your responses. I'd like to clarify that my above post was not meant to cast doubt on the integrity of any of the TOTJ project members. I'm impressed with what you guys do and would join if I was more familiar with the sources. But even if I was a member, it wouldn't alter my concerns. It's important to avoid the appearance of bias, not just bias itself. That's where my concerns stem from&mdash;and are reflective more of the wider GAN criteria, rather than this particular occasion.


 * "Non-TOTJers have a week to find any problems with it; that's enough time." We're talking 9 noms here. I know I don't have time to read all 9 noms this week, and the number of users in here is certainly smaller than the FA page. Anyway, I don't have a solution as such, but I hope you can see that my concerns are valid, though not personal. --Eyrezer 21:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I do understand what you're saying, and I know they're not personal. And as for the quote, I meant just this nom, since it's the only one that's been entirely supported by TOTJers and no one else. But yeah, I get what you're saying, and there are some major flaws in the GA system, unfortunately. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 22:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I give you my word as an Inq that I go over these with a fine-toothed comb. The page histories will reflect this. Graestan ( Talk ) 22:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries, Ey :) I'm glad that you brought this up, because it reinforces the type of teamwork I've been trying to promote for WP:TOTJ. Anything else, you know where you can reach me/us. Cheers, Greyman ( Talk ) 23:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)