Wookieepedia:Good article reviews

Featured articles

Featured article nominations

Inquisitorius

Good articles

Good article nominations

Good article reviews

AgriCorps

Comprehensive articles

Comprehensive article nominations

EduCorps

Tutorial

Recruitment

This page is for reviews of existing Good articles. A Good article review is conducted when a current status article no longer meets one of the standards listed in the GAN rules or has significantly changed from the state it was in at the time of gaining status. On this page, users can nominate articles that they believe need updates or require their status removed.

• Good article reviews history

---

How to nominate:

1. Select a Good article that requires a review and refer to this guide on the article review process.
2. Add {{GAreview}} at the top of the article you are creating a review for, and save the page. Please note that if the article you are nominating has been nominated for Good article review previously, the same page will be used.

   Members of Wookieepedia's Discord server can open a review with the following command, and JocastaBot will automatically add the review to this page: @JocastaBot create review for ArticleName

3. Open the redlink in a new tab to create the nomination page, modifying the preloaded instructions as necessary. A reason for opening the review must be provided.
4. Copy the code provided to the bottom of this page.
5. Purge the article to update the template.
6. Other users can add additional issues and suggested improvements (errors, style, organization, images, notability, sources, etc).
7. On the review, all editors are able to add and address objections noted on the article's review. Afterward, one of several outcomes occurs:

• …all objections are satisfied.
• …all objections have remained unsatisfied for a period of thirty days, without a request for extension.
• …the article has exceeded or slipped under the Good article word count.
• …the article has changed significantly from its original state.

Refer to this flowchart for clarification.

---

Closing stages:

1. If all objections are addressed, AgriCorps review board members can start a vote to close the review after it has been open for a minimum of 48 hours. Three AgriCorps votes are required for an article to maintain its Good status.
2. If objections have remained unsatisfied, the article has exceeded the word count, or the article has changed significantly from its original state, the AgriCorps review board can send the article to a probationary status. A consensus of at least three AgriCorps members is required for an article to retain its Good status or have it removed at the end of the probation.

• …articles that exceed or slip under the word count can have Good status removed.
• …articles marked for probation that have unsolved objections for over thirty days, with no request for extension or attempts made to fix, can have Good status removed.
• …articles that have changed significantly from their original state are reviewed by AgriCorps members. When determined that the article's current state is satisfactory, the review can be closed, and the article maintains its status.

---

All reviews will be considered idle and are subject to immediate removal by AgriCorps vote if objections are not addressed after thirty (30) days.

Good article reviews

View recent changes for this page and its subpages

Ja'Gatcha

• Requested By: Lewisr (talk)
• Date Requested: 03:50, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Objections

• Needs a pronouns/gender update.
• Mottled brown is infobox exclusive.
• Revan link in the caption should be removed, and the duplicate species link in the PT.
• Would like to see a date added into the introduction.
• Needs an equipment section.
• BTS should remove some redundant wording like it being Ja'Gatcha's first and only appearance, just state that 'Ja'Gatcha appeared in...' Lewisr (talk) 03:50, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Gibberous Crumb

• Requested By: —spookywilloww^talk
• Date Requested: 11:33, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Objections

• Marking for review for outstanding fact tags, which themselves have been in place since March to start the timer for an update, since the associated CT is years-old by now.
• Room for a Bio image of relevance.—spookywilloww^talk 11:33, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Gorth (Trandoshan)

• Requested By: —spookywilloww^talk
• Date Requested: 11:36, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Objections

• Marking for review for outstanding fact tags, which themselves have been in place since March to start the timer for an update, since the associated CT is years-old by now.—spookywilloww^talk 11:36, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Comments

• It could be added that the Trandoshan name "Gorth" means "charges the enemy" per Galactic Campaign Guide. —DKS MaXoO (talk) 18:10, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Halle Dray

• Requested By: —spookywilloww^talk
• Date Requested: 11:34, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Objections

• Marking for review for outstanding fact tags, which themselves have been in place since March to start the timer for an update, since the associated CT is years-old by now.
• As this is an older nom, whether any clothing (for Equipment section) is present should be checked, as well as for any other Equipment/Skills if applicable.—spookywilloww^talk 11:34, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Harro Kelpura

• Requested By: —spookywilloww^talk
• Date Requested: 11:35, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Objections

• Marking for review for outstanding fact tags, which themselves have been in place since March to start the timer for an update, since the associated CT is years-old by now.
• As this is an older nom, whether any clothing (for Equipment section) is present should be checked, as well as for any other Equipment/Skills if applicable.
• Bio is oversectioned; should be re-arranged accordingly, likely to just not need sectioning at all with some merging of the quite smaller paragraphs.—spookywilloww^talk 11:35, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

PePe Rossh

• Requested By: —spookywilloww^talk
• Date Requested: 11:37, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Objections

• Marking for review for outstanding fact tags, which themselves have been in place since March to start the timer for an update, since the associated CT is years-old by now.
• As this is an older nom, whether any clothing (for Equipment section) is present should be checked, as well as for any other Equipment/Skills if applicable.—spookywilloww^talk 11:37, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Sev (Jedi)

• Requested By: —spookywilloww^talk
• Date Requested: 11:39, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Objections

• Marking for review for outstanding fact tags, which themselves have been in place since March to start the timer for an update, since the associated CT is years-old by now.
• Probably room for a Biography image.
• Seems like some BTS fluff present that wouldn't be needed under modern precedent (and as a result that image wouldn't fit).—spookywilloww^talk 11:39, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Odis

• Requested By: —spookywilloww^talk
• Date Requested: 11:48, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Objections

• Marking for review for outstanding fact tags, which themselves have been in place since May to start the timer for an update, since the associated CT is years-old by now.
• Check for possible Skills/Equipment (even if clothing) information, as it's an older nom that may have skipped.—spookywilloww^talk 11:48, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Ronnan Tyla Vedij

• Requested By: —spookywilloww^talk
• Date Requested: 11:47, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Objections

• Marking for review for outstanding fact tags, which themselves have been in place since May to start the timer for an update, since the associated CT is years-old by now.
• Should have room for a subject-relevant Biography image.
• Check for possible Skills/Equipment (even if clothing) information, as it's an older nom that may have skipped.—spookywilloww^talk 11:47, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Zheepho

• Requested By: —spookywilloww^talk
• Date Requested: 11:46, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Objections

• Marking for review for outstanding fact tags, which themselves have been in place since May to start the timer for an update, since the associated CT is years-old by now.
• Check for possible Skills/Equipment (even if clothing) information, as it's an older nom that may have skipped.—spookywilloww^talk 11:46, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Unidentified Aqualish bounty hunter (Upper City)

• Requested By: —spookywilloww^talk
• Date Requested: 11:49, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Objections

• Marking for review for outstanding fact tags, which themselves have been in place since May to start the timer for an update, since the associated CT is years-old by now.
• Under modern rules for affiliations listings, I doubt the one here is valid especially in a bounty context.
• Death field should be rearranged to use one reference, even if means making a ref note to support that.
• Check for possible Skills/Equipment (even if clothing) information, as it's an older nom that may have skipped.—spookywilloww^talk 11:49, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Furan

• Requested By: —spookywilloww^talk
• Date Requested: 14:48, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Objections

• As this is an older article from times when it wasn't standard, a cursory check for missing equipment (even if clothes) and skills info should be done.
• Marking for review for outstanding fact tags, which themselves have been in place since March to start the timer for an update, since the associated CT is years-old by now.—spookywilloww^talk 14:48, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Phaa Anor

• Requested By: —spookywilloww^talk
• Date Requested: 14:53, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Objections

• As this is an older article from times when it wasn't standard, a cursory check for missing equipment (even if clothes) and skills info should be done.
• Marking for review for outstanding fact tags, which themselves have been in place since March to start the timer for an update, since the associated CT is years-old by now.—spookywilloww^talk 14:53, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Spots Podal/Legends

• Requested By: —spookywilloww^talk
• Date Requested: 19:41, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Objections

• As this is an older article from times when it wasn't standard, a cursory check for missing equipment (even if clothes) should be done, as I see clothing in the image.
• Marking for review for outstanding fact tags, which themselves have been in place for over a month to start the timer for an update, since the associated CT is years-old by now.—spookywilloww^talk 19:41, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Tekba

• Requested By: —spookywilloww^talk
• Date Requested: 19:42, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Objections

• The death note should use a manual reference note that allows for the field to be referenced with one ref, per modern precedent.
• Marking for review for outstanding fact tags, which themselves have been in place for over a month to start the timer for an update, since the associated CT is years-old by now.—spookywilloww^talk 19:42, 2 July 2025 (UTC)