WP:GAN
This page is for Good article nominations. A Good article is an article that adheres to certain quality standards but cannot reach Featured status due to its limited content. In turn, a Good article features more detail than a Comprehensive article. On this page, users can nominate articles that they believe are ready to be reviewed to achieve Good status.
The article-nomination process is not a way to showcase your favorite articles, but rather articles that are of high quality. Articles placed on this page will be extensively reviewed by experienced editors, including the presiding AgriCorps review panel. The nomination process will require the article nominator to respond to objections and improve the article until the requisite number of users supports the nomination.
In undertaking a nomination on this page, the nominator is taking responsibility for their nominated article. This means they need to thoroughly read the following instructions, implement them into their nominated article, and respond to given objections. Nominators are encouraged to ask more experienced editors for guidance and assistance, but self-sufficiency is a requirement of the article-nomination process. It is not inherently the job of reviewers to rewrite elements of an article, but rather to guide nominators to be able to fix issues themselves.
Your nomination is your responsibility. Nominations that severely neglect the following rules or otherwise fall idle after ten days will be subject to immediate removal.
A Good article must…
- …be well-written and comprehensively detailed.
- …be unbiased, with a neutral point of view.
- …have comprehensive Appearances and Sources lists.
- …be fully referenced, including all quotes and images. See Wookieepedia:Sourcing for more information.
- …follow the Manual of Style, Layout Guide, and all other policies on Wookieepedia.
- …be stable during and following the review process. This means the article does not change significantly from day to day with new content and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars. This does not apply to vandalism or other administrative edits, such as page protection.
- …not be tagged with any sort of improvement tags (i.e. more sources, expand, etc).
- …have no redlinks.
- …provide at least one quote on the article if available. A leading quote at the beginning of the article is preferred but not required if no quotes are available. Although quotes may be placed in the body of the article, a maximum of one quote is allowed at the beginning of each section or subsection.
- …include a "Behind the scenes" section for in-universe articles.
- …include a reasonable number of images of the highest quality to illustrate the article, as source availability permits.
- …provide an introduction that gives a good summary of the topic, along with an article body that is at least 165 words long, not counting the "Behind the scenes" section (not including captions, quotes, headers, etc). Articles that fail to do so should be nominated for Comprehensive status. For clarification, please refer to this flowchart.
- …be at least 250 words long and must not exceed 1000 words. This word total counts the introduction, the article body, and "Behind the scenes" material, but not captions, quotes, headers, etc. For clarification, please refer to this flowchart.
- …not be deliberately shortened if it approaches the 1000-word limit.
- …be properly titled in accordance with Wookieepedia's treatment of Canon and Legends articles; i.e., no nomination may have "/Canon" in the title.
How to nominate:
- Select an article you feel is worthy of Good status. Nominated articles must meet all fifteen requirements stated above.
- Add {{GAnom}} at the top of the article you are nominating, and save the page. Please note that if the article you are nominating has been nominated for Good article status previously, you will need to specify the number of the nomination as a parameter (e.g. {{GAnom|second}}).
- Open the redlink in a new tab to create the nomination page, modifying the preloaded instructions as necessary.
- Copy the code provided to the bottom of this page.
- Purge the article to update the template.
- Other users will object to the nomination with issues and suggested improvements (errors, style, organization, images, notability, sources, etc).
- The nominator should then adjust the article until the objections are satisfied. The objector is responsible for striking their objection when it has been addressed, not the nominator. Additionally, reviewers will often copy-edit the article themselves as desired to fix any issues.
- Following their review, other users will vote to support the nomination. Users may not vote on their own nomination.
- Each user (except for members of the AgriCorps) shall be limited to six active Good article nominations at any given time. Any additional nominations will be subject to immediate removal.
- Users must successfully complete one Good article nomination before they can have two nominations active on the GAN page at one time. Likewise, users must complete two successful GA nominations before they can have three, and so on.
How to review:
- To review an article, users should read the article completely, keeping a sharp eye out for mistakes.
- The article should be reviewed with the criteria listed above, and any issues should be placed under the Object section of the article's nomination page. Objections should be clearly explained, and detail how the article can be improved.
- Objections should then be addressed by the nominator. Once the objector is satisfied, they should strike their objection. The nominator should not strike reviewers' objections for them.
- Once a reviewer is satisfied with the article, they can vote to support it. Please note that in order to support a nomination, you must have 50 mainspace edits.
Result:
- If a nomination has been active for over two days and has no active objections, it may pass with either a total of four votes coming from AgriCorps or Inquisitorius members—three of which must be AgriCorps votes—or a total of five votes, with at least three votes coming from AgriCorps or Inquisitorius members—two of which must be AgriCorps votes.
- Once the nomination is successful, the article will be considered a "Good article." As such, an AgriCorps member will archive the nomination using JocastaBot in Wookieepedia's Discord server and place the article on the Good articles page. Only members of the AgriCorps are allowed to perform these archiving tasks.
Contents
- 1 Good article nominations
- 1.1 Unidentified Chadra-Fan bounty hunter
- 1.2 Tripion
- 1.3 Mee
- 1.4 Smoking PSA
- 1.5 Ko Solok
- 1.6 D'ian
- 1.7 Foreign Affairs scandal
- 1.8 Galdos Stouff
- 1.9 Champion (Bothan Assault Cruiser)
- 1.10 Unidentified Wookiee worker 2
- 1.11 Aiwha-3 Squad
- 1.12 Azzameen cargo fields
- 1.13 Bree Starlighter
- 1.14 Lomrokk
- 1.15 All Stars Burn as One
- 1.16 Eckerd
- 1.17 Salarr
- 1.18 Unidentified B1 battle droid (gundark nest)
- 1.19 Lianorm Raceway
- 1.20 Abaron
- 1.21 Paarin Minor
- 1.22 Duinuogwuin–Gotal conflict
- 1.23 T'less
- 1.24 Tatooine Travel Advertisement
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 Wookieepedia:Good articles.
A Good article is an article that adheres to quality standards, but cannot reach FA status due to its limited content.
- Good article history
- Good article queue
- Good article nominations history
- Good article checklist
- Good article nomination rules
An article must…
- …be well-written and detailed.
- …be unbiased, non-point of view.
- …be sourced with all available sources and appearances.
- …follow the Manual of Style, Layout Guide, and all other policies on Wookieepedia.
- …following the review process, be stable, i.e., 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.
- …not be tagged with any sort of improvement tags (i.e. more sources, expand, etc).
- …have a proper lead that gives a good summary of the topic if the length of the article supports it. This may not be appropriate on articles with limited content.
- …have no more than 1 redlink for articles less than 500 words, no more than 3 redlinks for articles 500 words or more, and no redlinks in the introduction, infobox, or any templates.
- …have comprehensive detail with all information covered from all sources and appearances.
- …be completely referenced for all available material and sources. See Wookieepedia:Sourcing for more information.
- …have all quotes and images sourced.
- …provide at least one quote on the article if available. A leading quote at the beginning of the article would be preferred, though not required if no quotes are available. Although quotes may be placed in the body of the article, a maximum of one quote is allowed at the beginning of each section.
- …ideally include a "Personality and traits" section on all character articles if information is available.
- …ideally include a "Powers and abilities" section for Force-sensitive characters and a "Skills and abilities" section for non–Force-sensitive characters, where said powers and/or abilities are stipulated.
- …include a "Behind the scenes" section for in-universe articles.
- …include a reasonable number of images of sufficient quality to illustrate the article, if said images are available.
- …counting the introduction and "Behind the scenes" material, be at least 250 words long (not including captions, quotes, or headers, etc). Alternatively, a good article cannot exceed 1000 words. Articles that do so should be nominated for Featured status.
How to nominate:
- First, find an article you find is worthy of good status. Nominated articles must meet all seventeen requirements stated above.
- You may find it useful to read the Official Rookie's Guide to Mastering GAs before nominating an article.
- Add {{GAnom}} at the top of the article you are nominating and save the page. NOTE: If the article you are nominating has been nominated for GA one or more times previously, you will need to specify a new subpage name as a parameter in the template (e.g. {{GAnom|Lorum ipsum (second nomination)}}).
- Open the redlink (in a new tab or window, if possible) and fill out the form according to the instructions provided.
- Copy the code provided to the bottom of this page.
- Purge the article to update the template.
- Per AgriCorps consensus, nominators are restricted to four nominations on the GAN page at any one time. Once one nomination is removed from the page as either successful or unsuccessful, another can be added.
How to vote:
- Before doing anything, be sure to read the article completely, keeping a sharp eye out for mistakes.
- Afterward, compare the article to the criteria listed above, and then either support or object the article's nomination.
- If you object, please supply concrete reasons for doing so, and how it can be improved.
- As stated above, any objections will be looked upon by the nominator, supporters, and anyone willing to improve the article, and action will be taken to please the objectors. Do not strike other users' objections; it is up to the objector to review the changes and strike if they are satisfied.
- Once a nomination has a total of five votes, with at least three votes coming from AgriCorps or Inquisitorius members—two of which must be AgriCorps votes—after at least a week since it was nominated (beginning the day of its nomination) and no objections (or the objections have been stricken or overridden), the article will be considered a "Good article" and tagged with the {{Eras|good}} template. The talk page will also be tagged with the {{GA}} template. Alternatively, if a nomination receives a total of five AgriCorps/Inquisitorius votes—three of which must be AgriCorps votes—with no outstanding objections before one week has passed, the nomination will be considered successful.
- The article is placed on the Good article list.
Good article nominations
To nominate an article for Good article status, place the {{GAnom}} template on the top of the article and then follow the instructions above. Nominated articles must meet all seventeen requirements stated above. If an article has a total of five votes, with at least three votes coming from AgriCorps or Inquisitorius members—two of which must be an AgriCorps vote—after at least a week since it was nominated (beginning the day of its nomination) and no objections (or the objections have been stricken or overridden), the article will be considered a "Good article" and tagged with the {{Eras|good}} template. The talk page will also be tagged with the {{GA}} template. For complete instructions on archiving nominations please see here.
View recent changes for this page and its subpages
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a good article nomination that was successful. Please do not modify it.[[Category:Wookieepedia Good article nomination pages archive/2014|]]
Unidentified Chadra-Fan bounty hunter
- Nominated by: Clonehunter(Report your W.M.D.) 15:37, January 21, 2014 (UTC)
- Nomination comments: More minor Clone Wars Adventures characters, though no Outcasts this time.
(5 ACs/1 User/6 Total)
Support
- Assuming other objections handled satisfactorily. - Sir Cavalier of One(Squadron channel) 09:32, February 27, 2014 (UTC)
- Winterz (talk) 13:08, February 27, 2014 (UTC)
- Exiled Jedi (Greetings) 05:41, March 3, 2014 (UTC)
- JangFett (Talk) 02:39, March 10, 2014 (UTC)
- Ayrehead02 (talk) 14:06, March 14, 2014 (UTC)
- Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 20:38, April 22, 2014 (UTC)
Object
Fred strikes
I'd rearrange the first sentence of the intro to avoid the comma (which actually doesn't need to be there anyway).- Good point.
Please don't link parts of words. Instead of "some[[Time/Legends|time]]," it should be "[[Time/Legends|sometime]]."- Whoops, sorry. Fixed.
Please reword as to not identify Sing as a Jedi. Calling her a "Jedi bounty hunter" means she is a member of the Jedi Order. I think you mean to say that she was a former Jedi, or that she hunts Jedi. MasterFred(Whatever) 18:52, February 4, 2014 (UTC)- Reworded, though I should point out that throughout the comic the bounty Urdruua posted was for a Jedi. Sing, at the end of the comic, excludes herself as a Jedi ("Such a waste. Now I have to go to find real Jedi to kill."). So I've also tried to make that distinction a bit more clear in the article (So the bounty wasn't for "Former Jedi turned Bounty Hunter"). --Clonehunter(Report your W.M.D.) 19:00, February 4, 2014 (UTC)
Winterz strikes
Is Urdruua ever referred to as "Urdruua the Hutt"?- Mmm, I don't remember anymore. I'll have to double check, but I'll change it for now.
- According TCSWE he is Urdruua the Hutt. --Clonehunter(Report your W.M.D.) 17:25, February 16, 2014 (UTC)
- Mmm, I don't remember anymore. I'll have to double check, but I'll change it for now.
You could probably get a synonym for "hired" in the intro's first sentence, instead of recurring to repetition.- Changed the second use instead, if that's alright.
- Regarding your post in the talk page, I suggest you put that request in this page, far more effective and guaranteed to get a reply. ;) Winterz (talk) 00:55, February 16, 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I had no idea that existed! Thanks, mate! Hopefully it'll turn up some goods. --Clonehunter(Report your W.M.D.) 17:15, February 16, 2014 (UTC)
Exiled Jedi
The intro calls the Nikto bounty hunters, while the body refers to them as mercenaries. Which is correct?- By my understanding of the material, bounty hunters. I seem to use Bounty Hunter and Mercenary interchangeably, which probably isn't correct. Though as far as Star Wars goes both seem to be treated as hired guns and nothing else. *shrug* Fixed the discrepancies. Though, however, it could very well be a team of mercs, but seeing that the whole thing sounded like a posted bounty, I think it's bounty hunters. Note, that a Duros refers to the Chadra-Fan and the Nikto being a 'wave,' though this is a little odd since no her 'waves' of enemies arrive, minus a cloud of smart mines and the Duros.
"The Chadra-Fan had believed that it would be well off against a Jedi as it had accepted the job to kill one." This seems like speculation to me. Perhaps the Chadra-Fan thought that there would be enough people to help that they could overwhelm a Jedi. The way it is currently worded makes it sound like the Chadra-Fan thought that he/she would be able to handle a Jedi alone.- Yah, that does make sense... Tried to reword it.
From the picture it looks like the Chadra-Fan had pink-colored skin.- Whoops, forgot to add that in the P&T... Fixed.
Could you mention that the bounty hunter's gender was not identified in the BTS?--Exiled Jedi (Greetings) 03:18, February 23, 2014 (UTC)- Done Clonehunter(Report your W.M.D.) 17:38, February 27, 2014 (UTC)
Jangerton
I don't own this comic at the moment, but does it specifically source to 22 BBY? I do have another comic from the 8th volume and it did not say 22 BBY. Instead, I had to guess and assume based on the clothing of Obi-Wan. If it is then please take a look at my next objection:- Old Scores is captioned on the first panel as three months after the Battle of Geonosis. Though no, it does not explicitly say 22 BBY. Granted, I don't know what 'month' Geo took place in.
Do the events take place around or during 22 BBY? You mention the former in the intro, while the latter in the bio.- If 22 BBY, then during. My mistake on the first part. Fixed. --Clonehunter(Report your W.M.D.) 03:45, March 7, 2014 (UTC)
- More to come after. JangFett (Talk) 23:59, March 6, 2014 (UTC)
Toprawa
I find the double use of the word "operated/operating" in the first two sentences of the Biography to be redundant. Please choose another variation for one of them.- Fixed it a bit
I think this "chamber" needs a bit of context. The chamber within his palace, for example? Or his stronghold? "planned to gas Sing in his own chamber"- Throne room is more befitting, probably.
Additionally, is this "throne room" a different room from the aforementioned "chamber"? If they're the same room, please use one word to avoid confusion: "a bomb she had planted in his throne room."- Ah... Throne room is the better term.
"The rogue"? That's kind of a weird way of referring to her. Can we find something more specific and befitting of her character? "and the others were defeated by the rogue."Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 20:48, March 11, 2014 (UTC)- I wouldn't say it is weird, no. She would be a 'rogue Jedi,' wouldn't she be? I added the word Jedi after rogue.
- I still don't think it's accurate to call her a rogue Jedi. That suggests she's still operating as a Jedi in some form, just outside the bounds of the formal restraints of the Jedi Order. But that's not the case. She leaves her Jedi life behind and turns wholly toward a career as a bounty hunter. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 20:03, March 20, 2014 (UTC)
- Changed to "former Jedi". Clone Commander Lee Talk 20:21, April 4, 2014 (UTC)
- I still don't think it's accurate to call her a rogue Jedi. That suggests she's still operating as a Jedi in some form, just outside the bounds of the formal restraints of the Jedi Order. But that's not the case. She leaves her Jedi life behind and turns wholly toward a career as a bounty hunter. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 20:03, March 20, 2014 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say it is weird, no. She would be a 'rogue Jedi,' wouldn't she be? I added the word Jedi after rogue.
I would also like to confirm that this comic story can be used as a source for the date provided in the article.Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 22:53, March 11, 2014 (UTC)- Ok. --Clonehunter(Report your W.M.D.) 20:42, March 19, 2014 (UTC)
- No, that was me asking you to confirm this. As in, please check this story to see whether it can be used as a source for "the year 22 BBY, three months after the breakout of the Clone Wars." If it says anything, I'm guessing it states that the story is set three months ABG, but that still does not serve as an exact source for the 22 BBY date. That likely needs an additional reference. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 20:03, March 20, 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, okay. Added a Chrono source then for the year, as the comic simply states 3 Months After BoG. --Clonehunter(Report your W.M.D.) 23:10, March 23, 2014 (UTC)
- Your addition doesn't work for two reasons. Firstly, New Essential Chronology does not state that this character "operated in the year 22 BBY." It says nothing about this character, in fact, so sourcing any direct action of this character to NEC is false sourcing. Secondly, NEC explicitly states that three months after the battle corresponds to anywhere between 21.77 BBY and 21.75 BBY, not 22 BBY, because the battle took place at the very end of 22 BBY. Your best recourse here is to leave a reference note for only the phrase "in the year 21 BBY" (note the date change) explaining that the comic establishes that its story takes place three months ABG, which corresponds to 21 BBY, according to NEC. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 19:02, March 24, 2014 (UTC)
- Added a reference. Clone Commander Lee Talk 20:21, April 4, 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you, Lee, for adding the reference, but this entire objection is still not satisfied. Clonehunter, if you're still monitoring this nomination, please read the objection again carefully and address it. This is a good lesson for you in paying attention to detail. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 19:47, April 11, 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry about all this. I think something is still amiss, but I started with replacing the note so that the NEC only addresses the line "in the year 21 BBY". I'm still not sure if that's right, although the "operated" part is now back to being sourced to the comic. --Clonehunter(Report your W.M.D.) 18:00, April 15, 2014 (UTC)
- Mmm, maybe that is it. Moving the references around so they read properly? --Clonehunter(Report your W.M.D.) 15:19, April 17, 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry about all this. I think something is still amiss, but I started with replacing the note so that the NEC only addresses the line "in the year 21 BBY". I'm still not sure if that's right, although the "operated" part is now back to being sourced to the comic. --Clonehunter(Report your W.M.D.) 18:00, April 15, 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you, Lee, for adding the reference, but this entire objection is still not satisfied. Clonehunter, if you're still monitoring this nomination, please read the objection again carefully and address it. This is a good lesson for you in paying attention to detail. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 19:47, April 11, 2014 (UTC)
- Added a reference. Clone Commander Lee Talk 20:21, April 4, 2014 (UTC)
- Your addition doesn't work for two reasons. Firstly, New Essential Chronology does not state that this character "operated in the year 22 BBY." It says nothing about this character, in fact, so sourcing any direct action of this character to NEC is false sourcing. Secondly, NEC explicitly states that three months after the battle corresponds to anywhere between 21.77 BBY and 21.75 BBY, not 22 BBY, because the battle took place at the very end of 22 BBY. Your best recourse here is to leave a reference note for only the phrase "in the year 21 BBY" (note the date change) explaining that the comic establishes that its story takes place three months ABG, which corresponds to 21 BBY, according to NEC. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 19:02, March 24, 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, okay. Added a Chrono source then for the year, as the comic simply states 3 Months After BoG. --Clonehunter(Report your W.M.D.) 23:10, March 23, 2014 (UTC)
- No, that was me asking you to confirm this. As in, please check this story to see whether it can be used as a source for "the year 22 BBY, three months after the breakout of the Clone Wars." If it says anything, I'm guessing it states that the story is set three months ABG, but that still does not serve as an exact source for the 22 BBY date. That likely needs an additional reference. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 20:03, March 20, 2014 (UTC)
- Ok. --Clonehunter(Report your W.M.D.) 20:42, March 19, 2014 (UTC)
Comments
Approved as a Good article by AgriCorps 20:38, April 22, 2014 (UTC)
- I took the liberty of addressing the objections as Clonehunter seems to be inactive. Clone Commander Lee Talk 20:21, April 4, 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, sorry about that. I thought I got to this. I should've paid more attention to the NEC, either way. Also, shouldn't that note read '21 BBY', as the NEC places three months later as 21 BBY. The note seems to contradict the article. Maybe I'm just not reading it right, but I'll change it. If I'm wrong, well, I'm wrong. :P--Clonehunter(Report your W.M.D.) 14:51, April 8, 2014 (UTC)
- Not, the Battle of Geonosis happened at the very end of 22 BBY. It's just like the battle happened in December and the bounty hunter stuff three months afterward (March). Clone Commander Lee Talk 20:01, April 8, 2014 (UTC)
- Ooh, okay. I see. I was wrong then. Sorry and thanks. --Clonehunter(Report your W.M.D.) 20:44, April 8, 2014 (UTC)
- Not, the Battle of Geonosis happened at the very end of 22 BBY. It's just like the battle happened in December and the bounty hunter stuff three months afterward (March). Clone Commander Lee Talk 20:01, April 8, 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, sorry about that. I thought I got to this. I should've paid more attention to the NEC, either way. Also, shouldn't that note read '21 BBY', as the NEC places three months later as 21 BBY. The note seems to contradict the article. Maybe I'm just not reading it right, but I'll change it. If I'm wrong, well, I'm wrong. :P--Clonehunter(Report your W.M.D.) 14:51, April 8, 2014 (UTC)
[[Category:Archived nominations by User:Clonehunter|]]
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a good article nomination that was successful. Please do not modify it.
Tripion
- Nominated by: Trip391 (talk) 02:52, February 20, 2014 (UTC)
- Nomination comments: For the Novels and Creatures Barn-Burner
(4 ACs/2 Users/6 Total)
Support
- Clone Commander Lee Talk 11:58, March 9, 2014 (UTC)
- JangFett (Talk) 17:05, March 17, 2014 (UTC)
- Cade Calrayn 22:59, April 6, 2014 (UTC)
- Thunderforge (talk) 04:31, April 11, 2014 (UTC)
- Sir Cavalier of One(Squadron channel) 19:40, April 16, 2014 (UTC)
- Exiled Jedi (Greetings) 18:57, April 20, 2014 (UTC)
Object
Could you give context for Boba Fett and Jabba the Hutt?Clone Commander Lee Talk 21:10, March 6, 2014 (UTC)Are Nnaksta and Sitnalta pupils? Could you give context?- Reworded it a bit
You need a "1st appearance" template.- Done
Maybe mention their subspecies in the intro.- That should be all. Clone Commander Lee Talk 12:55, March 7, 2014 (UTC)
Cav
Seeing as how the two Tripion images are radically different, I think a little more physical description is needed.- The source material only mentions those three traits from the infobox, so I think they may be traits typical for the many different subspecies.
The history section quote - you could probably shift this to the header quote. It doesn't look right having a quote in the body, but not at the head.- Sir Cavalier of One(Squadron channel) 20:43, March 8, 2014 (UTC)- Done
Dave Filoni
"Tripions had three venomous stinger-tipped tails they used during combat." Didn't you already mention this in the first sentence of the intro? It seems like redundant information to mention the three stingers again. JangFett (Talk) 00:11, March 11, 2014 (UTC)- It's mentioned in the intro as it is one of the defining characteristics of a tripion, and is also important to expand on it in the biology and appearance and behavior sections, since having three venomous stinger-tipped tails is a description of a tripion's appearance, as well as how it hunts/defends itself. I have, however reworded it a bit to make it less redundant. Trip391 (talk) 09:38, March 11, 2014 (UTC)
Be sure to mention the release dates or years for the Galaxy Guidesand could you give context for the Alliance Intelligence Reports? JangFett (Talk) 14:30, March 13, 2014 (UTC)- Added release years, but there were conflicting sources for the exact release dates. Mentioned that AIR was a SWRPG supplement. Trip391 (talk) 22:38, March 13, 2014 (UTC)
Cadeth
I'm fairly sure that the first edition of the Galaxy Guide doesn't need the "First Edition" part, as it was just released as "Galaxy Guide 2: Yavin and Bespin."- The wording between the two editions was slightly different
Also, the proper way of formatting stuff like that is Galaxy Guide 2: Yavin and Bespin and Galaxy Guide 2: Yavin and Bespin, Second Edition.- Thanks for fixing
It would seem to me that Alliance Intelligence Reports needs a {{1stp}}; am I right?- Added
Can you beef up the intro? Maybe a sentence about their diet.- Added
Are they confirmed to be native to either Yavin 13 or Gall? If not explicitly confirmed, they need to be removed from the homeworld field, and the category removed as well.- On closer inspection the Galaxy Guides (for Yavin 13) do only say "ideally suited for" while the previous species is referred to as "one of the natural hazards", so I'll remove 13. With Gall they're referred to as "Gallian(on) tripions", but the EGtPaM does only say they lurked in the shadows, not native, so I'll remove that too.
You should mention that they are crustaceans in the biology section, not the behavior.- Changed
I think it'd also be good to mention the number of legs and pincers, unless those are variable.- They vary by subspecies
- Hmmm. Then I think it'd be good to give the number of legs & pincers as an example for one of the subspecies.
- Stated the number of legs and pincers of the subspecies in the more detailed image (tripion attacking Twilight Class) from Alliance Intelligence Reports
- Hmmm. Then I think it'd be good to give the number of legs & pincers as an example for one of the subspecies.
- They vary by subspecies
"the prey was larger" - than the tripion? Also, that sentence switches between plural and singular in reference to the tripion ("They" vs. "its"). Please pick one.- Changed to "the prey", but used "larger than the attacking tripion" in reference to that
Context for Tatooine.- Not bad. Just some formatting and some exclusive information. Cade Calrayn 18:07, March 17, 2014 (UTC)
Exiled Jedi
Is crustaceous used by one of the original sources? If it is not, I believe you should change it to crustacean, because I don't think crustaceous is a real word.- It's classified as a "desert crustacean", and crustaceous is real, I don't know why it's being underlined red as a misspelling
There seems to be some inconsistency about the creature's diet. It is mentioned that the creatures eat small lizards and insects, but then you mention prey that is larger than the tripion.- Reworded it as the text simply says "only if the prey is large", but not specifically what exactly the large prey was
Can 22 BBY be sourced to Boba Fett: Hunted?- The Essential Readers Companion dates it as 22 BBY, should I source 22 BBY to that instead, or keep that section sourced to Hunted?
- Yes, please use The Essential Reader's Companion.--Exiled Jedi (Greetings) 02:32, April 7, 2014 (UTC)
- The Essential Readers Companion dates it as 22 BBY, should I source 22 BBY to that instead, or keep that section sourced to Hunted?
The history section seems like it should be a Tripions in the galaxy section. The history section would be more appropriate for talking about where the species lived by what date and other information about the history of the species in general. Specific incidents belong in the "Tripions in the galaxy" section.--Exiled Jedi (Greetings) 19:03, March 22, 2014 (UTC)In the biology and appearance section and infobox you seem to indicate that all tripion have three tails, then mention a subspecies with only one.- That's how the Galaxy Guides and Alliance Intelligence Report refer to them (hence the name I guess), but the image from the Essential Guide to Planets and Moons shows a tripion from Gall with only one tail, and Boba Fett: Hunted describes the species from Gall only having one tail as well. I added a mention of this to the bts.
Could you mention that the subspecies in the infobox had two antennae?--Exiled Jedi (Greetings) 06:32, April 9, 2014 (UTC)
Comments
Approved as a Good article by AgriCorps 18:57, April 20, 2014 (UTC)
- The two pictures are different, but are both from the sources, and makes sense considering there are over 600 different subspecies. Trip391 (talk) 02:53, February 20, 2014 (UTC)
- Hey Trip, just fwi, please be sure to put all letters outside pipelinks within the two closing double brackets. As an example: [[Planet/Legends|world]]s needs to be [[Planet/Legends|worlds]]. JangFett (Talk) 00:11, March 11, 2014 (UTC)
- Trip, since you're using the non/semi sentient layout, shouldn't you mention either one somewhere in the article, assuming a source book mentioned either one? JangFett (Talk) 17:08, March 17, 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a good article nomination that was successful. Please do not modify it.
Mee
- Nominated by: Riffsyphon1024 08:11, February 27, 2014 (UTC)
- Nomination comments: Next scalefish in the musical scale series, part of the Creatures Barn-Barner.
(4 ACs/2 Users/6 Total)
Support
- JorrelFraajic 10:54, March 30, 2014 (UTC)
- Cade Calrayn 14:16, April 25, 2014 (UTC)
- Please have a look at my final comment. Clone Commander Lee Talk 10:52, May 6, 2014 (UTC)
- Sir Cavalier of One(Squadron channel) 12:08, May 7, 2014 (UTC)
- Apologies for the delay. 1358 (Talk) 19:08, May 7, 2014 (UTC)
- Nice job handling the objections. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 19:20, May 13, 2014 (UTC)
Object
Cav
Borrowing from my colleague Tope's oft-mentioned objection - the dates (32 BBY, 20 BBY) cannot be sourced directly to the either TPM or Republic 69 can they? You will have to find an alternate method of sourcing the dates, possibly the NEC or ERC.- Sir Cavalier of One(Squadron channel) 09:20, March 10, 2014 (UTC)- I can source Episode I from the Essential Reader's Companion. In the case of Republic 69, the introduction page says "the events of this series take place approximately six months before the events of Revenge of the Sith. Does that then make the timeframe c. 19.7 BBY? I checked the ERC for Republic, but that does not cover comic series. I checked the Dark Horse Comics Companion, but that does not specify the timeframe of that particular story arc. I do not have access to the New Essential Chronology, so I request someone check that if they can. -- Riffsyphon1024 07:25, March 24, 2014 (UTC)
- For the time being, I am citing the comic issue itself and using "C. 20 BBY" with the reference line "The events of Dreadnaughts of Rendili are given at the beginning of the issue as having occurred approximately six months before the events of Revenge of the Sith". I hope that is fair. -- Riffsyphon1024 09:01, March 27, 2014 (UTC)
- Objections to this? -- Riffsyphon1024 09:20, April 13, 2014 (UTC)
- If I may: That the events of ROTS are in 19 BBY can not be sourced to the film. Therefore the reference has to be changed. Clone Commander Lee Talk 12:44, April 13, 2014 (UTC)
- As Lee says, the ref tag should note the source of ROTS's dating to 19 BBY. - Sir Cavalier of One(Squadron channel) 19:43, April 16, 2014 (UTC)
- If someone could please double check New Essential Chronology, I would use that as the source. Thank you. -- Riffsyphon1024 02:31, April 23, 2014 (UTC)
- Checked, you can use it. Clone Commander Lee Talk 09:06, April 23, 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. It's been added. -- Riffsyphon1024 11:30, April 23, 2014 (UTC)
- Checked, you can use it. Clone Commander Lee Talk 09:06, April 23, 2014 (UTC)
- If someone could please double check New Essential Chronology, I would use that as the source. Thank you. -- Riffsyphon1024 02:31, April 23, 2014 (UTC)
- As Lee says, the ref tag should note the source of ROTS's dating to 19 BBY. - Sir Cavalier of One(Squadron channel) 19:43, April 16, 2014 (UTC)
- If I may: That the events of ROTS are in 19 BBY can not be sourced to the film. Therefore the reference has to be changed. Clone Commander Lee Talk 12:44, April 13, 2014 (UTC)
- Objections to this? -- Riffsyphon1024 09:20, April 13, 2014 (UTC)
- For the time being, I am citing the comic issue itself and using "C. 20 BBY" with the reference line "The events of Dreadnaughts of Rendili are given at the beginning of the issue as having occurred approximately six months before the events of Revenge of the Sith". I hope that is fair. -- Riffsyphon1024 09:01, March 27, 2014 (UTC)
- I can source Episode I from the Essential Reader's Companion. In the case of Republic 69, the introduction page says "the events of this series take place approximately six months before the events of Revenge of the Sith. Does that then make the timeframe c. 19.7 BBY? I checked the ERC for Republic, but that does not cover comic series. I checked the Dark Horse Comics Companion, but that does not specify the timeframe of that particular story arc. I do not have access to the New Essential Chronology, so I request someone check that if they can. -- Riffsyphon1024 07:25, March 24, 2014 (UTC)
Cadeth
Please provide screenshots or other verification of your communication with Whitlatch. You can doctor it to remove personal information, but visible proof is needed.- Currently waiting for Whitlatch to give approval to LelalMekha. He has the screenshot. -- Riffsyphon1024 10:35, March 26, 2014 (UTC)
- Screenshot. -- Riffsyphon1024 11:22, April 23, 2014 (UTC)
- Currently waiting for Whitlatch to give approval to LelalMekha. He has the screenshot. -- Riffsyphon1024 10:35, March 26, 2014 (UTC)
References must follow commas and other punctuation.- Fixed. -- Riffsyphon1024 11:10, March 26, 2014 (UTC)
There's no need to put the second name in the infobox. It's not done for other articles with multiple names, as that could get out of hand really easily.- Removed. -- Riffsyphon1024 11:10, March 26, 2014 (UTC)
Please be sure to keep singular and plural consistent—for example: "Mee were rotund yet flat, with black and yellow scales, a wide mouth, and a set of poisonous spines which protruded from its midsection.- I see this has been corrected, though I'm feeling singular tense might work the best for the intro paragraph. Agree? -- Riffsyphon1024 11:10, March 26, 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, that's fine. Just keep your choice consistent.
- I see this has been corrected, though I'm feeling singular tense might work the best for the intro paragraph. Agree? -- Riffsyphon1024 11:10, March 26, 2014 (UTC)
Context on Ohma-D'un and Aquilaris in the intro and the Biology section.- Completed. -- Riffsyphon1024 08:56, March 27, 2014 (UTC)
Please mention the daggert name in the body of the article. It's only in the intro and BTS.- Done. -- Riffsyphon1024 08:56, March 27, 2014 (UTC)
Please give the context for Naboo in the Biology section where it's first mentioned, not in the History.- Should be fixed now. -- Riffsyphon1024 08:56, March 27, 2014 (UTC)
Context on Gungan.- Context given in Behavior. -- Riffsyphon1024 08:56, March 27, 2014 (UTC)
I think there is an article for that gelatinous substance, no? Not sure what it is though...- Entry occurs at "portal zones" of the hydrostatic bubbles. -- Riffsyphon1024 11:10, March 26, 2014 (UTC)
You've got a sourcing error in the history section. You're currently sourcing the mee's appearance in the lake to the ERC.- That citation is for 32 BBY, not the lake. -- Riffsyphon1024 11:10, March 26, 2014 (UTC)
- Firstly, I cut the Invasion stuff, as it's not particularly relevant. Secondly, yes, but you need a source for the first part of that sentence. It should be "Some mee were present in Lake Paonga[X] in 32 BBY[9] ..." The part about the mee in the lake would then be sourced to reference X, not the ERC.
- I cited Inside the Worlds of Star Wars Episode I as it identifies that lake as Lake Paonga. -- Riffsyphon1024 08:56, March 27, 2014 (UTC)
- Firstly, I cut the Invasion stuff, as it's not particularly relevant. Secondly, yes, but you need a source for the first part of that sentence. It should be "Some mee were present in Lake Paonga[X] in 32 BBY[9] ..." The part about the mee in the lake would then be sourced to reference X, not the ERC.
- That citation is for 32 BBY, not the lake. -- Riffsyphon1024 11:10, March 26, 2014 (UTC)
Please try to break up the Titavian sentence.- Would a semicolon work in this case? -- Riffsyphon1024 11:10, March 26, 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, "Titavian IV; ..." would be fine.
- Done. -- Riffsyphon1024 08:56, March 27, 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, "Titavian IV; ..." would be fine.
- Would a semicolon work in this case? -- Riffsyphon1024 11:10, March 26, 2014 (UTC)
Context on the Clone Wars.- Please clarify what needs to be illustrated. -- Riffsyphon1024 11:10, March 26, 2014 (UTC)
- Something simple like "the galactic conflict known as the Clone Wars that lasted from 22 BBY to 19 BBY," explaining both what the Clone Wars are and when they happened. Cade Calrayn 16:21, March 26, 2014 (UTC)
- Added. -- Riffsyphon1024 08:56, March 27, 2014 (UTC)
- Something simple like "the galactic conflict known as the Clone Wars that lasted from 22 BBY to 19 BBY," explaining both what the Clone Wars are and when they happened. Cade Calrayn 16:21, March 26, 2014 (UTC)
- Please clarify what needs to be illustrated. -- Riffsyphon1024 11:10, March 26, 2014 (UTC)
Please identify in the BTS which source first named them as daggerts, and give that one a {{1stID}} too.- This is done. -- Riffsyphon1024 11:10, March 26, 2014 (UTC)
- There were a lot of missing links, and duplicate links. For duplicate links, there's a tool in the Gadgets section of Preferences that will highlight these. Cade Calrayn 04:15, March 26, 2014 (UTC)
- Looked into this and selected that tool but so far I don't seem to be able to identify duplicate links with it. -- Riffsyphon1024 09:20, March 30, 2014 (UTC)
- It does not appear to be working (still, as I ran into the issue myself). I ran through each link manually for you, though, so they should all be fixed now. JorrelFraajic 10:54, March 30, 2014 (UTC)
- Appreciated, Jorrel. -- Riffsyphon1024 09:20, April 13, 2014 (UTC)
- Wikia's been very temperamental lately; when gadgets are working, the duplicate link highlighter is located in the "toolbox" section underneath the Search box.
- Appreciated, Jorrel. -- Riffsyphon1024 09:20, April 13, 2014 (UTC)
- It does not appear to be working (still, as I ran into the issue myself). I ran through each link manually for you, though, so they should all be fixed now. JorrelFraajic 10:54, March 30, 2014 (UTC)
- Looked into this and selected that tool but so far I don't seem to be able to identify duplicate links with it. -- Riffsyphon1024 09:20, March 30, 2014 (UTC)
- Per the recent Mofference, CSWECite is not to be used in the Sources section, only in references. I've removed it from the Sources section. Cade Calrayn 14:16, April 25, 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, thank you for that. -- Riffsyphon1024 12:00, April 29, 2014 (UTC)
Ecks
You have two consecutive [3] references. Please remove or replace one of them.Please use {{CSWECite}} for your CSWE-related references.Considering you mention Naboo's astronomical location in the intro, please mention it in the body as well.1358 (Talk) 19:30, April 13, 2014 (UTC)- These have all been updated now. -- Riffsyphon1024 11:29, April 23, 2014 (UTC)
Lee's charge
Mee evolved in the waters of Naboo,[8] were transported in Gungan colonization efforts to its moon Ohma-D'un[3] and to Aquilaris.: Something is missing here.Context for Coruscant and maybe Dex's Diner in the last sentence of the history section.Children of the Force cannot be used as a source for the timespan of the Clone Wars.I hope this is not the case for Naboo being a Mid Rim and Aquilaris being an Outer Rim planet. I'm particular skeptical about the last one, as its own page sources this info the the Atlas online companion.Clone Commander Lee Talk 09:25, May 2, 2014 (UTC)- I've fixed the first three items. I'm not sure what you mean in the fourth point. Naboo is Mid Rim and Aquilaris is Outer Rim. Is it an issue with Episode I Racer which is citing the appearance of mee on the planet, not the location of the planet? -- Riffsyphon1024 14:40, May 5, 2014 (UTC)
- What I want to know if you can use Racer as a source for the planets locations. The Aquilaris page sources the Outer Rim classification to the Atlas online companion, so I'm curious. Clone Commander Lee Talk 15:56, May 5, 2014 (UTC)
- That was not the intention, but if you would wish me to cite the location with the Online Companion, I can do that. -- Riffsyphon1024 16:16, May 5, 2014 (UTC)
- Check it again. I've cited the region directly with the source. -- Riffsyphon1024 16:21, May 5, 2014 (UTC)
- Very good. The Wildlife book says Naboo is in the Mid Rim? Clone Commander Lee Talk 16:24, May 5, 2014 (UTC)
- Durp. Wildlife was citing the appearance, not the location, but that has been clarified now. -- Riffsyphon1024 10:49, May 6, 2014 (UTC)
- Take a good look at my edit please. Referencing is not easy, especially if you have a ton of it. Clone Commander Lee Talk 10:52, May 6, 2014 (UTC)
- I appreciate it. It can get intense. Thanks for the support. -- Riffsyphon1024 11:05, May 6, 2014 (UTC)
- Take a good look at my edit please. Referencing is not easy, especially if you have a ton of it. Clone Commander Lee Talk 10:52, May 6, 2014 (UTC)
- Durp. Wildlife was citing the appearance, not the location, but that has been clarified now. -- Riffsyphon1024 10:49, May 6, 2014 (UTC)
- Very good. The Wildlife book says Naboo is in the Mid Rim? Clone Commander Lee Talk 16:24, May 5, 2014 (UTC)
- Check it again. I've cited the region directly with the source. -- Riffsyphon1024 16:21, May 5, 2014 (UTC)
- That was not the intention, but if you would wish me to cite the location with the Online Companion, I can do that. -- Riffsyphon1024 16:16, May 5, 2014 (UTC)
- What I want to know if you can use Racer as a source for the planets locations. The Aquilaris page sources the Outer Rim classification to the Atlas online companion, so I'm curious. Clone Commander Lee Talk 15:56, May 5, 2014 (UTC)
- I've fixed the first three items. I'm not sure what you mean in the fourth point. Naboo is Mid Rim and Aquilaris is Outer Rim. Is it an issue with Episode I Racer which is citing the appearance of mee on the planet, not the location of the planet? -- Riffsyphon1024 14:40, May 5, 2014 (UTC)
Toprawa
CSWECite is required for reference 2. And after looking at the CSWE mee entry, I notice several things:Firstly, the CSWE entry does not mention that they have a "wide mouth," so I don't know where you're getting that from. If you can't source that to something explicit, it would be better to just remove it.- True. That has been removed. -- Riffsyphon1024 15:11, May 11, 2014 (UTC)
Secondly, the article claims that the mee has "a pair of poisonous spines that protruded from the side," but that's not what the CSWE entry says. It says they have "poisonous spines that ran along the centerline." Judging from the image of the fish, I'm interpreting that to mean the little protrusions running along their spine, which is markedly different from what this article is saying. Am I missing something here?- That appears to be information from earlier on that I got confused on. It has been corrected. -- Riffsyphon1024 15:11, May 11, 2014 (UTC)
Finally, the article sources this statement to CSWE, which can not be sourced by the mee entry. You will need to find another entry or another source to cite this information: "...and in the area around the underwater city Otoh Gunga, one of the homes of the amphibious sentient Gungan species. They were attracted by the underwater city's lights..."- This information (particularly the names of all the scalefish) can be sourced to the Episode I Visual Dictionary, Phantom Menace Expanded Visual Dictionary, and the Complete Visual Dictionary. -- Riffsyphon1024 15:11, May 11, 2014 (UTC)
- Does the referencing need to include all of those, though? If all of that can just be sourced to Complete Visual Dictionary, for example, you only need to list that one. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 02:38, May 12, 2014 (UTC)
- Probably not, if the sources did not change between versions. We should go with the most recent source, yes? -- Riffsyphon1024 18:22, May 12, 2014 (UTC)
- Done. -- Riffsyphon1024 18:30, May 12, 2014 (UTC)
- Probably not, if the sources did not change between versions. We should go with the most recent source, yes? -- Riffsyphon1024 18:22, May 12, 2014 (UTC)
- Does the referencing need to include all of those, though? If all of that can just be sourced to Complete Visual Dictionary, for example, you only need to list that one. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 02:38, May 12, 2014 (UTC)
- This information (particularly the names of all the scalefish) can be sourced to the Episode I Visual Dictionary, Phantom Menace Expanded Visual Dictionary, and the Complete Visual Dictionary. -- Riffsyphon1024 15:11, May 11, 2014 (UTC)
The BTS needs to mention what source first identified the mee by name, and an Appearances or Sources list item needs to reflect this with the 1stID tag.- The film was released on May 19, 1999. The Gungan Frontier (which names them daggerts) was released May 24. The Episode I Visual Dictionary (which names them mee) was released May 26. You can see how confusing this might get. This has been updated in the article. -- Riffsyphon1024 15:11, May 11, 2014 (UTC)
In addition, this sentence is not self-sourcing. The names of these fish need to be referenced to something: "The mee first appeared in the 1999 prequel trilogy film Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace, along with other scalefish named doo, ray, faa, see, laa, and tee"- The following sentence cites the Visual Dictionary as the source of the musical scale names. -- Riffsyphon1024 15:11, May 11, 2014 (UTC)
There are three other images of mee on this site. Try to stick one into the body of the article.Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 08:14, May 8, 2014 (UTC)- Image added. -- Riffsyphon1024 22:56, May 10, 2014 (UTC)
And one more I overlooked. Per the LG, any information of the species away from their home planet of Naboo should be detailed in a "Mee in the galaxy" section. Right now, the "History" section incorporates all of this information. That should be divided apart.- Thanks for catching that. -- Riffsyphon1024 18:22, May 12, 2014 (UTC)
- This sentence should be moved out of the History section also: "The scalefish were also present on the water planet of Aquilaris." Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 21:03, May 12, 2014 (UTC)
- Performed. -- Riffsyphon1024 17:55, May 13, 2014 (UTC)
- This sentence should be moved out of the History section also: "The scalefish were also present on the water planet of Aquilaris." Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 21:03, May 12, 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for catching that. -- Riffsyphon1024 18:22, May 12, 2014 (UTC)
- Final note: I think you've re-added this in twice now, but CSWECite should only be used in the Sources list if the subject is listed under an entry other than its own name. In this case, mee has an entry, so you don't need the template. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 02:38, May 12, 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah that one had confused me several times. -- Riffsyphon1024 18:22, May 12, 2014 (UTC)
Comments
Approved as a Good article by AgriCorps 19:20, May 13, 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a good article nomination that was unsuccessful. Please do not modify it.
Smoking PSA
- Nominated by: Thunderforge (talk) 04:29, March 11, 2014 (UTC)
- Nomination comments: Previously nominated as a Comprehensive Article, but failed because after revisions it exceeded 250 words. There was also a Trash Compactor discussion about whether or not commercials like this one belonged on Wookieepedia. The discussion was closed in January with a decision to keep this page at least and no further challenges have been made to it in the last two months.
(3 ACs/3 Users/6 Total)
Support
- JangFett (Talk) 17:58, March 24, 2014 (UTC)
- Clone Commander Lee Talk 22:59, March 24, 2014 (UTC)
- Good work. 501st dogma(talk) 23:41, March 28, 2014 (UTC)
- Winterz (talk) 23:10, April 6, 2014 (UTC)
- IFYLOFD (Enter the Floydome) 02:09, April 8, 2014 (UTC)
- Asithol (talk) 22:21, May 21, 2014 (UTC)
Object
501st
You mention the space station in the body, and there is a redlink for it in the appearances section. Did we not deduce that them being on a space station was fan speculation?- That's a holdover from when the article did exist and the link didn't get removed when it was trash compacted. Fixed.
- It still mentions a space station in the body.
- Fixed.
- It still mentions a space station in the body.
- That's a holdover from when the article did exist and the link didn't get removed when it was trash compacted. Fixed.
Could we get another quote for the Synopsis section?- We don't really have much to work with. I suppose I could use "R2-D2, you've found a cigarette!" but it's not really that evocative of a quote.
I believe you need to mention somewhere in the article, once in the intro and once in the body, that the PSA was non-canon.- I've added it to the intro, but I can't find a good way to work it in later. Besides, I figure "C-3P0 directly address the audience" clearly puts it as non-canon.
- You could add it to the development section.
- Done.
- You could add it to the development section.
- I've added it to the intro, but I can't find a good way to work it in later. Besides, I figure "C-3P0 directly address the audience" clearly puts it as non-canon.
Context on R2-D2 should be given in the body.- What sort of context should I add?
- Saying he is a droid should do the trick.
- Done.
- Saying he is a droid should do the trick.
- What sort of context should I add?
- Good work. 501st dogma(talk) 13:24, March 11, 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks! -Thunderforge (talk) 20:58, March 11, 2014 (UTC)
"The PSA consists of a sketch..." You sure this is supposed to be a sketch? Wouldn't skit be better?- You're right, "skit" is better. Fixed.
"The 60-second version includes an opening where C-3PO is looking for R2-D2 and has him initially believing that R2-D2 is on fire before he realizes he is smoking a cigarette. The 30-second version starts immediately with C-3PO identifying R2-D2 as having a cigarette." This can probably be removed, as you describe both version in the synopsis.- Jang had asked me to do that in one of his suggestions. Since I've got two reviewers suggesting two opposite things, I'm not sure what to do :-/
- I guess you can leave it then, but its still redundant.
- In rereading Jang's comments, it seems like his big concern was that the information about a 30 second and 60 second version should not be limited to the infobox. Since we have it in the synopsis and development section, we should be covered then. I've removed it from the lead. -Thunderforge (talk) 04:31, March 31, 2014 (UTC)
- I guess you can leave it then, but its still redundant.
- Jang had asked me to do that in one of his suggestions. Since I've got two reviewers suggesting two opposite things, I'm not sure what to do :-/
Can you ref the last sentence in the Development? Just using your first ref (1) will do fine there.501st dogma(talk) 14:47, March 24, 2014 (UTC)- Done.
Jang
Please go more into detail as to what was cut from the 30 second video and the alternate takes. What are you currently using in the synopsis? If the 30 second video is different in comparison to the 60 second, then this should be noted in the article. Both are non-canon so one does not trump the other even though one is shorter than the other. JangFett (Talk) 13:44, March 11, 2014 (UTC)- Done, let me know if you have further suggestions. -Thunderforge (talk) 20:58, March 11, 2014 (UTC)
- Instead of the tag, I think it would be better if you write out the 30 second version under the 60 second version. It would be better since the 60 second version shouldn't be exclusive to the synopsis section. JangFett (Talk) 15:30, March 12, 2014 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I've created two synopses. Let me know if this is more what you are looking for. -Thunderforge (talk) 17:30, March 12, 2014 (UTC)
- Instead of the tag, I think it would be better if you write out the 30 second version under the 60 second version. It would be better since the 60 second version shouldn't be exclusive to the synopsis section. JangFett (Talk) 15:30, March 12, 2014 (UTC)
- Done, let me know if you have further suggestions. -Thunderforge (talk) 20:58, March 11, 2014 (UTC)
Could you possibly add another sentence or two in the intro? Just so it could be proportional to the body. JangFett (Talk) 18:36, March 12, 2014 (UTC)- I added one sentence to it giving a brief summary of the plot, but I'm not sure if it's redundant or not. If you have other suggestions, let me know. -Thunderforge (talk) 20:40, March 12, 2014 (UTC)
- I think mentioning that the PSA had a 30 and 60 second version will be useful in the intro. JangFett (Talk) 17:19, March 17, 2014 (UTC)
- Isn't this redundant because it's in the infobox already? I've gone ahead and made the change anyway. -Thunderforge (talk) 15:55, March 21, 2014 (UTC)
- No, then it'll be infobox exclusive. Per common practice, anything in the infobox should be reflected in the article's main body. JangFett (Talk) 17:58, March 24, 2014 (UTC)
- 501st above had said that this sentence was redundant. It seems like your main concern was that the information about a 30 second and 60 second version should not be limited to the infobox. Since we have it in the synopsis and development section, I think that we've already got that issue solved. For that reason I've removed it from the lead, but we can try to work out some consensus with the other reviewers if you still think it absolutely has to be there. -Thunderforge (talk) 04:31, March 31, 2014 (UTC)
- No, then it'll be infobox exclusive. Per common practice, anything in the infobox should be reflected in the article's main body. JangFett (Talk) 17:58, March 24, 2014 (UTC)
- Isn't this redundant because it's in the infobox already? I've gone ahead and made the change anyway. -Thunderforge (talk) 15:55, March 21, 2014 (UTC)
- I think mentioning that the PSA had a 30 and 60 second version will be useful in the intro. JangFett (Talk) 17:19, March 17, 2014 (UTC)
- I added one sentence to it giving a brief summary of the plot, but I'm not sure if it's redundant or not. If you have other suggestions, let me know. -Thunderforge (talk) 20:40, March 12, 2014 (UTC)
I do remember that some might object to linking to IU links since this article is a real-life OOU subject. I wouldn't suggest delinking all of the IU links and replace them with real-life OOU ones, but you should go ahead and ask users who are familiar with OOU. The SH would be a good place to start. Otherwise, I'd suggest keeping the links in the synopsis (since clearly 3PO and R2 are in the galaxy) and remove the IU links elsewhere. I would like to keep the linking consistent. JangFett (Talk) 18:36, March 12, 2014 (UTC)- I don't see anything on the OOU Layout Guide from the Senate Hall, and it looks like all sorts of OOU featured articles, such as Agents of Chaos Duology and Sebastian Shaw include IU links in sections outside of the synopsis. -Thunderforge (talk) 18:26, March 14, 2014 (UTC)
Winterz
Reload the infobox, you have additional fields there. Also, handsome work.Winterz (talk) 16:07, March 11, 2014 (UTC)- How do I go about doing this? -Thunderforge (talk) 20:58, March 11, 2014 (UTC)
- Replace the current template with {{Infobox_Movie/preload}} and then fill in the fields again or just press the "source" button on the bottom of the present template and then copy the fields from the Template page and fill them in again, replacing the current one. Winterz (talk) 21:56, March 11, 2014 (UTC)
- Done! -Thunderforge (talk) 22:47, March 11, 2014 (UTC)
- Replace the current template with {{Infobox_Movie/preload}} and then fill in the fields again or just press the "source" button on the bottom of the present template and then copy the fields from the Template page and fill them in again, replacing the current one. Winterz (talk) 21:56, March 11, 2014 (UTC)
- How do I go about doing this? -Thunderforge (talk) 20:58, March 11, 2014 (UTC)
El Jefe
Does this article need a {{Conjecture}} tag? Is there anywhere where the title of the piece is specifically called the "Smoking PSA"?- The video is not hosted on any official website (e.g. StarWars.com) and I can't find any official source regarding it, which probably isn't surprising given that it was released before the age of the internet. For what it's worth, unofficial sources call it a wide variety of names, so if there ever was an official name, it isn't well recognized. So it seems like it does indeed need a {{Conjecture}} tag. I've gone ahead and added it.
- Cool, but you'll also need to adjust the article so you don't directly call it "The Smoking PSA" as if it's the actual name. IFYLOFD (Enter the Floydome) 04:51, April 5, 2014 (UTC)
- I've made some changes to that based on how it seems other conjectural GAs do it. Let me know if you'd like for me to make further changes. -Thunderforge (talk) 04:58, April 7, 2014 (UTC)
- Cool, but you'll also need to adjust the article so you don't directly call it "The Smoking PSA" as if it's the actual name. IFYLOFD (Enter the Floydome) 04:51, April 5, 2014 (UTC)
- The video is not hosted on any official website (e.g. StarWars.com) and I can't find any official source regarding it, which probably isn't surprising given that it was released before the age of the internet. For what it's worth, unofficial sources call it a wide variety of names, so if there ever was an official name, it isn't well recognized. So it seems like it does indeed need a {{Conjecture}} tag. I've gone ahead and added it.
"is fiddling with a strange device" Seems a little POV to me.IFYLOFD (Enter the Floydome) 02:39, April 3, 2014 (UTC)- You're right, that can be reading a bit too much into this. I've changed that to a more generic "using an electronic device". -Thunderforge (talk) 22:28, April 3, 2014 (UTC)
Asithol
The section labelled Development covers a lot more than development. It first talks about the development, then summarizes the synopses of the two versions, addresses the piece's canonicity, and talks about its possible 1997 re-airing. Other than the synopses, which mostly repeat information from the previous section, this information is relevant to the article, but not to Development. I'm not sure whether it's better to change the section heading to be more general, or to move the non-development info into new sections. (But there should certainly be at least paragraph breaks between the shifts in topic.)Asithol (talk) 21:19, April 9, 2014 (UTC)- I've moved the part about canonicity to a new section and removed the synopsis (which was more a summary of the different takes they used, but it does come across as a duplicate). Let me know if further changes need to be made. -Thunderforge (talk) 23:20, April 11, 2014 (UTC)
- Definitely an improvement. The sentence about the possible 1997 re-airing still isn't really "Development," as the piece was developed over a decade ago by that point. But of the sections listed in the portion of the layout guide that Toprawa linked to, I don't see one that strikes me as really a good fit for this tidbit. Maybe the best thing to do in this case is just call this section Development and release? Not a huge deal to me at this point, but it would be good to have the section label accurately reflect what that section talks about. Asithol (talk) 23:14, April 12, 2014 (UTC)
- Done. -Thunderforge (talk) 02:04, April 19, 2014 (UTC)
- Definitely an improvement. The sentence about the possible 1997 re-airing still isn't really "Development," as the piece was developed over a decade ago by that point. But of the sections listed in the portion of the layout guide that Toprawa linked to, I don't see one that strikes me as really a good fit for this tidbit. Maybe the best thing to do in this case is just call this section Development and release? Not a huge deal to me at this point, but it would be good to have the section label accurately reflect what that section talks about. Asithol (talk) 23:14, April 12, 2014 (UTC)
- I've moved the part about canonicity to a new section and removed the synopsis (which was more a summary of the different takes they used, but it does come across as a duplicate). Let me know if further changes need to be made. -Thunderforge (talk) 23:20, April 11, 2014 (UTC)
I agree the PSA is almost certainly noncanon, but the only support for this assertion in the article is the fact that C-3PO directly addresses the audience, which hardly disqualifies it: the Star Wars universe has audiences as well. Has it been officially deemed noncanon, or is this ultimately a speculative designation?Asithol (talk) 21:19, April 9, 2014 (UTC)- I have not seen any other source that mentions this PSA and its canonicity. It seems clear to me that C-3PO is addressing the television audience, rather than some in-universe audience, since the commercial was created first and foremost as a PSA for the real world. And as far as I know, this is the first time the canonicity of a commercial has been mentioned. The closest precedent I can find is Star Wars Miniatures: Legacy of the Force advertisement, but that has the added benefit of having characters from different eras. -Thunderforge (talk) 23:20, April 11, 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's tricky territory without much precedent. The thing is, the {{Noncanon|legends=1}} template explicitly says "has been deemed non-canon by either the author or the Star Wars licensees," which does not seem to apply here. As far as deducing the spot's canonical status, if C-3PO had addressed "Citizens of Earth" or some such, it'd be clear-cut, but however much I agree that he's talking to a 20th-century television audience, I'm not sure the support is there in the PSA itself to state this definitively. So I wonder if the {{Ambig}} tag is a better fit: "has not been deemed to be definitively canon" is a pretty safe statement to make about this PSA. Then the Canonicity section can address the question in a NPOV manner. What do others think? Asithol (talk) 20:57, April 12, 2014 (UTC)
- Looks like we haven't had any further response for this in two weeks. How should we proceed on this objection? -Thunderforge (talk) 00:47, April 30, 2014 (UTC)
- Well, what is your opinion on the appropriateness of {{Ambig}}'s wording vs. {{Noncanon|legends=1}}'s? Asithol (talk) 23:06, May 2, 2014 (UTC)
- After comparing the two templates side by side, it definitely seems like the non-canon one is better. After all, the author, licensees, and Lucasfilm have said diddly squat about this PSA. Now I bet if they ever did talk about it, they would undoubtedly say it's non-canon, but since they haven't said anything, we can't make the definitive claim that it "has been deemed non-canon by either the author or the Star Wars licensees". I've changed the template and modified the Canonicity section. Please let me know if I need to make further changes. -Thunderforge (talk) 05:01, May 6, 2014 (UTC)
I feel the need to point out that per Forum:CT:New canon policy, Template:Ambig will soon be repurposed to label subjects from unlicensed sources, which this is not, because with the death of the EU the notion of "ambiguous canon" no longer has any meaning. Therefore a different tag, or no tag at all, should be used.Master Jonathan Council Chambers 05:35 UTC Tue May 6, 2014 And excuse the stink, but I just had a brain fart: we actually use Template:Ambig and {{Noncanon}} only on in-universe articles. Those tags are not used on OOU media articles, where the canoncity should be indicated by an explicit mention in the prose. So the ambig tag should be removed.Master Jonathan Council Chambers 05:38 UTC Tue May 6, 2014
- After comparing the two templates side by side, it definitely seems like the non-canon one is better. After all, the author, licensees, and Lucasfilm have said diddly squat about this PSA. Now I bet if they ever did talk about it, they would undoubtedly say it's non-canon, but since they haven't said anything, we can't make the definitive claim that it "has been deemed non-canon by either the author or the Star Wars licensees". I've changed the template and modified the Canonicity section. Please let me know if I need to make further changes. -Thunderforge (talk) 05:01, May 6, 2014 (UTC)
- Well, what is your opinion on the appropriateness of {{Ambig}}'s wording vs. {{Noncanon|legends=1}}'s? Asithol (talk) 23:06, May 2, 2014 (UTC)
- Looks like we haven't had any further response for this in two weeks. How should we proceed on this objection? -Thunderforge (talk) 00:47, April 30, 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's tricky territory without much precedent. The thing is, the {{Noncanon|legends=1}} template explicitly says "has been deemed non-canon by either the author or the Star Wars licensees," which does not seem to apply here. As far as deducing the spot's canonical status, if C-3PO had addressed "Citizens of Earth" or some such, it'd be clear-cut, but however much I agree that he's talking to a 20th-century television audience, I'm not sure the support is there in the PSA itself to state this definitively. So I wonder if the {{Ambig}} tag is a better fit: "has not been deemed to be definitively canon" is a pretty safe statement to make about this PSA. Then the Canonicity section can address the question in a NPOV manner. What do others think? Asithol (talk) 20:57, April 12, 2014 (UTC)
- I have not seen any other source that mentions this PSA and its canonicity. It seems clear to me that C-3PO is addressing the television audience, rather than some in-universe audience, since the commercial was created first and foremost as a PSA for the real world. And as far as I know, this is the first time the canonicity of a commercial has been mentioned. The closest precedent I can find is Star Wars Miniatures: Legacy of the Force advertisement, but that has the added benefit of having characters from different eras. -Thunderforge (talk) 23:20, April 11, 2014 (UTC)
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘The Template:Ambig tag has been removed. Let me know if I should change the "canonicity" section of the article based on the new canon guidelines. -Thunderforge (talk) 18:35, May 6, 2014 (UTC)
- Looks fine to me, though others may feel differently, since we don't have an example yet of how Canonicity and BTS sections should handle the Legends announcement. That's something that will probably develop over time on the FAN, GAN, and CAN pages.
Master Jonathan Council Chambers 07:29 UTC Wed May 7, 2014 One last small point. It is generally considered good style to define an acronym the first time it is used. "PSA" is used throughout the article, but the first use of the phrase "public service announcement" should make explicit that PSA stands for this. This was done in a previous revision of the article, but it's not in the current text.Asithol (talk) 01:39, May 13, 2014 (UTC)- Fixed. -Thunderforge (talk) 20:50, May 15, 2014 (UTC)
Toprawa
This article is a mess. I'm going to go through this with you slowly, section by section. The very first problem is the referencing. This is a special situation where, unlike a book or a movie that is readily accessible on the open market, this article shouldn't reference itself, as in Reference 1. What you're really referencing are the two YouTube videos, which are basically your only sources of information for this subject. Those should be your point of references, not linking back to this article. Please go through and adapt every <ref name="PSA" /> reference note to instead reference one of the two specific YouTube videos. This also applies to the source field for the quote.- I'm not sure that switching the reference to the YouTube video is the right thing to do. First, The Star Wars Holiday Special is similarly inaccessible on the open market, but it cites itself as a source quite a few times. Second, the article does link to the YouTube copies, but there are also copies of it on other video hosting sites (I found five other sites on a cursory search). I don't think there's anything particularly special about the copies on YouTube that make them specifically need to be cited. Besides if the videos on YouTube were to disappear, the article would still be valid and could link to any of those other copies online. Referencing the commercial itself, rather than the specific copy of the commercial, seems like a wiser idea. -Thunderforge (talk) 23:37, April 11, 2014 (UTC)
- Your referencing doesn't work because, unlike something like The Empire Strikes Back, where the reader can easily go to that source and verify an article's information, this article's information is entirely reliant on these Internet videos. If these videos didn't exist, you couldn't even write this article. That's where you're literally getting your information from, so that's where you need to source your information to. If a reader wants to see where this article's information is coming from, it does them no good to see the name of this article listed in a reference note, because it's as if this article is just perpetuating itself. They need to be able to see that the information is coming from a YouTube video, for example, so that they can go and check it, just like they would open up a film or book. And just because Holiday Special or another article does something doesn't mean it's ok. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 23:56, April 11, 2014 (UTC)
- I'll offer you a compromise. Make your reference note look like this: <ref name="PSA">Smoking PSA {{C|via [YouTube URL|YouTube video]}}</ref>. How does that work for you? Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 00:04, April 12, 2014 (UTC)
- Although I used YouTube, what would this mean for those who did not use YouTube? If someone used a copy on any of the other video hosting sites, would they create a new citation <ref name="PSA">Smoking PSA {{C|via [DailyMotion URL|DailyMotion video]}}</ref>? And what if they used an old videotape as a reference? -Thunderforge (talk) 02:02, April 19, 2014 (UTC)
- [Originally in Asithol's section] I'm not sure whether it's better to address Toprawa's point about the video reference here, or in the section below that talks about it. The disagreement seems to come down to a philosophical point about what a "reference" actually means. Toprawa's position seems to be that it is a means for a reader to find the item in question, while Thunderforge's view is that it is a unique identification of the item, independent of where the item may be found.
I believe that sourcing on Wookieepedia generally follows the latter model. A pointer to an obscure West End Games module with a small print run, for instance, is generally deemed sufficient as a source. That most readers would have trouble tracking down a copy of this module, and that information in this module may exist nowhere else—especially not on the Internet—is irrelevant: the source has been uniquely identified, and at that point it becomes the reader's responsibility to find the source if s/he wishes to check it.
In this case, because the PSA is widely available on the Internet, absolutely, a link to the video (on YouTube or another service) should be provided in the External links section. But no Internet site is the actual source of the video, and thus none should be identified as such. The video itself is the source of the information it contains; sites on the Internet are merely mechanisms to find that source, and the two concepts shouldn't be intertwined. Asithol (talk) 18:03, April 21, 2014 (UTC)
- Glad to have another voice in the conversation! I think you've analyzed our differences in opinion correctly and I would agree with your rationale. Perhaps it would be good to move it down to the section that way the discussion is all in one place and so that it doesn't look like this is an independent objection to the GAN. -Thunderforge (talk) 23:35, April 21, 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, good point. I wasn't sure of the protocol on that. Move as you see fit. Asithol (talk) 05:11, April 24, 2014 (UTC)
- Moved. -Thunderforge (talk) 00:40, April 30, 2014 (UTC)
- The community has agreed to embed the video itself within this article, so I'm satisfied with the referencing style now. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 05:30, June 21, 2014 (UTC)
- Moved. -Thunderforge (talk) 00:40, April 30, 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, good point. I wasn't sure of the protocol on that. Move as you see fit. Asithol (talk) 05:11, April 24, 2014 (UTC)
- Glad to have another voice in the conversation! I think you've analyzed our differences in opinion correctly and I would agree with your rationale. Perhaps it would be good to move it down to the section that way the discussion is all in one place and so that it doesn't look like this is an independent objection to the GAN. -Thunderforge (talk) 23:35, April 21, 2014 (UTC)
- [Originally in Asithol's section] I'm not sure whether it's better to address Toprawa's point about the video reference here, or in the section below that talks about it. The disagreement seems to come down to a philosophical point about what a "reference" actually means. Toprawa's position seems to be that it is a means for a reader to find the item in question, while Thunderforge's view is that it is a unique identification of the item, independent of where the item may be found.
- Although I used YouTube, what would this mean for those who did not use YouTube? If someone used a copy on any of the other video hosting sites, would they create a new citation <ref name="PSA">Smoking PSA {{C|via [DailyMotion URL|DailyMotion video]}}</ref>? And what if they used an old videotape as a reference? -Thunderforge (talk) 02:02, April 19, 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that switching the reference to the YouTube video is the right thing to do. First, The Star Wars Holiday Special is similarly inaccessible on the open market, but it cites itself as a source quite a few times. Second, the article does link to the YouTube copies, but there are also copies of it on other video hosting sites (I found five other sites on a cursory search). I don't think there's anything particularly special about the copies on YouTube that make them specifically need to be cited. Besides if the videos on YouTube were to disappear, the article would still be valid and could link to any of those other copies online. Referencing the commercial itself, rather than the specific copy of the commercial, seems like a wiser idea. -Thunderforge (talk) 23:37, April 11, 2014 (UTC)
- Like Asithol above, I'm also very concerned with this article's sectioning. I would suggest just sticking with our formal layout for published narrative works, which I think can safely apply to this article. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 20:36, April 11, 2014 (UTC)
- I've made some changes to this based on what I saw from that. I'd appreciate having the canonicity section double-checked; I'm not sure if I'm using it correctly. I've also removed the description of the shots since both of you seemed to view it as a plot summary rather than a description of the different takes. -Thunderforge (talk) 23:37, April 11, 2014 (UTC)
- Starting anew with my review, I'm going to begin with a number of general issues here.
- First, it would be better to move this article to "Star Wars Smoking PSA," as that matches what the rest of the Internet calls this video. If for no other reason, that will make it easier for people to find our article on search engines.
- Second, this article should conform to the layout for published works as defined here.
- Thirdly, all articles must have their titles in bold upon first mention in the intro. Once these three are resolved, I'll continue my review. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 05:30, June 21, 2014 (UTC)
Comments
Approved as a Good article by AgriCorps 02:09, April 8, 2014 (UTC)
Vote to remove nomination (AC only)
- Idle objections over two weeks old. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 19:38, July 6, 2014 (UTC)
- IFYLOFD (Enter the Floydome) 19:39, July 6, 2014 (UTC)
- 1358 (Talk) 19:49, July 6, 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a good article nomination that was successful. Please do not modify it.
Ko Solok
- Nominated by: Ayrehead02 (talk) 13:56, March 14, 2014 (UTC)
- Nomination comments:
(4 ACs/2 Users/6 Total)
Support
- Note my final edit. And I want to see him next. ;) Clone Commander Lee Talk 11:49, March 15, 2014 (UTC)
- CC7567 (talk) 19:26, May 1, 2014 (UTC)
- Sir Cavalier of One(Squadron channel) 12:19, May 7, 2014 (UTC)
- 501st dogma(talk) 11:07, May 8, 2014 (UTC)
- Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 22:57, May 12, 2014 (UTC)
- Exiled Jedi (Greetings) 23:02, May 12, 2014 (UTC)
Object
Lee's charge
Solok was selected as part of a task force: Should this be "Solok was selected to be part of a task force"? I'm not sure if the way you say it is correct.- Changed. Ayrehead02 (talk) 15:21, March 14, 2014 (UTC)
Link for the fight at Yellowblade's Landing?- Fixed. Ayrehead02 (talk) 15:21, March 14, 2014 (UTC)
You say 20 BBY in the infobox and around 20 BBY in the body.- Oops forgot the c. Ayrehead02 (talk) 15:21, March 14, 2014 (UTC)
Is it mentioned that he constructed the lightsaber himself? It could be a gift from his master etc.- Changed to obtained. Ayrehead02 (talk) 15:21, March 14, 2014 (UTC)
Is it mentioned that he was a General or is this just an assumption based on his status as a Jedi Master?- I thought I remembered a source saying all Jedi Masters were made generals, but there are actually exceptions, so removed. Ayrehead02 (talk) 15:21, March 14, 2014 (UTC)
and after sighting them Koon ordered that Solok, along with his fellow Master and team member Grohto, organise a search of the surrounding settlement: Something is wrong here IMHO.- Any better? Ayrehead02 (talk) 15:21, March 14, 2014 (UTC)
The P&t is more like a "Powers and abilities" section.- Split. Ayrehead02 (talk) 15:21, March 14, 2014 (UTC)
Could we get another picture for the body?- Added his death. Ayrehead02 (talk) 15:21, March 14, 2014 (UTC)
- Good, but by WP:Images: "Speech bubbles should ideally be cropped out of an image. If it is not possible to crop them out, the text in the bubbles should be left in if the bubble is intact. If the bubble is cut off, the text should be removed. " Clone Commander Lee Talk 15:35, March 14, 2014 (UTC)
- Fixed for both images. Good catch. Ayrehead02 (talk) 11:13, March 15, 2014 (UTC)
- Good, but by WP:Images: "Speech bubbles should ideally be cropped out of an image. If it is not possible to crop them out, the text in the bubbles should be left in if the bubble is intact. If the bubble is cut off, the text should be removed. " Clone Commander Lee Talk 15:35, March 14, 2014 (UTC)
- Added his death. Ayrehead02 (talk) 15:21, March 14, 2014 (UTC)
- Nice article. Clone Commander Lee Talk 14:28, March 14, 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review! Ayrehead02 (talk) 15:21, March 14, 2014 (UTC)
No spoken lines or any other stuff for the P&t section?Clone Commander Lee Talk 15:35, March 14, 2014 (UTC)- Added. There isn't much else relevant to him. Ayrehead02 (talk) 11:04, March 15, 2014 (UTC)
Clone fly-by
This image is of poor quality—you can see the white frame around the panel—and needs to be replaced.CC7567 (talk) 16:44, March 19, 2014 (UTC)- Oh, I thought the frames were ok if the image overlapped into them. Changed. Ayrehead02 (talk) 19:14, March 19, 2014 (UTC)
Exiled Jedi
"Solok had obtained a green-bladed lightsaber and obtained the rank of Jedi Master." Could you change this so that you don't use obtained twice in the same sentence?- Done. Ayrehead02 (talk) 21:12, March 30, 2014 (UTC)
In the biography, I think it would be best to mention all members of the strike team when it is introduced. I found it rather confusing trying to find out who was on the team.- Added. Ayrehead02 (talk) 21:12, March 30, 2014 (UTC)
I just want to make sure, but did the comic show that Maul's kick did not make physical contact with Solok? If he made physical contact, then it would not be a force kick.- Hmm, it doesn't show that physical contact was made, but the shot is just after the kick so it doesn't prove that it definitely wasn't. Removed. Ayrehead02 (talk) 21:12, March 30, 2014 (UTC)
The equipment section makes it sound like he wore both cold weather gear and Jedi robes at the same time. Is this correct?- Clarified. Ayrehead02 (talk) 21:12, March 30, 2014 (UTC)
- Just a note for future articles, organization and analyzed are spelled with a "z" in American English.--Exiled Jedi (Greetings) 20:40, March 23, 2014 (UTC)
- Ah whoops, my bad. Ayrehead02 (talk) 21:12, March 30, 2014 (UTC)
Reference 1 should be split into two sentences.- Split. Ayrehead02 (talk) 10:22, April 13, 2014 (UTC)
Now that I think about it, you probably don't need to mention his lightsaber in the biography.- Removed. Ayrehead02 (talk) 10:07, April 13, 2014 (UTC)
"The trio waited there while the others headed deeper into the base, where they were soon attacked by Maul, who leapt through a window and kicked Solok as the Sith entered the chamber." Please split this sentence.- Done. Ayrehead02 (talk) 10:07, April 13, 2014 (UTC)
"before they escaped with a hostage they had found incarcerated in the base." Please make it clear who escaped with the hostage.- Done. Ayrehead02 (talk) 10:07, April 13, 2014 (UTC)
Due to the small amount of information, a separate Powers and abilities section is not necessary. Please merge the information with the P&T.- Merged. Ayrehead02 (talk) 10:07, April 13, 2014 (UTC)
- Note, Force should always be capitalized when referring to The Force. Padawan should also be capitalized. I fixed them this time, but please keep an eye out for things like this in the future.--Exiled Jedi (Greetings) 03:06, April 13, 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, will do. Ayrehead02 (talk) 10:07, April 13, 2014 (UTC)
The paragraphs in the biography section seem rather large to me. Could you break them up into either three or four smaller sections?--Exiled Jedi (Greetings) 23:27, April 25, 2014 (UTC)- Split. Ayrehead02 (talk) 10:01, April 26, 2014 (UTC)
In the last sentence of the first paragraph of the biography you use "as well as" twice. Please reword this.--Exiled Jedi (Greetings) 03:50, May 5, 2014 (UTC)- Done. Ayrehead02 (talk) 10:00, May 5, 2014 (UTC)
Attack of the Clone
Please reread the opening quote's caption and check for errors.- Should be ok now. Ayrehead02 (talk) 13:12, April 18, 2014 (UTC)
- Proofread, please. Another error slipped in with your revision. CC7567 (talk) 14:43, April 18, 2014 (UTC)
- Assuming it was the Opress misspell its fixed. Ayrehead02 (talk) 10:51, April 21, 2014 (UTC)
- Proofread, please. Another error slipped in with your revision. CC7567 (talk) 14:43, April 18, 2014 (UTC)
- Should be ok now. Ayrehead02 (talk) 13:12, April 18, 2014 (UTC)
The leading quote and Bio quote captions can be more interesting and give more context, instead of "[x] gives orders to [y] and [z]." For starters, which event is each quote referring to?- Changed. Ayrehead02 (talk) 13:12, April 18, 2014 (UTC)
"Solok and Jun-Fan were both killed by Maul in the fight, who then escaped with Opress.'" The second dependent clause ("who then escaped with Opress") isn't working right now because for it to be worded like that, the subject of that clause ("Maul") needs to be at the very end of the first independent clause, instead of "the fight."- Fixed. Ayrehead02 (talk) 13:12, April 18, 2014 (UTC)
Massacre on Yellowblade's Landing needs to be linked at the appropriate place.- Done. Ayrehead02 (talk) 13:12, April 18, 2014 (UTC)
In general, the Bio can be beefed up with a lot more information. What ship did Solok and the other Jedi take to Yellowblade's Landing? What ship(s) did Maul and Opress use throughout the events of the comic? What about the involvement of Captain Mojo and the clone troopers in the comic? They're not mentioned anywhere. What were Maul and Opress after on Yellowblade's Landing? Why were they stealing gold on Pleem's Nexus? In either case, did the Jedi discover their objectives? These are just some initial questions; there are other details that should be incorporated as well. I'd recommend rereading the comic and incorporating more detail—there's a lot more that can be added to the Bio, as well as the intro.- Ok added a fair bit. Is it enough? Ayrehead02 (talk) 13:12, April 18, 2014 (UTC)
- Several things: Consular-class cruiser needs to be formatted properly with italics, and the exact model needs to be linked instead. Clone trooper captain needs to be linked instead of captain in regards to Mojo. The article for Maul's specific Turtle Tanker needs to be linked. Your linking in regards to Sith and starship needs to be checked in light of your additions. Creatures such as wampa are decapitalized unless source material specifically refers to them by a capitalized name. There's also a typo in regards to Opress's name. Most of these errors are little things that I'd normally take care of myself under {{Sofixit}}, but please take note of them—since you've been writing and reviewing articles for a while now, I'd expect you next time to be able to catch these. I'm not expecting perfection (none of us is perfect), but in general, it doesn't hurt to proofread an extra time before submitting an edit. CC7567 (talk) 14:43, April 18, 2014 (UTC)
- Wow your mastery of linking is a lot better than mine, I didn't realise a bunch of those more specific pages existed. Thanks for pointing them out I'll be more mindful of linking in future, and I do need to proofread more. Ayrehead02 (talk) 10:51, April 21, 2014 (UTC)
- Several things: Consular-class cruiser needs to be formatted properly with italics, and the exact model needs to be linked instead. Clone trooper captain needs to be linked instead of captain in regards to Mojo. The article for Maul's specific Turtle Tanker needs to be linked. Your linking in regards to Sith and starship needs to be checked in light of your additions. Creatures such as wampa are decapitalized unless source material specifically refers to them by a capitalized name. There's also a typo in regards to Opress's name. Most of these errors are little things that I'd normally take care of myself under {{Sofixit}}, but please take note of them—since you've been writing and reviewing articles for a while now, I'd expect you next time to be able to catch these. I'm not expecting perfection (none of us is perfect), but in general, it doesn't hurt to proofread an extra time before submitting an edit. CC7567 (talk) 14:43, April 18, 2014 (UTC)
- Ok added a fair bit. Is it enough? Ayrehead02 (talk) 13:12, April 18, 2014 (UTC)
I've liked lightsaber combat in the P&A, but it should be mentioned and linked earlier, somewhere in the Bio.- Added. Ayrehead02 (talk) 13:12, April 18, 2014 (UTC)
- Please also check your linking of lightsaber in the article. Darth Maul's lightsaber can be linked in regards to Maul's specific weapon. In addition, lightsaber duel needs to be linked somewhere. CC7567 (talk) 14:43, April 18, 2014 (UTC)
- Link maul's lightsaber (I thought we deleted all individual lightsaber articles a while back). I didn't realise we had separate articles for duel and combat, but is linking duel technically correct? None of the fights are actually described as duels and if we just count any lightsaber fight as a duel then we should merge combat and duel surely? Ayrehead02 (talk) 10:51, April 21, 2014 (UTC)
- Media doesn't have to specifically say something is a duel for it to be a duel, which is when two opponents cross lightsabers for an extended period of time. Lightsaber combat refers to the various combat forms (referring to practice as well), while the lightsaber duel article refers to the specific event. CC7567 (talk) 03:48, April 24, 2014 (UTC)
- Added. Ayrehead02 (talk) 09:21, April 24, 2014 (UTC)
- Media doesn't have to specifically say something is a duel for it to be a duel, which is when two opponents cross lightsabers for an extended period of time. Lightsaber combat refers to the various combat forms (referring to practice as well), while the lightsaber duel article refers to the specific event. CC7567 (talk) 03:48, April 24, 2014 (UTC)
- Link maul's lightsaber (I thought we deleted all individual lightsaber articles a while back). I didn't realise we had separate articles for duel and combat, but is linking duel technically correct? None of the fights are actually described as duels and if we just count any lightsaber fight as a duel then we should merge combat and duel surely? Ayrehead02 (talk) 10:51, April 21, 2014 (UTC)
- Please also check your linking of lightsaber in the article. Darth Maul's lightsaber can be linked in regards to Maul's specific weapon. In addition, lightsaber duel needs to be linked somewhere. CC7567 (talk) 14:43, April 18, 2014 (UTC)
- Added. Ayrehead02 (talk) 13:12, April 18, 2014 (UTC)
"Solok was a Force-sensitive male Gran": this bit in the P&T is restating information that you've already presented in the Bio. Unless there's a good reason for the repetition, please remove it.- Removed. Ayrehead02 (talk) 13:12, April 18, 2014 (UTC)
- I'll take another look once you've addressed these objections. CC7567 (talk) 15:39, April 16, 2014 (UTC)
As I asked for your Cho'na Bene nom, please check your verb conjugation in regards to "lead." This appears to be a bad habit, so I'd suggest proofreading more next time.- Oops, clearly need to work on my use of that word. Ayrehead02 (talk) 10:51, April 21, 2014 (UTC)
Please limit your usage of "then," since overusing it can add an unnecessary feeling of play-by-play wording.CC7567 (talk) 14:43, April 18, 2014 (UTC)- Changed two of the five. Ayrehead02 (talk) 10:51, April 21, 2014 (UTC)
The P&T (or P&A) can mention something to the effect of the fact that Solok was skilled enough to reach the rank of Jedi Master.CC7567 (talk) 14:44, April 18, 2014 (UTC)- Added. It didn't seem worth splitting them still. Ayrehead02 (talk) 10:51, April 21, 2014 (UTC)
"surrounding settlement": article?CC7567 (talk) 01:35, April 25, 2014 (UTC)- Added link. Will probably write it soon. Ayrehead02 (talk) 10:01, April 26, 2014 (UTC)
501st
A small thing: "Around 20 BBY, during the Clone Wars—fought between the Republic and the Confederacy of Independent Systems—Solok had achieved the rank of Jedi Master." The "around" doesn't really work with the "had" here. Could we say prior to 20 BBY? Or Prior to approximately 20 BBY?501st dogma(talk) 18:06, May 7, 2014 (UTC)- Changed. Ayrehead02 (talk) 09:17, May 8, 2014 (UTC)
Comments
Approved as a Good article by AgriCorps 23:06, May 12, 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a good article nomination that was successful. Please do not modify it.
D'ian
- Nominated by: Ayrehead02 (talk) 13:16, March 19, 2014 (UTC)
- Nomination comments: Wanted to try a Corporate sector world, others may follow
(3 ACs/2 Users/5 Total)
Support
- Clone Commander Lee Talk 13:49, March 19, 2014 (UTC)
- Sir Cavalier of One(Squadron channel) 12:24, May 7, 2014 (UTC)
- Cade Calrayn 22:57, May 10, 2014 (UTC)
- IFYLOFD (Enter the Floydome) 01:45, May 13, 2014 (UTC)
- 501st dogma(talk) 23:58, May 15, 2014 (UTC)
Object
Lee's charge
D'ian was a planet with balmy weather and shallow seas, which located within the: Something missing here, right?- Fixed. Ayrehead02 (talk) 13:34, March 19, 2014 (UTC)
By the time of the Clone Wars between the Galactic Republic and the Confederacy of Independent Systems, the planet was considered a part of Republic space: I'm not sure, but should this be "considered to be a part of..."?- I think its fine either way, but changed. Ayrehead02 (talk) 13:34, March 19, 2014 (UTC)
Could you reword the stuff about the Confederation and the population in 25 ABY to make it more chronolized? Now it sounds like the Second Galactic Civil War started sometime before or in 25 ABY.- Added dates to make it clearer. Ayrehead02 (talk) 13:34, March 19, 2014 (UTC)
Was the planet mentioned in Agent of the Empire—Iron Eclipse, Part 1?- Nope, Cross just said something like An Orchard Vine from the Corporate Sector if I'm not mistake. Ayrehead02 (talk) 13:34, March 19, 2014 (UTC)
AFAIK, the affiliations in the infobox should in chronological order and not in alphabetical.- Oh, that does make more sense. Ayrehead02 (talk) 13:34, March 19, 2014 (UTC)
- Nice. Clone Commander Lee Talk 13:27, March 19, 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks! Ayrehead02 (talk) 13:34, March 19, 2014 (UTC)
Winterz's retreat
May I ask why do you use one ref for the "region" and "sector" fields of the infobox but then a different ref when describing them in the body? You could probably fix that, only to make it more consistent.Winterz (talk) 23:41, April 6, 2014 (UTC)- Oops, fixed. Ayrehead02 (talk) 13:35, April 18, 2014 (UTC)
Cav
Can we get some dates thrown in there for the Clone Wars, rise of the Empire, etc?- Added. Ayrehead02 (talk) 13:35, April 18, 2014 (UTC)
A little explanation of the CSA itself would be appreciated.- Added. Ayrehead02 (talk) 13:35, April 18, 2014 (UTC)
Population info needs to be in the infobox as well.- Sir Cavalier of One(Squadron channel) 19:55, April 16, 2014 (UTC)- Given that its only an average for the region I'm not sure it should be included there. In fact I'm pretty sure I've seen people told to remove the Atlas averages from infoboxes. Ayrehead02 (talk) 13:35, April 18, 2014 (UTC)
Cadeth
It didn't actually appear in the Atlas. I'd say "D'ian was first mentioned in The Essential Atlas, a sourcebook written by Daniel Wallace and Jason Fry and released in 2009. It received a short summary in the section on the Corporate Sector, and also appeared on a map of the region."- Changed. Ayrehead02 (talk) 16:38, May 7, 2014 (UTC)
Please specify when the Corporate Sector was founded in the intro.- Added. Ayrehead02 (talk) 16:38, May 7, 2014 (UTC)
Is "Orchard vine" capitalized?- I annoyingly don't have access to my copy at the moment so I can't check. As soon as I do I'll correct it if necessary. Ayrehead02 (talk) 16:38, May 7, 2014 (UTC)
- Well, you decapitalize it in its own CA. Clone Commander Lee Talk 16:46, May 7, 2014 (UTC)
- Nice catch! Thanks man. Ayrehead02 (talk) 17:03, May 7, 2014 (UTC)
- Well, you decapitalize it in its own CA. Clone Commander Lee Talk 16:46, May 7, 2014 (UTC)
- I annoyingly don't have access to my copy at the moment so I can't check. As soon as I do I'll correct it if necessary. Ayrehead02 (talk) 16:38, May 7, 2014 (UTC)
You make no mention of the Morellian Trail, the pre-existing hyperroute that was one of the Hydian Way's components. Also, because the Trail runs through D'ian, it had to be discovered by at least 3704 BBY, when Kallea joined the Trail with the Spurs of Celanon.- Added, and will add proper page number referencing once I have access to the Atlas. Ayrehead02 (talk) 16:38, May 7, 2014 (UTC)
- Page 138. Clone Commander Lee Talk 17:09, May 7, 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks again for the help. Seems that the current reference is actually find then. Ayrehead02 (talk) 09:12, May 8, 2014 (UTC)
- Page 138. Clone Commander Lee Talk 17:09, May 7, 2014 (UTC)
- Added, and will add proper page number referencing once I have access to the Atlas. Ayrehead02 (talk) 16:38, May 7, 2014 (UTC)
The planet itself isn't really a junction; it's the D'ian system.- Changed. Ayrehead02 (talk) 16:38, May 7, 2014 (UTC)
Both words of Corporate Sector should be capitalized. Cade Calrayn 21:02, April 22, 2014 (UTC)- Fixed. Ayrehead02 (talk) 16:38, May 7, 2014 (UTC)
Comments
Approved as a Good article by AgriCorps 04:22, May 16, 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a good article nomination that was unsuccessful. Please do not modify it.[[Category:Wookieepedia Good article nomination pages archive/2014|]]
Foreign Affairs scandal
- Nominated by: Stake black msg 21:35, March 21, 2014 (UTC)
- Nomination comments: Yay.
(0 ACs/1 Users/1 Total)
Support
- Clone Commander Lee Talk 19:56, March 27, 2014 (UTC)
Object
Lee's attack
Could you add a short intro.Context for Plagueis and Theed.Isnt' Amidala also a participant (Infobox)?Is NOTOC really needed?- Interesting stuff. Clone Commander Lee Talk 20:39, March 22, 2014 (UTC)
- Hey Lee, thanks for the review. An intro is not always necessary, as per rule 7. Also, NOTOC is not being used in the article. Context and Padmé's participation have been added; have a look. Stake black msg 01:56, March 27, 2014 (UTC)
In around 33 BBY: In or around?- Otherwise it looks good. Please remember that one objection to Onderon-mission still needs to addressed. Clone Commander Lee Talk 14:17, March 27, 2014 (UTC)
- Around. Stake black msg 16:27, March 27, 2014 (UTC)
Jang
Per Rules 4 and 7, please section the article. This isn't the CAN. JangFett (Talk) 13:21, March 24, 2014 (UTC)- Jang, rule 7 states: "…have a proper lead that gives a good summary of the topic if the length of the article supports it. This may not be appropriate on articles with limited content." Splitting such a small article into sections would make it needlessly repetitive. There's no more information on this subject, I'm afraid. Stake black msg 01:46, March 27, 2014 (UTC)
- Referring to the intro alone. If you look at your content, you have enough information for another section. Try it out. JangFett (Talk) 01:55, March 27, 2014 (UTC)
- Have a look. Stake black msg 02:51, March 27, 2014 (UTC)
- Referring to the intro alone. If you look at your content, you have enough information for another section. Try it out. JangFett (Talk) 01:55, March 27, 2014 (UTC)
- Jang, rule 7 states: "…have a proper lead that gives a good summary of the topic if the length of the article supports it. This may not be appropriate on articles with limited content." Splitting such a small article into sections would make it needlessly repetitive. There's no more information on this subject, I'm afraid. Stake black msg 01:46, March 27, 2014 (UTC)
Thunderforge
The Behind the Scenes section says that "the events described in A Summer's Dream were later included in later canonical works" (plural), but there is only one appearance for it and one source, which is an indirect mention. Could you please address this? -Thunderforge (talk) 02:14, April 5, 2014 (UTC)- The scandal is only mentioned in Secrets of Naboo, but the actual story of the comic has been referenced in SoN and Star Wars: Darth Plagueis, that I know. Stake black msg 02:34, April 5, 2014 (UTC)
- I guess I'm not quite convinced, from the article alone, that Secrets of Naboo is referring to this event. This article states that Secrets of Naboo "mentioned that Veruna got entangled in 'less-than-noble offworld politics,' referring to the king as corrupt and having a double agenda." This seems too vague to me and doesn't provide any specific information that would link it to the ambiguously canon Tales comic (it could be some other scandal). Are there any other passages within Secrets of Naboo that could be linked to this scandal? -Thunderforge (talk) 04:53, April 11, 2014 (UTC)
- You're right, but the phrasing is so vague that even it if wasn't mentioning any event in particular, it could be used for any foreign policy scandals. "Less-than-noble offworld politics" refers to his general conduction of foreign affairs, which was the source of the scandal. Seems a no-brainer. Stake black msg 12:37, April 11, 2014 (UTC)
- While I agree that "less-than-noble offworld politics" would fit as the source of the scandal, I don't think that the fact that it fits proves that the scandal itself is canon. As you said, the statement could be referring to any foreign policy scandal, but since it doesn't provide any further information linking to this particular scandal, I don't think that it raises the event in the Tales comic from ambiguously canon to full canon. To provide an alternative example, say that some source later referenced that "Jar Jar Binks' was hated by his father." While that fits with George R. Binks, it's too vague to make the story canon (and the elements within, such as his father's name, the fact that he owned a business, the fact that Jar Jar was trapped on an island, etc.). I think that this event should be marked as ambiguously canon, but I would encourage these supporting events in order to basically say that although these canon events don't specifically reference this ambiguously canon event, they do support it. -Thunderforge (talk) 00:18, April 12, 2014 (UTC)
- See, at least 3 sources that I can recall already confirm the overall story in A Summer's Dream as canon (End Game, Secrets of Naboo, Darth Plagueis). The fact that this fleeting mention of the scandal was not mentioned later on does not make it automatically non-canon. There's no reason to suspect that this would be non-canon if the main story was deemed canon, and in fact I'd be surprised if this sort of suspicion was ever previously raised here on the Wook. This confirmation by later sources is mainly just to sort silly comics like What They Called Me from the more serious ones. On another point, it's worthy of saying that this scandal is described so generically, that no canon source could specifically refer to it, so it seems a demand a bit excessive to make. Stake black msg 03:48, April 12, 2014 (UTC)
- By the way, I found more sources for it. Have a second look. Stake black msg 15:14, April 17, 2014 (UTC)
- I'm a bit confused by the Star Wars Fact Files. What does "AMI1, Padmé Amidala" mean? And is there a reason that they aren't used as references? Right now, they are the only Sources that are not also used as references. -Thunderforge (talk) 23:54, April 25, 2014 (UTC)
- Not every source has to be used as a reference. The Fact Files simply repeat information. "AM1" is the page number. Cade Calrayn 23:56, April 25, 2014 (UTC)
- I'm still not completely convinced that this event is canon rather than ambiguously canon, but I've decided to withdraw my objection. If others have similar objections and can better express them, they're certainly welcome to, but I'm willing to admit that I may have it all wrong. -Thunderforge (talk) 00:37, April 30, 2014 (UTC)
- Not every source has to be used as a reference. The Fact Files simply repeat information. "AM1" is the page number. Cade Calrayn 23:56, April 25, 2014 (UTC)
- I'm a bit confused by the Star Wars Fact Files. What does "AMI1, Padmé Amidala" mean? And is there a reason that they aren't used as references? Right now, they are the only Sources that are not also used as references. -Thunderforge (talk) 23:54, April 25, 2014 (UTC)
- While I agree that "less-than-noble offworld politics" would fit as the source of the scandal, I don't think that the fact that it fits proves that the scandal itself is canon. As you said, the statement could be referring to any foreign policy scandal, but since it doesn't provide any further information linking to this particular scandal, I don't think that it raises the event in the Tales comic from ambiguously canon to full canon. To provide an alternative example, say that some source later referenced that "Jar Jar Binks' was hated by his father." While that fits with George R. Binks, it's too vague to make the story canon (and the elements within, such as his father's name, the fact that he owned a business, the fact that Jar Jar was trapped on an island, etc.). I think that this event should be marked as ambiguously canon, but I would encourage these supporting events in order to basically say that although these canon events don't specifically reference this ambiguously canon event, they do support it. -Thunderforge (talk) 00:18, April 12, 2014 (UTC)
- You're right, but the phrasing is so vague that even it if wasn't mentioning any event in particular, it could be used for any foreign policy scandals. "Less-than-noble offworld politics" refers to his general conduction of foreign affairs, which was the source of the scandal. Seems a no-brainer. Stake black msg 12:37, April 11, 2014 (UTC)
- I guess I'm not quite convinced, from the article alone, that Secrets of Naboo is referring to this event. This article states that Secrets of Naboo "mentioned that Veruna got entangled in 'less-than-noble offworld politics,' referring to the king as corrupt and having a double agenda." This seems too vague to me and doesn't provide any specific information that would link it to the ambiguously canon Tales comic (it could be some other scandal). Are there any other passages within Secrets of Naboo that could be linked to this scandal? -Thunderforge (talk) 04:53, April 11, 2014 (UTC)
- The scandal is only mentioned in Secrets of Naboo, but the actual story of the comic has been referenced in SoN and Star Wars: Darth Plagueis, that I know. Stake black msg 02:34, April 5, 2014 (UTC)
Cadeth
- Please break up the last History sentence. Cade Calrayn 19:25, April 23, 2014 (UTC)
- Done. Stake black msg 19:29, April 23, 2014 (UTC)
- After consulting with other users, I think that this needs to adhere to the Layout Guide. The battles section specifically states: "There are some guidelines for the organization of battle and event articles within Wookieepedia." I think sectioning off a Prelude and Aftermath shouldn't be difficult. Cade Calrayn 19:35, April 23, 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, a prelude section isn't that obvious. Pretty much every appearance Veruna makes in sources refers to him as Amidala's bad predecessor. What would you like to see in a Prelude section, specifically? Stake black msg 14:29, May 8, 2014 (UTC)
Cav
- Why is there an empty "Prelude" section? - Sir Cavalier of One(Squadron channel) 13:08, May 7, 2014 (UTC)
Comments
Vote to remove nomination (AC only)
- Multiple objections past 2 weeks old. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 02:28, May 25, 2014 (UTC)
- 1358 (Talk) 22:07, May 25, 2014 (UTC)
- Exiled Jedi (Greetings) 22:07, May 25, 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Good article nomination that was successful. Please do not modify it.
Galdos Stouff
- Nominated by: Ayrehead02 (talk) 17:17, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Nomination comments: It is weird that nothing in canon or Legends ever ID'd one of the film extras as Stouff
- Date Archived: 22:55, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Final word count: 362 words (77 introduction, 223 body, 62 behind the scenes)
- WookieeProject (optional):
(4 ACs/0 Users/4 Total)
(Votes required: No additional votes required to pass, please consider reviewing another article.)
Support
- Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 23:11, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Lewisr (talk) 23:26, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Loved Rise of the Red Blade. —spookywillowwtalk 23:51, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- Really gotta read that book. JediMasterMacaroni(Talk) 22:53, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Object
Comments
Approved as a Good article by AgriCorps 22:53, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a good article nomination that was successful. Please do not modify it.
Champion (Bothan Assault Cruiser)
(5 ACs/1 Users/6 Total)
Support
- Clone Commander Lee Talk 14:01, March 29, 2014 (UTC)
- CC7567 (talk) 02:04, April 18, 2014 (UTC)
- Cade Calrayn 22:01, April 23, 2014 (UTC)
- IFYLOFD (Enter the Floydome) 04:11, April 24, 2014 (UTC)
- JangFett (Talk) 14:57, April 25, 2014 (UTC)
- Exiled Jedi (Greetings) 15:59, April 25, 2014 (UTC)
Object
Exiled Jedi
You missed a redirect, please fix it.- That's weird. It wasn't highlighted in yellow, and when I went to my preferences, I could not find the option to turn it back on. Did they remove that feature? (I fixed the redirect)
- The gadgets have been going on and off lately. To get around this problem, you can create a User:501st dogma/Monobook.css page with — a.mw-redirect {color:darkorange} — on it.--Exiled Jedi (Greetings) 15:57, March 29, 2014 (UTC)
- That's weird. It wasn't highlighted in yellow, and when I went to my preferences, I could not find the option to turn it back on. Did they remove that feature? (I fixed the redirect)
Context on the Yuuzhan Vong in the introduction.- There.
Just making sure, but can the 26 BBY date be sourced directly to the novel?- No. I've reffed the 26 ABY parts to the Reader's companion, as that states that the events of the novel occurred that year.
"and targeting things like the cruiser's drive nacelles" Could you make this a little more formal?- Better?
"damaged Champion enough that its drive blew." I am slightly confused as to what the Champion's drive is. Could you try to explain this more clearly?--Exiled Jedi (Greetings) 23:01, March 24, 2014 (UTC)I find the way you refer to the ship like "the deflector shields of Champion" as a little strange. In at least one instance you say "the Champion," which is the way I normally see ship's mentioned. Is there a reason you don't have the "the" in front of the ship name? In any event, the article should be consistent.- I've looked through the article and cannot find any "the"s in front of Champ. I did it that way because Balancing Point never had a the in front, although TCSWE did in its entry.
Did the explosion kill any of the pilots?- Doesn't say
Is there any context on the Yuuzhan Vong capital ship?- Does that help?
I noticed that you sourced some information to Starships of the Galaxy (2001). Is there anything else that could be added to the article from that book?- In ship articles, if it doesn't give me the ship's specifics, I generally only give the length and the producer by citing to a different source. This is because the ship could have been modified, for example having two extra guns, a smaller more efficient crew, or so on. I do length and producer because they rarely change.
Are there any relevant quotes by Glie'oleg Kru for the article? You could add it to the commanders and crew section.--Exiled Jedi (Greetings) 15:57, March 29, 2014 (UTC)
Lee's charge
Is there enough info for a commanders and crew section?- There - added.
Could you give context for the dovin basal?- Do you want context the context in the intro? Its currently contextified(?) in the body.
- I took the liberty of adding the context myself and will support once you had a look at it. Clone Commander Lee Talk 13:24, March 29, 2014 (UTC)
- Do you want context the context in the intro? Its currently contextified(?) in the body.
To make matters worse, the deflector shields of Champion were yanked from it by the Yuuzhan Vong forces: How?- The book doesn't say.
If there is not enough for a C&C section, please mention that the admiral was killed (If he was, I don't trust his own article).- Added mention of his death in C&C.
- Always nice to read a ship article. Clone Commander Lee Talk 00:19, March 25, 2014 (UTC)
Jangeth
- I'll look at the intro first:
Please, dogma, when you're referring to a starship, please say "The" before its name. It's more formal that way. The intro is taken care of, but please check the rest of the article.- Actually, BP never uses "the" in front of Champion, so that's why I chose to leave it out. If that's not a good reason, I can change it. (I've removed the "thes" for now, but I can re-add them)
Your usage of "cruiser" in the first two sentences of the intro is redundant—"A New Republic cruiser operational during the Yuuzhan Vong War" You can easily merge that it was operational in the first sentence. It's more proper to introduce it that way than to say its length first.- Tweaked it a bit.
" the cruiser flew cover for the refugee starships fleeing the doomed planet Kalarba as the Yuuzhan Vong species used a gravity-manipulating dovin basal to bring Kalarba's orbital Hosk Station crashing into the planet." I'm confused—do you mean they sought cover from the Vong? Double check your wording here.- The book specifically says that "Champ was flying cover for another refugee convoy." I assume it means that they were covering the retreat of the convoy. Is it okay to leave "flying cover", as the book uses it?
"the Champion was destroyed after its deflector shields were lost while it was battling enemy forces" To make it less passive, you could easily tweak the words around a bit by saying "As the Champion fought against enemy forces, it lost its deflector shields, exposing it to enemy fire." or something. Make it flow better."However, before Hosk Station impacted Kalarba, the Champion lost its deflector shields while it battled enemy forces." The dependent clause of this sentence has no relation to the second part of the sentence. Normally something relating to Kalarba would be mentioned here, but you awkwardly changed the sentence's focus from Kalarba to the Champion. Also what enemy forces? JangFett (Talk) 22:51, April 14, 2014 (UTC)- Done.
After you take care of that, look at the subsequent sentence:"The Bothan Assault Cruiser exploded, and the resulting detonation caught some New Republic starfighter pilots within the blast." In its current state, you mentioned that it was destroyed twice in two sentences. To avoid another case of redundancy, please correct the previous sentence (see the objection above). JangFett (Talk) 19:41, April 14, 2014 (UTC)"and the resulting detonation caught some New Republic starfighter pilots within the blast." Where the pilots flying out in space? :P JangFett (Talk) 22:51, April 14, 2014 (UTC)There is a disconnect between Champion protecting the convoy while fighting the Vong and then saying the Vond had used a gravity-manipulating dovin basal. Does the novel say when they actually did this? The events preferably should go in chronological order. JangFett (Talk) 23:22, April 15, 2014 (UTC)
Attack of the Clone
Starfighter combat and space warfare need to be linked in the intro and body where appropriate.- There you go. Could not insert starfigher combat into the intro, but got them both into the body.
Is there a specific X-wing model that can be linked instead of X-wing starfighter?CC7567 (talk) 16:04, April 16, 2014 (UTC)Sounds like an article for the specific "newly arrived Yuuzhan Vong capital ship that was slightly smaller than a [[Star Destroyer" is warranted.CC7567 (talk) 14:46, April 17, 2014 (UTC)
El Jefe
Saying the Yuuzhan Vong ship "yanked" away the shields is pretty colloquial.- Book used yank, but I've changed it to "took". Better?
Could there be a quote for Commanders and crew?IFYLOFD (Enter the Floydome) 03:47, April 22, 2014 (UTC)
Cadeth
Are any of the Rogues killed in the explosion? If so, please try to split up the last history sentence. Cade Calrayn 01:55, April 23, 2014 (UTC)
Comments
Approved as a Good article by AgriCorps 15:59, April 25, 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a good article nomination that was successful. Please do not modify it.[[Category:Wookieepedia Good article nomination pages archive/2014|]]
Unidentified Wookiee worker 2
- Nominated by: Commander Code-8 You lost the game! 09:38, March 25, 2014 (UTC)
- Nomination comments: Guess who's back! Trying to make a return to semi-active editing and so thought I'd kick off with a nom I let slip by a while ago.
(4 ACs/3 Users/7 Total)
Support
- Clone Commander Lee Talk 21:13, March 25, 2014 (UTC)
- Code was too addicted to the Wook to leave. :) 501st dogma(talk) 00:31, March 26, 2014 (UTC)
- Great to have you back :) Supreme Emperor (talk) 00:46, March 26, 2014 (UTC)
- Sir Cavalier of One(Squadron channel) 13:16, May 7, 2014 (UTC)
- Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 00:36, June 9, 2014 (UTC)
- IFYLOFD (Enter the Floydome) 02:43, June 10, 2014 (UTC)
- Exiled Jedi (Greetings) 04:36, June 10, 2014 (UTC)
Object
Lee's charge
Do we have a link for the gundark attack?- It's a part of the Battle of Alaris Prime article. Commander Code-8 You lost the game! 21:11, March 25, 2014 (UTC)
- Should be all. Hm, maybe I should get this game. Clone Commander Lee Talk 10:22, March 25, 2014 (UTC)
Exiled Jedi
Uh, a history section for a character article?- Corrected. Commander Code-8 Felicitations malefactors! 07:51, March 26, 2014 (UTC)
- I'll give this a full review later.--Exiled Jedi (Greetings) 06:22, March 26, 2014 (UTC)
I feel like you go into a little too much play-by-play detail of the worker's actions. Could you condense things down slightly?- Not quite sure how to carry out this one.
- I think you just go into a little too much detail about the events of the mission. You could easily trim down the part about gathering food for more workers and the gundark attack.--Exiled Jedi (Greetings) 01:29, May 9, 2014 (UTC)
- Any better now? Commander Code-8 Felicitations malefactors! 04:44, May 16, 2014 (UTC)
- I think you just go into a little too much detail about the events of the mission. You could easily trim down the part about gathering food for more workers and the gundark attack.--Exiled Jedi (Greetings) 01:29, May 9, 2014 (UTC)
- Not quite sure how to carry out this one.
Since you mentioned the worker's clothing please mention the belt and tools used by the Wookiee.- Done
You use the word "appeared" twice in the second sentence of the BTS. Please reword this.--Exiled Jedi (Greetings) 22:33, April 30, 2014 (UTC)- Fixed. Commander Code-8 Felicitations malefactors! 10:01, May 5, 2014 (UTC)
"The workers soon had gathered enough food to allow the base to support a fourth worker to join them, and once even more food was gathered another worker arrived at the base." Could you change one of the uses of gathered in this sentence?While the worker's gender is not know, it is not technically proper to refer to the worker using "its."--Exiled Jedi (Greetings) 04:05, May 25, 2014 (UTC)- Both done. Commander Code-8 Felicitations malefactors! 08:11, May 26, 2014 (UTC)
- You missed two "its" in the equipment section.--Exiled Jedi (Greetings) 20:40, May 29, 2014 (UTC)
- Done. Commander Code-8 Felicitations malefactors! 22:22, May 29, 2014 (UTC)
- You missed two "its" in the equipment section.--Exiled Jedi (Greetings) 20:40, May 29, 2014 (UTC)
- Both done. Commander Code-8 Felicitations malefactors! 08:11, May 26, 2014 (UTC)
Toprawa
This has absolutely nothing to do with the personality and traits of this Wookiee. Since you have nothing to legitimately populate a P/T section with, I would suggest cutting this section entirely and moving mention of his brown fur into the Biography: "A brown-haired Wookiee, the worker was trained to gather food, carbon, nova crystals and ore."- Done.
It's not proper grammar to use "them" or "their" as a substitute pronoun when an individual's sex is not known because "them" and "their" are plural, and this individual is singular. You will need to find a way to rewrite this to avoid pronoun use: "The Wookiee worker wore a belt and a piece of orange clothing that covered their torso and part of their legs."- I need help on this one, I have no idea how to do it.
- You just need to be a little creative to avoid using pronouns. This involves referring to the individual with words that do not denote a specific sex, such as "his" or "her." A quick example off the top of my head would be "The Wookiee wore a belt and a piece of orange clothing that covered the worker's torso and part of the worker's legs."
- Thanks, done.
- You just need to be a little creative to avoid using pronouns. This involves referring to the individual with words that do not denote a specific sex, such as "his" or "her." A quick example off the top of my head would be "The Wookiee wore a belt and a piece of orange clothing that covered the worker's torso and part of the worker's legs."
- I need help on this one, I have no idea how to do it.
I'm curious how the strategy guide is an indirect mention only for this unidentified character.Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 19:08, June 6, 2014 (UTC)- I've always used the Imo tag when a character is mentioned in the strategy guide but isn't named, is this correct to do so? Commander Code-8 Felicitations malefactors! 23:14, June 6, 2014 (UTC)
- Most of the time, no. Since conjecturally-titled subjects have no formal name, any mention of them in a source is going to be "indirect" by default. The only real exception would be, for example, if the strategy guide mentioned a "group of Wookiees" gathering resources. That would obviously refer to the four or five or whatever Wookiees being discussed in this article without directly referring to any specific one. It appears to me that it would be better to remove the Imo tag in this article. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 06:11, June 8, 2014 (UTC)
- Changed. Commander Code-8 Felicitations malefactors! 00:00, June 9, 2014 (UTC)
- Most of the time, no. Since conjecturally-titled subjects have no formal name, any mention of them in a source is going to be "indirect" by default. The only real exception would be, for example, if the strategy guide mentioned a "group of Wookiees" gathering resources. That would obviously refer to the four or five or whatever Wookiees being discussed in this article without directly referring to any specific one. It appears to me that it would be better to remove the Imo tag in this article. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 06:11, June 8, 2014 (UTC)
- I've always used the Imo tag when a character is mentioned in the strategy guide but isn't named, is this correct to do so? Commander Code-8 Felicitations malefactors! 23:14, June 6, 2014 (UTC)
Comments
- Approved as a Good article by AgriCorps 02:43, June 10, 2014 (UTC)
[[Category:Archived nominations by User:Commander Code-8|]]
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a good article nomination that was successful. Please do not modify it.
Aiwha-3 Squad
- Nominated by: Clone Commander Lee Talk 10:49, March 25, 2014 (UTC)
- Nomination comments: Got to big for CAN, should be a nice and easy read
(4 ACs/1 Users/5 Total)
Support
- JangFett (Talk) 23:03, April 15, 2014 (UTC)
- IFYLOFD (Enter the Floydome) 03:40, April 18, 2014 (UTC)
- 501st dogma(talk) 18:00, May 2, 2014 (UTC)
- Exiled Jedi (Greetings) 22:04, May 17, 2014 (UTC)
- Sir Cavalier of One(Squadron channel) 22:10, May 28, 2014 (UTC)
Object
Lee, look closely at the infobox. What's wrong with it? JangFett (Talk) 18:20, March 25, 2014 (UTC)- Yes. Brackets. Clone Commander Lee Talk 18:42, March 25, 2014 (UTC)
In the first two sentences of the history section, you mention "was created." Please either condense the two sentence or vary up your wording.- Have a look. Clone Commander Lee Talk 18:39, April 6, 2014 (UTC)
Throughout the article you refer to Aiwha-3 Squad as "squad". I would check all the sources and see if they say "Squad" in a sentence or two. JangFett (Talk) 18:32, April 6, 2014 (UTC)- The squad is only mentioned once as "Aiwha-3 Squad" in the novel. Same in the CSWE. Therefore all instances capitalized. Clone Commander Lee Talk 18:39, April 6, 2014 (UTC)
El Jefe
I'd like a year in the intro.IFYLOFD (Enter the Floydome) 04:56, April 17, 2014 (UTC)- Added. Clone Commander Lee Talk 11:51, April 17, 2014 (UTC)
501st
"During the battle, all commandos, except trooper Jez, were killed in action." This sounds like every single commando that the Republic sent in was killed, which is not the case.- Better? Clone Commander Lee Talk 17:53, May 2, 2014 (UTC)
"Aiwha-3 Squad wore customized colored Katarn-class commando armor in combat." Are you basing this off of Jez's armor coloration in the book, or does the book actually say the entire squad wore colored armor?501st dogma(talk) 17:50, May 2, 2014 (UTC)- Yes, Skirata says he recognizes the squads due to their unique colored armor. Clone Commander Lee Talk 17:53, May 2, 2014 (UTC)
Exiled Jedi
"Aiwha-3 Squad wore customized colored Katarn-class commando armor in combat." Is the armor customized, or is the color customized? Please reword.--Exiled Jedi (Greetings) 03:54, May 5, 2014 (UTC)- Better? Clone Commander Lee Talk 11:51, May 5, 2014 (UTC)
Cav
We have a {{Military unit}} that should be used instead of the organization one.- Sir Cavalier of One(Squadron channel) 13:18, May 7, 2014 (UTC)- Indeed, changed. Clone Commander Lee Talk 13:22, May 7, 2014 (UTC)
Comments
Approved as a Good article by AgriCorps 22:11, May 28, 2014 (UTC)
- You could mention somewhere that the squad shares its name with the aiwha creature, briefly explaining what it is. Stake black msg 16:12, March 31, 2014 (UTC)
- Great idea, I added a small mention. Clone Commander Lee Talk 17:26, March 31, 2014 (UTC)
- Come to think of it, since the article has no image, an image of an aiwha would be interesting (as long as it's not in the infobox) and relevant, but that's up to you. Stake black msg 19:42, March 31, 2014 (UTC)
- As we don not know if the squad's name is directly related to the Aiwha, I prefer not to. Clone Commander Lee Talk 19:46, March 31, 2014 (UTC)
- Come to think of it, since the article has no image, an image of an aiwha would be interesting (as long as it's not in the infobox) and relevant, but that's up to you. Stake black msg 19:42, March 31, 2014 (UTC)
- Great idea, I added a small mention. Clone Commander Lee Talk 17:26, March 31, 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a good article nomination that was successful. Please do not modify it.
Azzameen cargo fields
- Nominated by: Jorrel FraajicMar 25, 2014 Wookieepedian21:11:08 UTC
- Nomination comments: This was supposed to be a simple redlink fix for Ace Azzameen's article. I don't know what happened.
(4 ACs/1 Users/5 Total)
Support
- Clone Commander Lee Talk 20:56, March 27, 2014 (UTC)
- Sir Cavalier of One(Squadron channel) 13:33, May 7, 2014 (UTC)
- Green Tentacle (Talk) 11:26, May 31, 2014 (UTC)
- Good job. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 00:12, June 9, 2014 (UTC)
- IFYLOFD (Enter the Floydome) 23:46, June 9, 2014 (UTC)
Object
Needs images. Jorrel FraajicMar 25, 2014 Wookieepedian21:11:08 UTC- Needed quotes too. Now it needs neither. Jorrel FraajicMar 26, 2014 Wookieepedian02:39:23 UTC
Lee's charge
Context for the Azzameen family in intro and description section please.- Contextified in both.
A little bit context for Azzameen station would be nice, it could be a planet-based base. (urgh)- Also contextified here.
Context for both Azzameens. Is (s)he already a rebel at this point or just a businessman.- Contextified.
You need a date in intro and bio, for now that is infobox-exclusive- Added in both, though the infobox one is removed now.
In the infobox you say that the containers were moved, while the body only says that the droid lamented they had to be moved. Which one is correct?- It is heavily implied by the droid in both the mission itself and the post-mission briefing, though there is nothing that explicitly mentions they were moved. Exact words:
- Aeron: "Yeah, and you realize this means the storage area has been compromised."
- MK-09: "That means we will have to move all these containers!"
- Aeron: "Indeed, but first we need to get home as soon as possible"
- ―In-mission dialogue.[src]
- "This all means the security of our storage areas has been compromised. We will have to relocate all those containers."
- ―Post-mission brief.[src]
- That said, no, nothing explicitly says they were moved. I've removed the date in the infobox.
- Clone Commander Lee Talk 11:09, March 26, 2014 (UTC)
Is all the linking in captions really needed?Clone Commander Lee Talk 14:29, March 27, 2014 (UTC)
Exiled Jedi
Are the two events mentioned in the introduction of any individual significance? I don't know enough about the game to know if they should have articles or not, so I thought I would check.- Not particularly, no. The first is a single ship that tried to take off with a container; this ship is driven off. The second, while a component of an increasing feud between the Azzameens and Viraxo, isn't real notable by itself: two enemy starfighters and a freighter against two family YT-1300s.
"The cargo area was owned by the Azzameen family" The "cargo area" just doesn't give the impression of a space location. It would probably be best to refer to them as cargo fields again since that is the article title.- Good point, fixed.
Can the circa 3 ABY date be directly supported by the game?- Nope, which I figured out on a later article. Fixed.
- Just making sure, but does the NEC refer directly to the events of the game or is there some calculating that needs to be done to get the date? If additional calculations are necessary, please add them to the reference.--Exiled Jedi (Greetings) 04:36, May 18, 2014 (UTC)
- Added, though I have a question. Is the reference to NEC necessary since I have a reference explaining the dating, giving the NEC as the source of the second reference? JorrelFraajic 06:04, May 18, 2014 (UTC)
- Just use the long reference to source the date. The NEC-only source doesn't really add anything.--Exiled Jedi (Greetings) 22:51, May 28, 2014 (UTC)
- Added, though I have a question. Is the reference to NEC necessary since I have a reference explaining the dating, giving the NEC as the source of the second reference? JorrelFraajic 06:04, May 18, 2014 (UTC)
- Just making sure, but does the NEC refer directly to the events of the game or is there some calculating that needs to be done to get the date? If additional calculations are necessary, please add them to the reference.--Exiled Jedi (Greetings) 04:36, May 18, 2014 (UTC)
- Nope, which I figured out on a later article. Fixed.
"and the last of the three contained Class-K and Class-L cargo containers" You already have been using container a lot, so you should probably use a word besides "contained" here.- I added different words, though I started to run out having to put in the next
"The plots were separated from each other and the Azzameen's home, an orbital platform known as Azzameen Station, by a distance requiring a jump through hyperspace." Again, I don't know much about the game, but this seems to indicate that the three plots were three separate locations instead of one.- They do require three jumps, each leading to a separate area. The game goes back and forth on it: On one hand, it suggests all three considered one cargo "area", but then breaks up the fields into three cargo areas. The Prima guide also seems to think they're three areas in one. Based on your objection, though, it seems like it could be considered three separate areas for the purposes of the article(s, in this case). I'll work on splitting it presently. As such, this should probably be closed and archived, seeing as it's gonna end up at a different name.
- After examining your reply and discussing this topic with others, I think that leaving the three fields together in the same article would be the best course of action.--Exiled Jedi (Greetings) 04:36, May 18, 2014 (UTC)
- They do require three jumps, each leading to a separate area. The game goes back and forth on it: On one hand, it suggests all three considered one cargo "area", but then breaks up the fields into three cargo areas. The Prima guide also seems to think they're three areas in one. Based on your objection, though, it seems like it could be considered three separate areas for the purposes of the article(s, in this case). I'll work on splitting it presently. As such, this should probably be closed and archived, seeing as it's gonna end up at a different name.
Could you break up the history paragraph?- Split.
- You forgot to source the first paragraph.--Exiled Jedi (Greetings) 04:36, May 18, 2014 (UTC)
- Split.
You should probably use technician instead of tech.- Done.
- I
know that in the original X-Wing game that you can see the contents of the cargo containers when you scan them. Could you add information about the cargo they had stored in the different plots?--Exiled Jedi (Greetings) 04:14, May 5, 2014 (UTC)- Added. Tried to keep "contained" varied as well. JorrelFraajic 04:58, May 5, 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how the game displays the text exactly, but it doesn't seem right that all of these items would start with a capital in the middle of a sentence.--Exiled Jedi (Greetings) 04:36, May 18, 2014 (UTC)
- Added. Tried to keep "contained" varied as well. JorrelFraajic 04:58, May 5, 2014 (UTC)
You need to source all of the 3 ABY dates with a separate citation.- Sourced and clarified, per earlier objection.
You currently have four redlinks, which is over the limit for a GA.--Exiled Jedi (Greetings) 04:36, May 18, 2014 (UTC)You use owned twice in the first sentence of the description section.--Exiled Jedi (Greetings) 22:51, May 28, 2014 (UTC)Intro: "Due to this breach..." This implies that one of the breaches led to the move being necessary. Please specify which incident led to the move if one triggered it, otherwise please reword this to make it more clear.--Exiled Jedi (Greetings) 04:07, June 7, 2014 (UTC)- Hmmm, now that you updated the intro, I notice that you did not say the database deletion was accidental in the body.--Exiled Jedi (Greetings) 17:37, June 7, 2014 (UTC)
Green Tentacle
The quote under history needs to identify the second speaker.Green Tentacle (Talk) 10:35, May 30, 2014 (UTC)
El Jefe
Would like just a word of context on why the ships were trying to screw with the fields in the intro.- Expanded to provide context.
Is there any available info on how the fields were compromised?IFYLOFD (Enter the Floydome) 04:49, June 8, 2014 (UTC)
Comments
- I added a piece about an alternate outcome to the scenario based on player ability. JorrelFraajic 03:23, March 27, 2014 (UTC)
- Updated article with information from Star Wars: X-Wing Alliance: Prima's Official Strategy Guide. JorrelFraajic 10:32, April 4, 2014 (UTC)
- Approved as a Good article by AgriCorps 23:46, June 9, 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a good article nomination that was successful. Please do not modify it.
Bree Starlighter
- Nominated by: Stake black msg 14:38, March 31, 2014 (UTC)
- Nomination comments: A CAN nomination that got unwieldy. Trust me, it ain't easy writing about a real-world Star Wars character.
(3 ACs/2 Users/5 Total)
Support
- Clone Commander Lee Talk 14:33, April 7, 2014 (UTC)
- Commander Code-8 Felicitations malefactors! 01:33, April 14, 2014 (UTC)
- Canon or nah? IFYLOFD (Enter the Floydome) 23:21, April 26, 2014 (UTC)
- Sir Cavalier of One(Squadron channel) 22:12, May 28, 2014 (UTC)
- Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 19:35, May 29, 2014 (UTC)
Object
Lee's charge
Context for Wookiees in the intro.- Lee, context is already given. They're a species. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to disrupt the sentence by going into unnecessary detail, explaining what they look like etc., that's off topic.
- No it's not given. You can say ...on the Wookiee species... and the sentence is not interrupted at all. Clone Commander Lee Talk 13:04, April 1, 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, that's exactly what it says at the moment, though. Stake black msg 16:24, April 1, 2014 (UTC)
- And now it's there. Clone Commander Lee Talk 18:46, April 1, 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, that's exactly what it says at the moment, though. Stake black msg 16:24, April 1, 2014 (UTC)
- No it's not given. You can say ...on the Wookiee species... and the sentence is not interrupted at all. Clone Commander Lee Talk 13:04, April 1, 2014 (UTC)
- Lee, context is already given. They're a species. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to disrupt the sentence by going into unnecessary detail, explaining what they look like etc., that's off topic.
Mention her first name when you introduce her in the bio.- Good catch.
I believe the nickname should be mentioned in the bio.- Right.
She had fair skin, and sported a blonde and purple hair with a Padawan-like braid. She was also : Please change of of those.- What do you mean?
- You the two sentences both with a "she". Clone Commander Lee Talk 13:04, April 1, 2014 (UTC)
- What do you mean?
Redirect in the BtS.- The redirect is a temporary April Fool's joke. Stake black msg 13:01, April 1, 2014 (UTC)
- Ah yes, silly me. Clone Commander Lee Talk 13:04, April 1, 2014 (UTC)
- The redirect is a temporary April Fool's joke. Stake black msg 13:01, April 1, 2014 (UTC)
- Good job, but what was that? Clone Commander Lee Talk 12:21, April 1, 2014 (UTC)
unveiling of Star Tours' first hub on the Earth system: Should this be "in" the Earth system?Clone Commander Lee Talk 12:49, April 7, 2014 (UTC)- Yeah, you're right. Corrected. Stake black msg 14:32, April 7, 2014 (UTC)
El Jefe
I don't think you can cite her braid being "Padawan-like" to that video, can you?IFYLOFD (Enter the Floydome) 01:14, April 25, 2014 (UTC)- Removed. Stake black msg 02:18, April 25, 2014 (UTC)
Cav
Is an article for the "first hub" in the Earth system warranted or not?- Sir Cavalier of One(Squadron channel) 13:40, May 7, 2014 (UTC)- According to Convenient Daily Departures: The History of Star Tours, this hub is only one terminal in Spaceport THX1138. Per the blog post, other companies also had hubs there. It doesn't seem very relevant to create an article just for that fact. Stake black msg 14:31, May 8, 2014 (UTC)
Comments
Approved as a Good article by AgriCorps 19:35, May 29, 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a good article nomination that was successful. Please do not modify it.
Lomrokk
- Nominated by: Stake black msg 17:12, March 31, 2014 (UTC)
- Nomination comments:
(3 ACs/2 Users/5 Total)
Support
- Commander Code-8 Felicitations malefactors! 23:32, April 14, 2014 (UTC)
- Clone Commander Lee Talk 08:38, April 23, 2014 (UTC)
- Sir Cavalier of One(Squadron channel) 13:55, May 7, 2014 (UTC)
- Bah, sorry I forgot about this. IFYLOFD (Enter the Floydome) 02:50, May 19, 2014 (UTC)
- Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 19:52, June 3, 2014 (UTC)
Object
Lee's charge
Context for Jabba and the rancor. Also, please establish that Jabba's Palace was on Tatooine.- Done.
His height is infobox-exclusive. You should add this to the P&t and mention that he is above the average of his species.Please make this clearer: He also stood two heads taller than the average 1.80 meters.- Clarified. Stake black msg 20:16, March 31, 2014 (UTC)
You need to mention and link his male sentience.Context for gundark and Jabba's Palace.Specify that his color was that of his skin.I'm not sure, buy maybe it would be better if you change this (19" tall) to 19 inches.Clone Commander Lee Talk 17:35, March 31, 2014 (UTC)- Thanks for the review! Have a second look. I left out issues with sentience because Gamorreans are all sentient, so it would be redundant (you wouldn't ask for the sentience of a Human character, for instance). Stake black msg 18:49, March 31, 2014 (UTC)
- As a note, some of the objections above are still unaddressed. Clone Commander Lee Talk 19:44, April 18, 2014 (UTC)
- Addressed. Stake black msg 13:16, April 19, 2014 (UTC)
- Take a look at my edit please. Clone Commander Lee Talk 10:45, April 20, 2014 (UTC)
- Addressed. Stake black msg 13:16, April 19, 2014 (UTC)
The Longo Two-Guns article mentions his date of death as 32 BBY. If that is correct, the date should be given when you mention the events of his execution.Clone Commander Lee Talk 10:45, April 20, 2014 (UTC)- Good idea! Stake black msg 20:25, April 21, 2014 (UTC)
Code-8
Do you think the gundark is relevant enough for its own article?Commander Code-8 Felicitations malefactors! 01:27, April 14, 2014 (UTC)- I don't think so. For the same reason we don't have an article on the acklay that Obi-Wan kills in Episode II. Stake black msg 15:05, April 14, 2014 (UTC)
- Just found that one here :) But thinking about it its probably not relevant enough. Commander Code-8 Felicitations malefactors! 23:32, April 14, 2014 (UTC)
El Jefe
First sentence of the Bio oughta be split up.IFYLOFD (Enter the Floydome) 04:55, May 2, 2014 (UTC)- You mean the second one, right? If so, done. Stake black msg 15:52, May 2, 2014 (UTC)
Toprawa
A Boy and his Monster cannot be used as an exclusive source for these ABY dates, as these dates are only indirectly inferred from its story, not stated outright. You will need a secondary source or a reference note to explain why these dates work: "which took place between 0 and 4 ABY."- Referenced. Clone Commander Lee Talk 19:33, June 3, 2014 (UTC)
Same here. I'm pretty sure the Bounty Hunter game does not state a date of 32 BBY. You're gleaning that from other information that you know occurred in that year, but this article requires an actual source or reference note explaining how/why 32 BBY is correct: "In 32 BBY"- Sourced. Clone Commander Lee Talk 19:33, June 3, 2014 (UTC)
All of those artists mentioned in the BTS are credited for working on an official Star Wars product and are therefore deserving of articles. You will need to fill in enough of them to satisfy the GAN redlink rule.- Created all. Clone Commander Lee Talk 19:33, June 3, 2014 (UTC)
The idea of ambiguous canon, despite being nonexistent now, is something we basically create and propagate ourselves. Nothing in that SW Blog article says anything about raising the Sideshow story to ambiguous canon. That statement is purely your creation and should be removed. If you're treating this article as Legends canon because of this Blog info, then just say that outright without using the meaningless "ambiguous" adjective.Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 03:28, May 25, 2014 (UTC)- Rephrased, please have a look. Clone Commander Lee Talk 19:33, June 3, 2014 (UTC)
Comments
Approved as a Good article by AgriCorps 19:52, June 3, 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a good article nomination that was successful. Please do not modify it.
All Stars Burn as One
- Nominated by: Clone Commander Lee Talk 17:52, April 3, 2014 (UTC) and Exiled Jedi (Greetings) 17:58, April 3, 2014 (UTC)
- Nomination comments: The official anthem of the Galactic Republic! An old CA that grew due to TOR. ExiledJedi did most of the updates, while I was the author of the original article.
(3 ACs/2 Users/5 Total)
Support
- Commander Code-8 Felicitations malefactors! 02:51, April 5, 2014 (UTC)
- Sir Cavalier of One(Squadron channel) 14:11, May 7, 2014 (UTC)
- 501st dogma(talk) 22:39, May 9, 2014 (UTC)
- 1358 (Talk) 22:35, May 16, 2014 (UTC)
- IFYLOFD (Enter the Floydome) 04:10, May 19, 2014 (UTC)
Object
Ecks
You kind of overuse "by" in the three first sentences of the history section. Please reword.- Varied. Clone Commander Lee Talk 22:04, April 14, 2014 (UTC)
"By that year,[1] the music was the anthem of the Galactic Republic who fighting the Galactic War against the Sith Empire.[3]" Something's missing here.- Fixed. Clone Commander Lee Talk 22:04, April 14, 2014 (UTC)
- More to come later. 1358 (Talk) 21:59, April 14, 2014 (UTC)
- Bring em on. ;) Clone Commander Lee Talk 22:04, April 14, 2014 (UTC)
"The piece was considered to have a martial sound by the Sullustan journalist Den Dhur[5] and was considered to be a stirring piece of music by the Human Jedi Knight Obi-Wan Kenobi and the Vippit barrister Doolb Snoil." Any chance you could change one of the two "considered"?- Changed.--Exiled Jedi (Greetings) 15:16, May 13, 2014 (UTC)
Your wording makes it seem too much like the song was composed in 3,642 BBY. You could try using something like "had been composed by 3,642 BBY" to emphasize the ambiguosity.1358 (Talk) 14:36, May 13, 2014 (UTC)- How is that?--Exiled Jedi (Greetings) 15:16, May 13, 2014 (UTC)
Comments
- Approved as a Good article by AgriCorps 04:10, May 19, 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a good article nomination that was successful. Please do not modify it.
Eckerd
- Nominated by: Cade Calrayn 18:10, April 3, 2014 (UTC)
- Nomination comments: Project Hero keeps on rollin'
(3 ACs/3 Users/6 Total)
Support
- Clone Commander Lee Talk 18:18, April 3, 2014 (UTC)
- Commander Code-8 Felicitations malefactors! 02:47, April 5, 2014 (UTC)
- Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 03:33, April 13, 2014 (UTC)
- IFYLOFD (Enter the Floydome) 00:32, April 27, 2014 (UTC)
- 501st dogma(talk) 17:45, May 2, 2014 (UTC)
- Exiled Jedi (Greetings) 04:27, May 5, 2014 (UTC)
Object
More a question than an objection: Where they imprisoned by the Republic or the Empire?Clone Commander Lee Talk 18:13, April 3, 2014 (UTC)- Adressed via IRC. Clone Commander Lee Talk 09:51, April 6, 2014 (UTC)
Comments
Approved as a Good article by AgriCorps 04:27, May 5, 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a good article nomination that was successful. Please do not modify it.
Salarr
- Nominated by: Cade Calrayn 17:43, April 5, 2014 (UTC)
- Nomination comments: Project Hero
(3 ACs/2 Users/5 Total)
Support
- Clone Commander Lee Talk 10:59, April 15, 2014 (UTC)
- Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 20:09, April 16, 2014 (UTC)
- Sir Cavalier of One(Squadron channel) 14:17, May 7, 2014 (UTC)
- 501st dogma(talk) 15:06, May 11, 2014 (UTC)
- MasterFred(Whatever) 04:33, May 13, 2014 (UTC)
Object
Lee's charge
Could you mention the date in the intro?- Done.
When Tarnis felt that his cover was in danger of exposure, he had Salarr arrange for Tarnis's "kidnapping" by Black Sun.: Could you change one mention of Tarnis?- Done.
Nitpicky, but his none existent hair is infobox-exclusive.- Nah, "bald" in the P&T. Cade Calrayn 01:00, April 15, 2014 (UTC)
- Indeed. Clone Commander Lee Talk 10:59, April 15, 2014 (UTC)
- Nah, "bald" in the P&T. Cade Calrayn 01:00, April 15, 2014 (UTC)
- Great work, like always. Clone Commander Lee Talk 20:07, April 5, 2014 (UTC)
Comments
Approved as a Good article by AgriCorps 04:33, May 13, 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a good article nomination that was successful. Please do not modify it.[[Category:Wookieepedia Good article nomination pages archive/2014|]]
Unidentified B1 battle droid (gundark nest)
- Nominated by: Commander Code-8 Felicitations malefactors! 23:02, April 6, 2014 (UTC)
- Nomination comments:CAN that barely went passed the limit. You'd think a character with one line could be summed up in 250 words.
(3 ACs/3 Users/6 Total)
Support
- 501st dogma(talk) 21:34, April 8, 2014 (UTC)
- Clone Commander Lee Talk 20:29, April 13, 2014 (UTC)
- Since I supported the CAN. Corellian PremierThe Force will be with you always 21:02, April 13, 2014 (UTC)
- Sir Cavalier of One(Squadron channel) 14:23, May 7, 2014 (UTC)
- Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 16:42, June 3, 2014 (UTC)
- JangFett (Talk) 23:10, June 7, 2014 (UTC)
Object
501st
Context on Kashyyyk- Done. Commander Code-8 Felicitations malefactors! 01:29, April 7, 2014 (UTC)
- Otherwise, good work. Welcome back :) 501st dogma(talk) 23:46, April 6, 2014 (UTC)
Lee's charge
A tiny bit of context for Wookiees in intro and body please.- Done. Commander Code-8 Felicitations malefactors! 10:39, April 13, 2014 (UTC)
- That is all. Clone Commander Lee Talk 12:52, April 7, 2014 (UTC)
Jangeth
WP:DASH error in the infobox.- Think I've fixed it.
Unfortunately, let's find a different source to replace the databank in the infobox. Because the databank no longer exists, it is unwise to use it, as there are other available sourcebooks out there. Did you look in NEGTD?You said that the droid has Male programming in the infobox, and yet you keep saying "its" when you refer to it. You can say "his."- Fixed
This needs clarifying—"On Alaris Prime the B1 battle droid and its squad were sent to attack the gundarks, a predatory species living on the moon, at their nest, where it was destroyed by members of the Wookiee species." You mention that the B1 battle droids were going to attack the gundark's nest but then it was destroyed by Wookiees? Why are there Wookiees on the moon? I honestly had to look it up and saw that the moon is in the Kashyyyk system. It would be wise to mention this somewhere in the intro and bio.- I've expanded on the Wookiee presence on Alaris Prime in the intro and mentioned the Kashyyyk system in the bio, is that okay?
"the Trade Federation tried to colonize the moon Alaris Prime, despite the rights to do so being granted to the Wookiees, a species from the planet Kashyyyk, but upon their arrival the Federation was attacked by the gundarks, a non-sentient predatory species living there." Please check your grammar here.Think I've fixed it.
This article suffers from a lack of POV focus. I have no idea if the events in the bio are related to the B1 battle droid or not. Try to keep the pov on him wherever relevant. Saying "The B1 battle droid and..." will work. Try to say "B1 battle droid" since there's too many droids mentioned already.- Done.
So the droids slaughtered the gundarks? Okay, then the intro needs to reflect this.- Done. Commander Code-8 Felicitations malefactors! 07:21, May 6, 2014 (UTC)
- More to come. JangFett (Talk) 13:56, May 1, 2014 (UTC)
Fact tags in the bio. JangFett (Talk) 23:46, May 26, 2014 (UTC)- Fixed. Commander Code-8 Felicitations malefactors! 06:33, May 27, 2014 (UTC)
Toprawa
"Intergalactic" means more than one galaxy. Does GB really state that the Trade Federation is literally an intergalactic entity? "the Trade Federation, an intergalactic corporation."- Nope, I was just using it not realizing the terms proper meaning. Changed to galactic. Commander Code-8 Felicitations malefactors! 10:24, May 30, 2014 (UTC)
- Reviewing notes:
- Avoid using the word "unidentified" in the infobox, which I've seen you make a habit of. "Unidentified" is an OOU term and should be avoided whenever possible using pipelinking.
- Thanks for that.
- I've removed the "masculine programming" bit from the infobox as well as any gender-specific pronouns in the article. I don't think there's anything in Episode I, which is the source this article presumed to use to reference this information, that suggests gender-specific programming for B1s. That info may very well be correct, but it needs a proper source that suggests all B1s had masculine programming. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 21:44, May 29, 2014 (UTC)
- I don't know of any sources that do confirm this, The droid sounds pretty masculine when they speak, but I doubt this is enough to go on. Commander Code-8 Felicitations malefactors! 10:24, May 30, 2014 (UTC)
- Avoid using the word "unidentified" in the infobox, which I've seen you make a habit of. "Unidentified" is an OOU term and should be avoided whenever possible using pipelinking.
Comments
Approved as a Good article by AgriCorps 06:14, June 8, 2014 (UTC)
[[Category:Archived nominations by User:Commander Code-8|]]
Wookieepedia:Good article nominations/Unidentified clone trooper (17's squad)
Wookieepedia:Good article nominations/Unidentified clone trooper 2 (17's squad)
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a good article nomination that was successful. Please do not modify it.
Lianorm Raceway
- Nominated by: Stake black msg 05:57, April 9, 2014 (UTC)
- Nomination comments:
(3 ACs/2 Users/5 Total)
Support
- Clone Commander Lee Talk 13:23, April 9, 2014 (UTC)
- Commander Code-8 Felicitations malefactors! 22:38, April 15, 2014 (UTC)
- Sir Cavalier of One(Squadron channel) 22:16, May 28, 2014 (UTC)
- IFYLOFD (Enter the Floydome) 01:39, June 7, 2014 (UTC)
- Cade Calrayn 22:57, June 7, 2014 (UTC)
Object
More a question than an objection, but is this stuff canon?Clone Commander Lee Talk 11:01, April 9, 2014 (UTC)- Racer Rush articles are generally treated as canon. They should be no less canon than Star Wars: Episode I Racer or Racer Revenge, in any case. Stake black msg 13:09, April 9, 2014 (UTC)
- Just the listing of Skywalker feels wrong, but ok. Clone Commander Lee Talk 13:23, April 9, 2014 (UTC)
- It doesn't necessarily mean Skywalker was ever there, though. It can be read as "people are betting Skywalker would win this if he ever participated." Stake black msg 13:33, April 9, 2014 (UTC)
- Just the listing of Skywalker feels wrong, but ok. Clone Commander Lee Talk 13:23, April 9, 2014 (UTC)
- Racer Rush articles are generally treated as canon. They should be no less canon than Star Wars: Episode I Racer or Racer Revenge, in any case. Stake black msg 13:09, April 9, 2014 (UTC)
Code-8
I think the bit about Anakin being the favourite and the other podracers possibly racing on the course should be seperated into a history section.Commander Code-8 Felicitations malefactors! 01:19, April 14, 2014 (UTC)- Good idea. Stake black msg 00:11, April 15, 2014 (UTC)
Cav
Other Podracers who may have raced in the course - may have? Why may have?- Because the player can choose any one of those podracers to play the game.
I'm uncomfortable with the addition of a hidden note explaining a ref tag. If the CSWE is being used for each individual racer's species, it should be used as a ref tag for each individual mention, not as a double ref tag.- Sir Cavalier of One(Squadron channel) 14:58, May 7, 2014 (UTC)- I've changed it. Take a look. Stake black msg 14:38, May 8, 2014 (UTC)
El Jefe
"Although banned in many worlds, Naboo hosted championship events on the raceway" Naboo was banned in many worlds?IFYLOFD (Enter the Floydome) 04:40, June 3, 2014 (UTC)- Took care of this since the nominator seems to be inactive. Clone Commander Lee Talk 09:43, June 3, 2014 (UTC)
Comments
Approved as a Good article by AgriCorps 00:22, June 8, 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a good article nomination that was successful. Please do not modify it.
Abaron
(3 ACs/5 Users/8 Total)
Support
- Clone Commander Lee Talk 13:35, April 12, 2014 (UTC)
- I think i remember this mission. Commander Code-8 Felicitations malefactors! 06:36, April 29, 2014 (UTC)
- 501st dogma(talk) 17:18, May 2, 2014 (UTC)
- Cade Calrayn 22:51, June 7, 2014 (UTC)
- Supreme Emperor (talk) 05:19, June 18, 2014 (UTC)
- Ayrehead02 (talk) 09:07, June 24, 2014 (UTC)
- Exiled Jedi (Greetings) 03:02, June 30, 2014 (UTC)
- Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 22:13, June 30, 2014 (UTC)
Object
Lee's charge
Could we get a little bit context for Korriban and the Dark Council?- Done.
- I did some tweaking in the intro, please see if you're fine with it. Clone Commander Lee Talk 13:35, April 12, 2014 (UTC)
- Done.
A male Sith, he was present in the Sith Academy on Korriban, where he assigned a promising Sith Acolyte to scan several elevated Sith while concerned about them lacking the blood from the original and ancient Sith, which he deemed necessary: That is five times Sith, is there any possibility you could change one or two?I've tweaked it slightly, see if it pleases you.
- That is all. I'm correct in my assumption that there is no difference between his answers by light/dark side choices? Clone Commander Lee Talk 10:11, April 12, 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I explained it in the Bts section. The player may choose to ramble and tell him that he's no one to question others' purity but Abaron practically replies the same. Winterz (talk) 13:29, April 12, 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, just to be sure. Clone Commander Lee Talk 13:35, April 12, 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I explained it in the Bts section. The player may choose to ramble and tell him that he's no one to question others' purity but Abaron practically replies the same. Winterz (talk) 13:29, April 12, 2014 (UTC)
Code-8
In the Bts could you say a bit more about what the light and dark side choices are?Commander Code-8 Felicitations malefactors! 01:16, April 14, 2014 (UTC)
Ecks Dee
501
"...where he assigned a promising acolyte to scan several elevated Sith while concerned about them lacking the blood of the original and ancient ones, which he deemed necessary." I don't think the while works here. "As he was" might do the trick."...that could read a closeby target's blood purity." I think "measure" would be more suited here, instead of "read."501st dogma(talk) 17:59, May 1, 2014 (UTC)
Cav
where he assigned a promising acolyte to scan several elevated Sith due to Abaron's concerns about them lacking the blood of the original and ancient ones, - this is a bit unwieldy for stating he was concerned about blood purity. Can you rewrite for clarity?- Sir Cavalier of One(Squadron channel) 15:13, May 7, 2014 (UTC)- Objection(s) overridden by AgriCorps 22:36, June 30, 2014 (UTC)
- How's that now? Winterz (talk) 19:41, May 21, 2014 (UTC)
- Objecting here because this concerns the same sentence: this still isn't really clear. What did he deem necessary? The blood purity? The scan itself? Might I suggest something like "a trait he deemed necessary" instead of "which he deemed necessary"? 1358 (Talk) 22:13, May 25, 2014 (UTC)
- Gotta side with ecks here. Still a little unclear. - Sir Cavalier of One(Squadron channel) 22:22, May 28, 2014 (UTC)
- Objecting here because this concerns the same sentence: this still isn't really clear. What did he deem necessary? The blood purity? The scan itself? Might I suggest something like "a trait he deemed necessary" instead of "which he deemed necessary"? 1358 (Talk) 22:13, May 25, 2014 (UTC)
Exiled Jedi
"The acolyte completed the task and the results confirmed Abaron's worries and he promised to report them to the Sith's ruling body, the Dark Council." You could use to get rid of an and here.- Dude, that was kind of confusing..but I think I've got it now. Look it up.
The first sentence of the biography should not all be sourced to the date template.- Done.
Could you split the last sentence of the bio?--Exiled Jedi (Greetings) 02:15, June 8, 2014 (UTC)
Ayrehead
I feel like I'm missing something since no one else has mentioned it, but since this is an optional quest don't you need to include the game mechanics template?Ayrehead02 (talk) 16:18, June 13, 2014 (UTC)
Comments
Approved as a Good article by AgriCorps 22:36, June 30, 2014 (UTC)
- I wanted to apologize for the time it's been taking me to reply these objections, I've been a really busy bee. Winterz (talk) 08:35, June 24, 2014 (UTC)
Vote to remove nomination (AC only)
- Idle objections over two weeks old. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 02:54, June 22, 2014 (UTC)
Exiled Jedi (Greetings) 02:55, June 22, 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a good article nomination that was unsuccessful. Please do not modify it.
Paarin Minor
- Nominated by: Clone Commander Lee Talk 21:18, April 16, 2014 (UTC)
- Nomination comments: Stupid CAN at 258 words.
(1 ACs/1 Users/2 Total)
Support
- Commander Code-8 Felicitations malefactors! 23:21, April 17, 2014 (UTC)
- Sir Cavalier of One(Squadron channel) 15:29, May 7, 2014 (UTC)
Object
Toprawa
- After looking at your sourcing, I have problems with these two sentences: "The Imperial control lasted until 25 ABY–26 ABY, and it was once again part of the Empire during the Second Galactic Civil War. In 137 ABY, Paarin Minor lay inside the borders of the Sith Lord Darth Krayt's Empire." I will explain it following bullet:
- First of all, you source the 25-26 ABY date to page 217 of the Atlas, but that map gives no indication whatsoever which faction at that time controlled Paarin Minor, which is not included on this map. All this map shows are intersecting wartime advances and the tiny Imperial Remnant territory, which does not include Paarin Minor's grid square. The only definitive thing we can say for Paarin Minor is that Pellaeon's Imperial Remnant controlled the Cademimu sector as of 12 ABY. As far as I can see, nothing after that is clear, because the M-6 grid square is divided territorially right down the middle in every single map, so there's no way we can say Paarin Minor is part of any faction after 12 ABY. You should cut out these last two sentences and just say that Paarin Minor's sector belonged to the Imperial Remnant as of 12 ABY. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 05:42, May 8, 2014 (UTC)
- I've looked through all of the Atlas maps, and now that I have a better understanding of where Paarin Minor lies exactly, I've determined the following, which you should probably consider including in the article. Ignore anything I said previously that contradicts any of this:
- Paarin Minor was part of the New Territories
- Added. Clone Commander Lee Talk 13:38, May 8, 2014 (UTC)
- Read this sentence, and then please rewrite it for better prose: "This region was part of a region called the New Territories..." And please reflect this in the infobox as well. A sub-bullet under Outer Rim Territories would be appropriate. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 20:28, May 8, 2014 (UTC)
- Done. Clone Commander Lee Talk 20:55, May 8, 2014 (UTC)
- Read this sentence, and then please rewrite it for better prose: "This region was part of a region called the New Territories..." And please reflect this in the infobox as well. A sub-bullet under Outer Rim Territories would be appropriate. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 20:28, May 8, 2014 (UTC)
- Added. Clone Commander Lee Talk 13:38, May 8, 2014 (UTC)
- Paarin Minor was located in unaligned/contested space during the New Sith Wars (Atlas, pg 133)
- Added. Clone Commander Lee Talk 13:35, May 8, 2014 (UTC)
- Paarin Minor was part of Oversector Outer by 4 ABY (Atlas, pg 194)
- Paarin Minor's sector was annexed by Thrawn in 9 ABY (Atlas, pg 200)
- Paarin Minor was part of Pellaeon's Imperial Remnant until 17 ABY (Atlas, page 207)
- Would you agree if I just keep it like that it was controlled by various Imperial personnel until 17 ABY? Clone Commander Lee Talk 13:35, May 8, 2014 (UTC)
- Paarin Minor was part of the Galactic Empire during the Second Galactic Civil War (Atlas, page 225)
- There. Clone Commander Lee Talk 13:28, May 8, 2014 (UTC)
- Note here that Paarin Minor was definitely not part of the Empire/Imperial Remnant by 25-29 ABY, per the Atlas maps on 217, 219, and 220. I guess it would be part of the New Republic, but these maps don't really say. I think you need to avoid giving any indication of its affiliation between 17 ABY and 40 ABY.
- Done. Clone Commander Lee Talk 13:28, May 8, 2014 (UTC)
I don't think you can safely say that Paarin Minor was part of Krayt's Empire, because that map is very large, and it seems like the boundary between his territory and Roan Fel's Empire-in-Exile is right about where Paarin Minor is, so I think it's impossible to tell exactly.Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 07:00, May 8, 2014 (UTC)- Killed. Clone Commander Lee Talk 13:28, May 8, 2014 (UTC)
- Paarin Minor was part of the New Territories
- I've looked through all of the Atlas maps, and now that I have a better understanding of where Paarin Minor lies exactly, I've determined the following, which you should probably consider including in the article. Ignore anything I said previously that contradicts any of this:
- First of all, you source the 25-26 ABY date to page 217 of the Atlas, but that map gives no indication whatsoever which faction at that time controlled Paarin Minor, which is not included on this map. All this map shows are intersecting wartime advances and the tiny Imperial Remnant territory, which does not include Paarin Minor's grid square. The only definitive thing we can say for Paarin Minor is that Pellaeon's Imperial Remnant controlled the Cademimu sector as of 12 ABY. As far as I can see, nothing after that is clear, because the M-6 grid square is divided territorially right down the middle in every single map, so there's no way we can say Paarin Minor is part of any faction after 12 ABY. You should cut out these last two sentences and just say that Paarin Minor's sector belonged to the Imperial Remnant as of 12 ABY. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 05:42, May 8, 2014 (UTC)
- I've also added Warfare to the Sources list, since Paarin Minor is included on the map on pg 212. Now that we have a map image of Paarin Minor, that should be uploaded and used in the infobox, as is the trend with many of our planet articles. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 06:18, May 8, 2014 (UTC)
- Added, but the quality... Clone Commander Lee Talk 22:56, May 8, 2014 (UTC)
- And you're missing info from that map, now that I look at it a little bit. The fact that Paarin Minor is located on the Celanon Spur, for example. I suggest you take some time and look at this stuff and see what other info you might be missing. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 06:20, May 8, 2014 (UTC)
- I have no access to Warfare, but I'll ask Dogma if he can help. Clone Commander Lee Talk 13:38, May 8, 2014 (UTC)
- Studied Warfare, but found not really much info. Check it out. Clone Commander Lee Talk 14:47, May 8, 2014 (UTC)
- Please also reflect this information in the appropriate infobox field. I shouldn't have to tell you this. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 20:28, May 8, 2014 (UTC)
- Done. Clone Commander Lee Talk 20:55, May 8, 2014 (UTC)
- Please also reflect this information in the appropriate infobox field. I shouldn't have to tell you this. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 20:28, May 8, 2014 (UTC)
- Studied Warfare, but found not really much info. Check it out. Clone Commander Lee Talk 14:47, May 8, 2014 (UTC)
- I have no access to Warfare, but I'll ask Dogma if he can help. Clone Commander Lee Talk 13:38, May 8, 2014 (UTC)
- And you're missing even more information: Paarin Minor was HQ of the Ninth Sector Army during the Clone Wars, page 98 in Warfare, which you would have ascertained if you had simply explored the "What links here" link on the article. Lee, I have literally overhauled your entire article for you just by skimming through Atlas and Warfare and finding copious amounts of information that you missed. I have no other words to describe this nomination other than this is a disgrace. You should never nominate an article with so much missing information. Please pay closer attention to the sources you're researching when attempting to write an article for nomination. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 16:52, May 14, 2014 (UTC)
- Added. Clone Commander Lee Talk 21:36, May 14, 2014 (UTC)
Comments
- Now at 251. Clone Commander Lee Talk 11:31, April 26, 2014 (UTC)
Wookieepedia:Good article nominations/Scavenger Squadron (pirate)
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a good article nomination that was successful. Please do not modify it.
Duinuogwuin–Gotal conflict
- Nominated by: </noinclude>Lelal Mekha (Audience Room) 09:46, April 18, 2014 (UTC)
- Nomination comments: A throwaway line from The Thrawn Trilogy
(3 ACs/3 Users/6 Total)
Support
- Very interesting. Clone Commander Lee Talk 19:37, April 18, 2014 (UTC)
- Cool. Too bad it's non-canon like the rest of the EU now. 501st dogma(talk) 00:18, April 30, 2014 (UTC)
- Supreme Emperor (talk) 03:24, June 19, 2014 (UTC)
- Sir Cavalier of One(Squadron channel) 23:38, June 19, 2014 (UTC)
- Looks good. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 20:46, June 25, 2014 (UTC)
- Winterz (talk) 12:56, June 30, 2014 (UTC)
Object
Cav
The use of a three-way conflict infobox seems a little off since the Jedi never technically entered the conflict, but were only mediators.- Sir Cavalier of One(Squadron channel) 16:54, May 7, 2014 (UTC)- But then I'd have to leave the Jedi and the Republic completely out of the infobox, wouldn't I? Would that be proper? --</noinclude>Lelal Mekha (Audience Room) 08:22, May 14, 2014 (UTC)
- Except the Jedi did not physically participate in the conflict, which is what the infobox suggests to me. The outcome fields detail the Jedi involvement enough I think. - Sir Cavalier of One(Squadron channel) 22:34, May 28, 2014 (UTC)
- Fair enough. --</noinclude>Lelal Mekha (Audience Room) 19:46, May 31, 2014 (UTC)
- Except the Jedi did not physically participate in the conflict, which is what the infobox suggests to me. The outcome fields detail the Jedi involvement enough I think. - Sir Cavalier of One(Squadron channel) 22:34, May 28, 2014 (UTC)
- But then I'd have to leave the Jedi and the Republic completely out of the infobox, wouldn't I? Would that be proper? --</noinclude>Lelal Mekha (Audience Room) 08:22, May 14, 2014 (UTC)
Toprawa
There's a minor issue with the article's dating of this conflict. The article states that the battle must have happened pre-27 BBY given C'baoth's death, but the conflict could have easily taken place in 27 BBY before C'baoth died. It would be more accurate to say it happened in or before 27 BBY.- Fixed. --</noinclude>Lelal Mekha (Audience Room) 11:10, June 20, 2014 (UTC)
Who thought this? "It was thought that the sensitivity of the Gotal head cones..."- I wish I could tell you. I know full well that statements should be attributed, but the source itself does not tell, unfortunately. (Same thing for the next two objections, of course.) --</noinclude>Lelal Mekha (Audience Room) 11:10, June 20, 2014 (UTC)
- Well, there's typically always a way around this with some fancy rewording. For example, the text says, "It is rumored that the D-G conflict had its roots..." To rephrase this into active voice, you could say, "Rumor suggested that the D-G conflict..." You can rephrase the three instances in this article similarly. For example, "Some speculated that the reason..." or "Some believed that such an..." etc. See what you can do. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 05:16, June 21, 2014 (UTC)
- Done. --</noinclude>Lelal Mekha (Audience Room) 08:27, June 21, 2014 (UTC)
- Well, there's typically always a way around this with some fancy rewording. For example, the text says, "It is rumored that the D-G conflict had its roots..." To rephrase this into active voice, you could say, "Rumor suggested that the D-G conflict..." You can rephrase the three instances in this article similarly. For example, "Some speculated that the reason..." or "Some believed that such an..." etc. See what you can do. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 05:16, June 21, 2014 (UTC)
- I wish I could tell you. I know full well that statements should be attributed, but the source itself does not tell, unfortunately. (Same thing for the next two objections, of course.) --</noinclude>Lelal Mekha (Audience Room) 11:10, June 20, 2014 (UTC)
And here. "It was speculated that the reason..."And here. "It was thought that such an..."The CSWE entry for Gotals cannot be used as a source for the date of the start of the Clone Wars. You will need to reference that particular bit to an appropriate source: "Indeed, just prior to the start of the Clone Wars in 22 BBY..."- Sourced the date to The New Essential Chronology. --</noinclude>Lelal Mekha (Audience Room) 11:10, June 20, 2014 (UTC)
Since the Expanded Universe has been discontinued, a location will (most likely) never be provided for this conflict, so the second BTS paragraph is rather unnecessary now. I would suggest just axing that entirely.- Axed. --</noinclude>Lelal Mekha (Audience Room) 11:10, June 20, 2014 (UTC)
- Please note that the plural possessive form of a word in English is, for example, Gotals', while Gotal's is the singular possessive. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 08:22, June 20, 2014 (UTC)
- Noted. --</noinclude>Lelal Mekha (Audience Room) 11:10, June 20, 2014 (UTC)
I also think something should be added to the article body in regards to the intro quote. Something mentioning that the Old Republic Senate? New Republic Senate? maintained records of the event, which were accessed by Luke Skywalker or whomever at some point, etc.Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 08:26, June 20, 2014 (UTC)- Added. --</noinclude>Lelal Mekha (Audience Room) 11:10, June 20, 2014 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure the 9 ABY date in that sentence needs to be sourced to something, such as NEC. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 05:16, June 21, 2014 (UTC)
- Added. --</noinclude>Lelal Mekha (Audience Room) 08:27, June 21, 2014 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure the 9 ABY date in that sentence needs to be sourced to something, such as NEC. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 05:16, June 21, 2014 (UTC)
- Added. --</noinclude>Lelal Mekha (Audience Room) 11:10, June 20, 2014 (UTC)
After reading through the source, I disagree with this article's interpretation of the events. The text says, "...and only the intervention of Jedi mediators were able to stave off full-scale war." That's saying that the conflict had not yet reached full-scale war and that the Jedi mediators prevented the conflict from escalating to that point. This article, however, is stating that the conflict was, in fact, a full-scale war. I think you should revise the article's wording to reflect this.Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 20:10, June 21, 2014 (UTC)- Fixed. --</noinclude>Lelal Mekha (Audience Room) 10:35, June 23, 2014 (UTC)
The article body basically repeats a single line from the original source twice, and I think you would be better off by combining them into a single sentence to avoid the repetition. This article's two sentences are: 1) "Some speculated that the conflict between the two otherwise peaceful species was related to the sensitivity of the Gotal head cones." and 2) "Some believed that such a quid pro quo may have started the Duinuogwuin–Gotal conflict..." You could simply merge that paragraph's last sentence into the penultimate sentence by saying, "...or mild anger for imminent violence, and such misinterpretation had led the Gotals into clashes with other cultures."Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 20:10, June 21, 2014 (UTC)- Merged. --</noinclude>Lelal Mekha (Audience Room) 10:35, June 23, 2014 (UTC)
Comments
Approved as a Good article by AgriCorps 12:56, June 30, 2014 (UTC)
- When you say 'demobilization', do you mean 'demilitarization'? If not, I'm not sure I get it. Otherwise looks great. Stake black msg 13:05, April 18, 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I mean "demobilize" as in "disband troops." --</noinclude>Lelal Mekha (Audience Room) 14:20, April 18, 2014 (UTC)
- Also, in the BtS you could acknowledge Zahn's quote. Say he believes the wrong date is the in-universe historians' fault. Stake black msg 13:07, April 18, 2014 (UTC)
- Added. --</noinclude>Lelal Mekha (Audience Room) 14:20, April 18, 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a good article nomination that was successful. Please do not modify it.
T'less
- Nominated by: 501st dogma(talk) 12:07, April 18, 2014 (UTC)
- Nomination comments: For Tope: Here's another one for you to review :)
(3 ACs/2 Users/5 Total)
Support
- Clone Commander Lee Talk 14:07, April 21, 2014 (UTC)
- Sir Cavalier of One(Squadron channel) 17:22, May 7, 2014 (UTC)
- Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 20:54, May 15, 2014 (UTC)
- IFYLOFD (Enter the Floydome) 02:02, May 26, 2014 (UTC)
- Hanzo Hasashi (talk) 02:17, May 28, 2014 (UTC)
Object
Lee's charge
Infobox: Something is wrong in the era section.- There.
Intro: Context needed for the War, her two companions, Ammorn and the heresy.- As its the intro, context is not needed on everything. I've added context on the heresy, and her two companions though, as they are more important to the article, and it serves to beef the intro up a bit, as its a bit small.
Bio: Is the New Republic really an organisation? I believe something like "governments" would be more appropiate.- There you go.
- Good work. Clone Commander Lee Talk 19:47, April 18, 2014 (UTC)
Toprawa
Late to what? Adding some context here would help: "and that they would be late"Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 20:42, May 15, 2014 (UTC)
Comments
Approved as a Good article by AgriCorps 02:27, May 28, 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a good article nomination that was successful. Please do not modify it.
Tatooine Travel Advertisement
- Nominated by: OLIOSTER (talk) 21:24, April 19, 2014 (UTC)
- Nomination comments: Come and get sand in places you didn't even know existed!
(3 ACs/3 Users/6 Total)
Support
- Commander Code-8 Felicitations malefactors! 09:51, April 20, 2014 (UTC)
- Clone Commander Lee Talk 10:42, April 20, 2014 (UTC)
- Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 21:30, April 22, 2014 (UTC)
- Hanzo Hasashi (talk) 03:07, April 23, 2014 (UTC)
- JangFett (Talk) 17:10, April 23, 2014 (UTC)
- Winterz (talk) 13:25, April 28, 2014 (UTC)
Object
Toprawa
Since you source the BTS in your Ord Mantell poster article, it would be best to do so here too for consistency.Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 20:57, April 22, 2014 (UTC)
Comments
Approved as a Good article by AgriCorps 13:25, April 28, 2014 (UTC)