Wookieepedia:Good article nominations



This page is for the nomination of good articles. This is not a way to showcase the articles of your favorite characters, spaceships, or the like. 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. Nominated articles must meet all six requirements stated above. If an article has a net total of five votes of support (+5) after at least a week since it was nominated (beginning the day of its nomination), 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 on archiving nominations please see here.

(+1)
Support
 * 1) Nominated. Sourced more or less everything and crammed in all info as I could think of in there. Unit 8311 17:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 2)  Chack Jadson  (Talk)  13:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) I haven't read it, but there's no unsourced statements in the infobox. --  AdmirableAckbar  [Talk] 17:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) From the Forest of Goodwood:
 * 3) * Quote is not sourced.
 * 4) *Infobox needs to be fully sourced.
 * 5) **Source tag needed for name (as in the name given for "Model").
 * 6) * The sentence "The Variable Geometry Self-Propelled Battle Droid, Mark I, or Vulture droid starfighter, was a lethal droid starfighter used by the Trade Federation[4] and later, in much vaster numbers, the Confederacy of Independent Systems." needs to be rewritten for clarity and grammar.
 * 7) * "Lethal" in above example is POV.
 * 8) * Grammatical error here: "and could reach 1200 km/h in an planet's atmosphere." Link to atmosphere also needed.
 * 9) * Please break up and/or reword this sentence: "While in this walking mode, a droid starfighter could also latch onto surfaces in zero gravity, allowing the fighters to patrol from the outside hulls of capital ships instead of wasting energy in flight or using valuable hangar space."
 * 10) * The third paragraph in the Description section is a single sentence. Either merge it with another paragraph or expand.
 * 11) * Same for the last paragraph.
 * 12) * Prose issues throughout the article.
 * 13) * Please rewrite the BtS section, clarifying the mechanics of the Battlefront games in relation to vulture droids.
 * 14) *Last two statements in BtS need to be sourced and could possibly be expanded (first from the specific Clone Wars episode, second from the games).
 * 15) *TIMMMMMMBERRRRRRR!!-- Goodwood [[Image:Rebsymbol2.png|20px]] ( For the Rebellion! ) 21:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) **Just when I thought everything was sorted...okay, quote sourced, infobox sourced, done, done, done, done that, done that, that as well, please clarify what you mean by prose isssues--as far as I'm concerned, the prose is nice, formal and encylopedic, done that. Unit 8311 09:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 17) ***Though there's a couple small nuggets yet to fix, thank you for addressing these objections. The article is much better for it.-- Goodwood [[Image:Rebsymbol2.png|20px]] ( For the Rebellion! ) 01:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 18) ****BTS sourced, I think the source for that is the NEGVV, but could somebody please do me a favour and check. Unit 8311 18:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments
 * I'd just like to point out that everything has to be sourced to be a GA, not just "oh, well, most of it is, why not?" Please don't nominate an article if you recognise everything is not sourced. --  AdmirableAckbar  [Talk] 17:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about this, but shouldn't the intro be left unsourced?  Chack Jadson  (Talk) 23:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If possible, yes. It is not hard to put the information that one wants to source into the actual body of the article in question, thus creating a clean looking introduction. However, there are a small number of examples where this doesn't work. This should answer any questions about where/when to source. Cheers, Greyman ( Paratus ) 01:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

(+3)
Support
 * 1) Thefourdotelipsis 08:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) No available quotes me sad :P Greyman ( Paratus ) 23:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Master Aban Fiolli (Alpheridies University ComNet) [[Image:NewRepublic.png|20px]] 18:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Comments
 * And on... Thefourdotelipsis 08:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

(+5)
Support
 * 1) Sourced everything, images sourced, expanded much of the article. Unit 8311 19:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well detailed, well written, has enough images without going nuts, looks like a good one to me. Jedibob5 22:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC) (Vote struck per Single issue voters policy.  Greyman ( Paratus ) 01:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC))
 * 1)  Chack Jadson  (Talk)  22:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) &mdash; Darthtyler http://images.wikia.com/swfanon/images/1/18/Scuba_Diver.gif Talk 05:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Kilson 07:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Domlith 10:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Comments

(+3)
Support
 * 1)  Chack Jadson  (Talk)  22:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Greyman ( Paratus ) 21:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) --  AdmirableAckbar  [Talk] 23:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Comments
 * 1) The infobox needs to be sourced, and the  tag there needs to be dealt with.  Greyman ( Paratus ) 23:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Could somebody please vote?  Chack Jadson  (Talk) 21:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

(+3)
Support
 * 1) --  AdmirableAckbar  [Talk] 21:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Jedimca0(Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 15:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Greyman ( Paratus ) 23:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Comments
 * Latest of my Wretched Hives former-redlink nominations. Jik'Tal is up next. --  AdmirableAckbar  [Talk] 21:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

(+4)
Support
 * 1) --  AdmirableAckbar  [Talk] 21:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Greyman ( Paratus ) 00:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Jedimca0(Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 17:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 4)  Master Aban Fiolli  {Alpheridies University ComNet} 23:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Comments
 * Wretched Hives number three. Sha'Dria is next. --  AdmirableAckbar  [Talk] 21:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

(+2)
Support
 * 1) Nominated. Unit 8311 17:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) It's pretty good. Kilson LOVES PIE 07:37, 22 November 2007 {UTC}

Object

'Comments

(+0)
Support
 * 1) &mdash; Darthtyler http://images.wikia.com/swfanon/images/1/18/Scuba_Diver.gif Talk 21:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose
 * All of the images are watermarked in some way, shape, or form. Thefourdotelipsis 23:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) The intro is in need of some better prose and general Wookification. Also, I would recommend expanding on why Solo was returning to Tatooine in the first place. It was more than just going to see Jabba, if memory serves. There's more info on his purpose in A Hunter's Fate: Greedo's Tale in Tales from the Mos Eisley Cantina. I'm sure there's also some content to be found in Rebel Dawn. Toprawa and Ralltiir 07:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm not sure it makes any sense that the Empire was interested in "a popular bounty" on Solo. That makes them seem like they're bounty hunters themselves, as if the Imperial forces are interested in collecting on Jabba's bounty. I'm pretty sure Solo already had an Imperial bounty placed on him by this time, a topic probably also covered in Rebel Dawn. Toprawa and Ralltiir 08:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Comments
 * Um, what exactly does "watermarked" mean...?&mdash; Darthtyler http://images.wikia.com/swfanon/images/1/18/Scuba_Diver.gif Talk 05:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Done.&mdash; Darthtyler http://images.wikia.com/swfanon/images/1/18/Scuba_Diver.gif Talk 05:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

(+4)
Support
 * 1) Thefourdotelipsis 09:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) &mdash; Darthtyler http://images.wikia.com/swfanon/images/1/18/Scuba_Diver.gif Talk 05:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) And on&hellip;? :)  Master Aban Fiolli  {Alpheridies University ComNet} 23:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 4)  Chack Jadson  (Talk)  13:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Comments

(+3)
Support
 * 1) &mdash; Darthtyler http://images.wikia.com/swfanon/images/1/18/Scuba_Diver.gif Talk 05:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) &mdash;Graestan ( This party's over ) 05:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Absolutely. -- Ozzel 08:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Comments

(+2)
Support
 * 1) Thefourdotelipsis 10:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) I... like it! Enochf 10:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 3)  Chack Jadson  (Talk)  13:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Comment
 * And on... Thefourdotelipsis 10:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

(0)
Support
 * 1) I personally think it's a good article, and I've seen worse pages become GA's. I mean, what's so great about Cloak of Deception? TIEPilot051999 07:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) From the Grey of Man.
 * 2) *Incorrect use of commas throughout the article&mdash;could use a solid copy-edit.
 * 3) *Huge parts of the article are basically play-by-plays. These need to re-written properly.
 * 4) *Bullets used in the body of the article. Those pieces of information need to be worked into paragraph(s) with proper prose, per rule 1(a).
 * 5) *Has unsourced quotes, rule 2(a).
 * 6) *Categories are not placed correctly, and lack of proper categories.
 * 7) *Lead should be longer than one sentence.
 * Some of the images that are used have flawed "Summary" formatting. Rule 6(a), images are to be properly sourced, which includes formatting.
 * This is all just after a cursory glance, without even reading the majority of the article. This article needs more work before it will be ready for a check mark. Greyman ( Paratus ) 16:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment
 * Cloak of Deception is an OOU article which does not follow the same layout as IU articles, such as this one. As such, they are not on the same playing fields with regards to review. Likewise, Cloak of Deception is one of better put together novel articles on Wookieepedia. I really wouldn't suggest nominating articles simply because "I've seen worse"&mdash;instead, I would suggest putting work and effort into an article, and creating something you can be proud of. Simply nominating an article, without putting any work into it, suggests that the GAN rules laid out at the top of this page are most likely not adhered to. Greyman ( Paratus ) 16:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I solved the formatting problem with the images, but I agree with Greyman, this needs a lot of work. --Jedimca0(Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 17:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

(+1)
Support
 * 1) As nominator.  Chack Jadson  (Talk) 21:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) From the Forest of Goodwood:
 * 2) *Introduction could be expanded/fleshed out.
 * 3) *The line "Q9-X2 fitted himself with low-power repulsor pads he could hover above obstacles." needs to be fixed, with perhaps a link to repulsorlift added.
 * 4) *Infobox needs to be sourced.
 * 5) *The article's prose seems to be generally stilted; numerous small paragraphs blend awkwardly with each other. Either fix the transitions or blend the paragraphs.
 * 6) *History paragraph could possibly be split, as well as the two P&T paragraphs merged.
 * 7) *BtS needs to be sourced.
 * 8) *TIMMMMMBERRRRRRRR!!!-- Goodwood [[Image:Rebsymbol2.png|20px]] ( For the Rebellion! ) 13:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) **Fixed your objections.  Chack Jadson  (Talk) 13:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments

(+1)
Support
 * 1) As nominator.  Chack Jadson  (Talk) 21:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Comments

(+1)
Support
 * 1) As nominator. --Eyrezer 01:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Comments

(-1)
Support
 * 1) As nominator. Toprawa and Ralltiir 22:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) From the squalid cubicle of Graestan:
 * 2) *Round One:
 * 3) *Intro desperately needs expansion.
 * 4) **Expanded intro. Toprawa and Ralltiir 08:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) *Article is rife with point of view and original research issues.
 * 6) * Quotes appearing in places besides the beginning of sections should be moved, or the sections could be sub-sectioned.
 * 7) **Quotes removed from article body. Toprawa and Ralltiir 06:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) *Gallery = bad. Additionally, fewer and larger images would be preferable.
 * 9) * "Behind the scenes" needs to be cleaned up and restructured, with all trivial or speculative information removed. See WP:TRIVIA in particular.
 * 10) **Removed what I believe to be the most trivial of information. Cleaned up and restructured. Toprawa and Ralltiir 06:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) *My Advice: Consultation of the Manual of Style would be a good idea. Don't think of these issues as a brick wall; instead see the opportunity to create a great article (this one could easily become a featured article) and learn the ropes of article writing and editing on the wiki at the same time. You're a good writer, T&R. Welcome to the Big Leagues. Yours, &mdash;Graestan ( This party's over ) 05:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) From the Family-sized Pasta Bowl of Fiolli:
 * 13) *Just some thoughts; hope they help.
 * 14) *Not to beat a dead tauntaun, but the Intro needs to cover the substance of the article as an overview or abstract.
 * 15) **Expanded intro. See above. Toprawa and Ralltiir 08:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) *The bold-facing of the subspecies is not really a common-practice thing, in my experience. I would remove them. In fact, I would actually make a subsection under Physiological dedicated to them. It's important enough.
 * 17) *The section headings should be "Biology and appearance" first, then "Behavior and intelligence" second. This is parallel to the treatment of sentient species and confirmed with Inqs.
 * 18) *Fifth paragraph of section 1: "&hellip;enabling them to attack their prey completely unawares."
 * 19) *"The wampa attack on Luke Skywalker in 3 ABY suggested a sort of pair bonding between male and female wampas, and that their lives may have been far from exclusively solitary. While Skywalker was attacked by a male wampa, he regained consciousness in the den of a female." Woah, ok. Where does this come from? Should be referenced.
 * 20) *History, paragraph 4: "Although he had only knowingly seen one of the beasts, where there was one, there had to be more." Had to be or suspected there was?
 * 21) *History, overall doesn't seem to fall into the NPoV category - though I know that it can be hard as in a case like this. It's really key words that do that, in this case.
 * 22) *The last three "paragraphs" of Other Encounters could be consolidated. The entire section, though is kind-of listy.
 * 23) *I say take two or three pictures from the gallery and use them in the article, else, I'd rid the gallery altogether.
 * 24) *The BTS is not really in a chronological-like order. The different ideas for the scenes in Episode V possibly could go first, that way it flows better through the section.
 * 25) **Addressed BTS. See above. Toprawa and Ralltiir 06:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 26) *Well researched. I am looking forward to seeing the final product! Good luck. Hope this helps.  Master Aban Fiolli  {Alpheridies University ComNet} 06:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments
 * The only appearance not included in which the wampa isn't simply mentioned is The Bounty Hunters: Aurra Sing (according to App list). Also, the pic of the wampa attacking two Rebel soldiers in Echo Base in the gallery is not sourced. Toprawa and Ralltiir 22:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * In response to Round One BTS concerns, while I can see that much of the BTS info is trivial and worth removing, I fear that even after reading the WP:TRIVIA page I do not fully understand what is considered "good" BTS material. It would seem to me, at least in this case, almost all of the BTS information there is trivial, except for probaby the most basic, hard information. What would you recommend removing? Toprawa and Ralltiir 06:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Honestly? Check my contribs, then page down to where most of the edits were "1.4 Wookifications." These were mostly BtS massacres. It's what I call my Wookification Crusade, and it's a pretty clear example of the types of things that should stay or should go. Don't be afraid to trim the fat. &mdash;Graestan ( This party's over ) 05:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

(+1)
Support
 * 1) Green Tentacle (Talk) 17:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Comments
 * Before anybody asks, he says nothing and shows no signs of a personality. Green Tentacle (Talk) 17:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)