Wookieepedia:Featured article nominations/Pre-Republic era

Pre-Republic era

 * 1) TIEPilot051999 07:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) MoffRebus 11:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Kuralyov 05:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Sith Lord Remi 03:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Lord Hydronium 12:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Orpheus 12:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Breathesgelatin 20:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Adamwankenobi Talk to me!  My home. 12:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) KEJ 11:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC) (yeah, it's pretty good now)
 * 10) Lord Revan 18:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Objections Comments
 * I just like this subject too much to see it being awarded so soon. I think it could do better, and i'd love to help. This is a perfect example where a wikipedia style peer review could help. Any suggestions? --UVnet 14:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with UV. This can be expanded a hole lot more. And it also needs more sources. --Imp 14:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Heck, I'll agree with that, though I appreciate the nomination. I'd be curious what you feel can be added, so I've put it up for Peer review.  I basically culled the NEC for this, but I'm sure I missed things from other sources (the Sharu are mentioned on the talk page, for example). - Lord Hydronium 04:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Previous objection withdrawn. Here's a new one, though: the introduction should be shortened somewhat so it fits better in the main page blurb. --Imp 14:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Can't we just trim the page intro for that? I noticed we did that on Quinlan Vos, Coruscant, and particularly Zsinj. - Lord Hydronium 01:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Have to say I agree with Lord Hydronium on this one. I love articles with nice thick intros. As to my objection... I don't know... I mean it is quite good but I feel it could always get better. Let's just say that if it comes down solely to my objection, let it pass. --UVnet 08:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This reminds me of the Rokur Gepta article: a sorry state of affairs one week, FA worthy the next. Many props to Lord Hydronium for that. TIEPilot051999 07:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Being the originator of its first poor and hopeless version, I concur. MoffRebus 11:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Sith Lord Remi 03:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)   I have an immense interest in pre-Republic time, although this article was copied nearly word for word from the new essential chronology.
 * Actually owning the NEC, I can tell you that you're definately incorrect. QuentinGeorge 10:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think the article looks great. Have the issues people had with it been resolved in peer review? - Breathesgelatin 05:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * There weren't really a lot of issues brought up to cover. UVnet had a few on the talk page, which I think were covered, the sources were filled out, and I brought up a few potential issues that nobody addressed, so I'm guessing they didn't think they were problems.  Most of the discusson has been about whether to call it an "era". - Lord Hydronium 12:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * So, UVnet and Imperialles, do these objections still stand? - Lord Hydronium 03:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)