This tutorial is designed for use with Source Editor.

Source Editor is the official editor for Wookieepedia. To switch to Source Editor, go to the editing tab in your preferences.

Introducing status article nominations

What's this?


Learn from the best by reviewing Wookieepedia's status article nominations!

Once you are acquainted with the general editing process, you might wish to join Wookieepedia's status article nomination (SAN) process, which is where much of the on-site collaboration occurs between various editors. One or more users would edit an article until it is as perfect as it can be before putting it up as a SAN. Other editors would then improve upon each others' work and iron out any remaining issues through a process of peer-review to bring the article up to as high a standard as possible. Once a SAN successfully passes the process, it becomes a status article (SA)—representative of the highest quality articles that the wiki has to offer.

All editors are encouraged to join in as reviewers—yes, even less-experienced editors, especially newer ones! The goal of the SAN is to collate individual insights and create the best of the best articles, and this involves fresh input as well as catching each others' errors. After all, there can always be errors that evade the gaze of even the most experienced of reviewers! Besides, reviewing is a valuable experience on multiples fronts; not only would you be able to learn, fine-tune, and apply your writing and editing skills, but you would also get to know your fellow editors. For the purposes of categorization, there are three types of SAs, which are distinguished by page length, and their corresponding nomination processes are supervised by expert review panels:

Premium-ComprehensiveArticle Comprehensive articles (CAs): Managed by the EduCorps (EC) review panel, Comprehensive article nominations (CANs) are made for articles with prose under 250 words.
Premium-GoodIcon Good articles (GAs): Managed by the AgriCorps (AC) review panel, Good article nominations (GANs) are made for articles with prose between 250 words and 999 words.
Premium-FeaturedIcon Featured articles (FAs): Managed by the Inquisitorius (Inq) review panel, Featured article nominations (FANs) are made for articles with a prose of at least 1000 words.

Why should I review?

The role of the reviewer is to examine nominated articles to ensure that they are of as high a standard as possible. Reviewing is a collaborative process, and multiple individuals are needed to review each article because anyone could spot potential issues that were missed by even the most experienced of users. Established SA nominators are also encouraged to pay it forward; reviewing other users' SANs would make other users more inclined to review your own SANs or otherwise help you with your own projects. By reviewing a wide range of articles, you could expand your knowledge and gain invaluable experience in both writing and interpersonal communication. Most important of all, strive to apply whatever you learn from your reviewing to your own writing as well as interactions with other people and vice versa.

The nomination process

Where do I start?

For your first review, it is recommended that you start off with nominations on the CAN page that still require additional user votes in order to pass, but any nomination is fair game if you could spot any potential issues! Everything in an article—from the infobox to the categories; from the prose to individual notes and references—everything is up for review.

What should I look out for?


Is something else amiss? Scan the article carefully when reviewing.

Although it can be helpful, you as a reviewer do not need to have any knowledge of the subject of the article. The review process often involves proofreading the prose, checking that the content is accurate and comprehensive, and ensuring that the article follows site policies, such as the Layout Guide and the Manual of Style. Consistency is a key tenet of Wookieepedia as well, so status article precedence is also an area to watch out for; inconsistencies between nominated articles and existing status articles should be minimised. In addition to keeping a sharp eye out for errors, reviewers may wish to find ways to improve the article's flow, such as by adjusting wording and sentence structure. Remember that the SAN process is not a race; take your time and re-read the article thoroughly.

At the bottom of this page is a list of common issues that are often involved in the review process. It can be a starting point, but it is not the be-all and end-all of articles reviews.

Okay, I've found some issues. What do I do now?

Once a nominator has created the corresponding nomination page for their nominated article, they are responsible for addressing the feedback that reviewers provide on the nomination page. Before you provide feedback there, however, you might want to directly fix issues on the article yourself.


Generally, you should fix minor issues that you spot while reviewing the article, reserving further issues as formal objections on the nomination page for the nominator to fix themself afterward. A minor issue that is more efficient to fix directly, such as a missing punctuation mark, is also known as a "sofixit." However, if there are repeated instances of the same error in the nominator's articles or if you notice that the nominator is relatively inexperienced in the relevant issue, then letting them fix it themselves can be a better way of reviewing. If you have made the necessary sofixit edits yourself, you can also leave a review note on the nomination page to point out certain issues for the nominator to keep in mind.



A nomination page, with an empty section for supporting votes at the top, an unaddressed objection in the middle, and a comment in the "Comments" section.

As a reviewer, add your feedback under the "Object" section in bullet point form, starting a subsection of your own to keep the nomination page organized. Remember to be specific and clear in your objections to minimise potential misunderstandings and to make the process smoother for both parties. The nominator should then respond to your objections, replying under the bullet points to confirm that they have adjusted the article accordingly or to discuss potential changes if they seek clarification or disagree with the objections. Where necessary, further discussion between you and the nominator could be held on the nomination page itself—this could be done in either your personal "Object" subsection or the "Comments" section"—or via Wookieepedia's Discord server. Once you are satisfied with your addressed objections, you should encase them in strikethrough markup, like so:

*<s>[Your objection]</s>

The same nomination page. The reviewer has struck their own objection and has added their vote to the "Support" section above.

Afterward, if you are satisfied with the article as a whole, you may vote under the "Support" section of the nomination page. A number of votes from non–review board members and review board members is required for a nomination to pass. For the review boards' reference, the voting thresholds for individual nominations can be found on the main CAN, GAN, and FAN pages. As a non–review board reviewer, you simply need to add your signature to a new line under the "Support" section:

#[Optional comment] ~~~~

The vote count would then be automatically updated accordingly.

Best practices for communicating with nominators

Mutual understanding is key. Edit summaries should be used when editing articles nominated for status to explain clearly what you have done and why. Edit summaries can also be limiting, so if you have made a significant change, consider explaining your edits on the nomination page and check if the nominator is okay with your edits .

Home One briefing SW Facebook

As with the wider Wookieepedia project, reviewing is a collaborative process. It's important to maintain mutual respect, especially if disagreements arise; remember that we all want to find the best ways to improve the wiki.

Nominators have the right to state specifically why they don't think certain changes need to be made to their articles. Even if you disagree with the nominator, always try to remain civil and respectful of each other; it will make the process go smoother and better for everybody involved. For guidance on handling disagreements effectively, see Wookieepedia:User conduct policy#Dispute resolution. Remember that it is good practice to consult other editors' opinions, and you are always welcome to ask review board members to lend their expertise.

One of the most important parts of the entire nomination process is for editors to learn from objections. When you make an objection as a reviewer, be clear in expressing why changes ought to be made and help the nominator to understand how to do them. Be patient when communciating with nominators, especially newer ones. Adopting a harsh or passive-agressive tone of voice discourages nominators from further taking part in the SAN process, if not outright scare them away from Wookieepedia. Politeness goes a long way!

Further advice

The review doesn't necessarily stop after you cast your support vote. You may wish to double-check the article, or review further changes to the article—don't be afraid to re-review a nomination! In a nutshell, objectors should not only look for issues to be objected upon, but for potential improvement and constructive feedback that can be give to nominators. The biggest benefit of doing reviews on the nomination page rather than on Discord is that they are archived by the review boards for posterity, and a Wookieepedian would be able to see the feedback so as to acquire more knowledge about best writing practices and apply them to other articles.

Keep in mind that the number of reviews is not as significant as the quality of reviews, which has a lot to do with how extensive your reviews are. Having an eye for detail and picking out any errors or inconsistencies is important, but to take reviews further, you can look for room for improvement, such as cutting down on redundancies and repeated phrases or making the writing clearer through a bit of rewording.

Ultimately, reviewing can be a very rewarding and valuable aspect of editing on Wookieepedia, so review away and enjoy! Once you have begun reviewing, feel free to add the {{User reviewer}} userbox on your own user page!

Common objections

Structural and technical

  • Refer to the Layout Guide for article structure.
  • Status articles should be complete and comprehensive. Check if the appropriate templates, images, and categories are included in the article.
  • Also, watch out for information exclusive to the infobox, the introduction, quotes, and image captions; everything mentioned in them should also be mentioned in the article body.
  • Generally, text should be broken up into subsections and paragraphs. This could vary depending on content, but single-sentence paragraphs and single-paragraph sections should be avoided unless required by the nature of the article's content.
  • Linking
    • You can check for redirecting links and duplicate links using the highlighting Gadgets mentioned in the Knight tutorial.
    • Watch out for underlinking, and keep in mind the hierarchy of pipelinking specific subjects (e.g. Dark Lord of the Sith > Sith Lord > Sith).
    • Ensure that all external links are functional and that the appropriate archival backup links are provided.
    • Do not link to anatomy articles if the relevant word is only used as part of a metaphor (e.g. Tongue and sharp-tongued; Heart and golden-hearted).
  • Files and templates need to use underscores in place of spaces (e.g. [[File:Luke_Skywalker.jpg]], not [[File:Luke Skywalker.jpg]]).
  • The correct order for file links goes as follows: [[File_name|thumb|location|size|caption]].
  • Look out for issues with images used in the article, such as with cropping or quality.
  • Also look out for the use of said images and the {{Mediacat}} template: they should not be colliding with section headers or quotes, nor should they be indenting items listed in the "Appearances" or "Sources" sections.
  • Watch out for double spaces (use Ctrl + F/Cmd + F).


  • Status articles should be well-written and detailed. The prose should not only be understandable, but also well-written, with a diverse diction and syntax while not being overly verbose or wordy.
    • In that regard, run-on sentences, comma splices, and fragments should be corrected.
    • Repetitive sentence structures (i.e. three simple sentences in a row) should be avoided, as they create the impression of a poorly written article. Similarly, lexical choice should be varied. Use Ctrl + F/Cmd + F to find commonly repeated words like "after" or "however."
    • Every person has their own writing style, but aim to be concise and adapt a formal tone.
    • Avoid passive voice as well as weak, uncertain wording (e.g. "assumed," "possibly").
    • Articles should be detailed without providing a play-by-play account of the subject matter. The prose should flow smoothly, with a reader being able to garner a reasonable understanding of the subject matter from the article or section.
    • Ask the nominator(s) for clarification if you are unclear about specific parts of an article. It is good practice to ensure that articles can be understood upon first reading.
  • Status articles should be focused on their respective article subject, and it is very easy for writers to get carried away with information that is not necessarily relevant to the specific article. Consider the relevance of each word of the article—how does it tie into the article subject? Depending on the article, additional context may be added for readers to get a better sense of the subject.
  • It is often useful to provide context for an event or action to create a more complete representation of what happened.
  • Specific grammatical issues
    • American English is used over British English (e.g. "color," not "colour"; "analyze," not "analyse"; "defense," not "defence").
    • "By [year]" is preferable to "in or before [year]."
    • "Toward," "forward," "backward," etc. is preferred to the versions ending in "s" ("towards," "forwards," "backwards").
    • The serial comma should be used as standard.
    • For dates, use "around" rather than "in or around;" use "by" rather than "in or before." "Around" should always be used instead of "circa." (e.g. "around 0 BBY")
      • In the infobox, approximate dates should be denoted by the lower-case abbreviation "c." (e.g. "c. 0 BBY")

Formatting and style

For the sake of consistency, Wookieepedia uses a standard style and formatting for articles, which is governed by the Manual of Style. The following simply highlights common issues that ultimately fall under the MoS, so please refer to the document itself for further information.

  • For bolded emphasis, be careful with articles with conjectural titles.
  • Refer to WP:DASH for the use of hyphens and dashes.
    • Hyphenate numbers from twenty-one through ninety-nine
  • Regarding numbers:
    • Whole numbers between one and ninety-nine (inclusive) should be spelled out in article prose (e.g. "fifty-four," not "54"; "fifty-forth," not "54th"). Numerals can be used for other numbers (e.g. "one-half," "3.14," "127," "five thousand," "582,797,754").
    • When mentioning multiple BBY/ABY years, always provide the BBY/ABY suffix as standard (e.g. "19 BBY and 18 BBY," not "19 and 18 BBY.")
  • Captions that are full sentences get a period, whereas incomplete sentences do not. An example: "The Dauntless captured a CR90 corvette." / "The Dauntless captures a CR90 corvette." / "The Dauntless capturing a CR90 corvette" The latter does not receive a period as it is not a full sentence.
  • Be consistent throughout an article whether or not to use the determiner "the" with a singular noun (e.g. use either "killed the Jedi Master Qui-Gon Jinn" or "killed Jedi Master Qui-Gon Jinn"; "approached the stormtrooper TK-421" or "approached stormtrooper TK-421").
  • Include the following accompanying information when mentioning a source in which the article subject was first released, named, and/or pictured in the "Behind the scenes" section:
  • Due to their relative unimportance and a lack of consensus, there are several details in status articles that are optional and largely dependent on the nominator(s) preferences. The following lists some of them:


Lott Dodd thumb

I object! There is no referencing!

Article indexing
  • Ensure all abridged and unabridged audiobook adaptations of novels are investigated and added to the Appearances section as necessary.
  • Ensure research for all mentions of the article subject across Star Wars media is done. Special:WhatLinksHere is a useful tool to see if the nominated article is linked in Wookieepedia articles on media that are not listed in the Sources/Appearances sections.
  • Ensure that the cited source(s) support the relevant information. If, for example, a character's rank is not provided in the cited source, it is necessary to cite an alternative source that provides said information. However, full names can be provided in articles without necessitating a separate reference to back up the full name.
  • Wookieepedia has various citation templates available for more standardized and convenient referencing. In particular, dating reference notes are typically required to cite dates in an article.
  • When there is a selection of sources that could be used to cite something, more recent/more accessible sources are preferred. The number of different citations should also be minimized.