Wikia

Wookieepedia

Wookieepedia:Good article nominations

Redirected from WP:GAN

121,476pages on
this wiki
Talk116
       
Good article
nominations
             
GoodIcon

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.

READ THIS FIRST!

An article must…

  1. …be well-written and detailed.
  2. …be unbiased, non-point of view.
  3. …be sourced with all available sources and appearances.
  4. …follow the Manual of Style, Layout Guide, and all other policies on Wookieepedia.
  5. …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.
  6. …not be tagged with any sort of improvement tags (i.e. more sources, expand, etc).
  7. …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.
  8. …have no redlinks.
  9. …have comprehensive detail with all information covered from all sources and appearances.
  10. …be completely referenced for all available material and sources. See Wookieepedia:Sourcing for more information.
  11. …have all quotes and images sourced.
  12. …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.
  13. …ideally include a "Personality and traits" section on all character articles if information is available.
  14. …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.
  15. …include a "Behind the scenes" section for in-universe articles.
  16. …include a reasonable number of images of sufficient quality to illustrate the article, if said images are available.
  17. …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:

  1. First, find an article you find is worthy of good status. Nominated articles must meet all seventeen requirements stated above.
  2. 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)}}).
  3. Open the redlink (in a new tab or window, if possible) and fill out the form according to the instructions provided.
  4. Copy the code provided to the bottom of this page.
  5. Purge the article to update the template.
  6. 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:

  1. Before doing anything, be sure to read the article completely, keeping a sharp eye out for mistakes.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. The article is placed on the Good article list.


All nominations will be considered idle and are subject to removal by AgriCorps vote if objections are not addressed after a period of 2 weeks.


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

Escape from Darth Vader

  • Nominated by: ProfessorTofty (talk) 23:30, December 8, 2014 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: I have been working hard on this one and I think it's ready to go. I've got plot summary, plenty of background info, images, etc. The only thing I'm slightly unsure about is the source in the development. I know Wookieepedia isn't normally a source, but I think in this case it's acceptable because it's referencing the page history simply to prove that the Amazon link is a match; that it proves that the same link that existed then exists now. ProfessorTofty (talk) 23:30, December 8, 2014 (UTC)

(2 ACs/4 Users/6 Total)

Support

  1. Brandon Rhea(talk) 16:48, January 18, 2015 (UTC)
  2. 501st dogma(talk) 00:59, February 4, 2015 (UTC)
  3. Looks good! Manoof (talk) 11:41, February 18, 2015 (UTC)
  4. ACvote IFYLOFD (Talk) 19:20, March 21, 2015 (UTC)
  5. Ayrehead02 (talk) 10:38, April 15, 2015 (UTC)
  6. ACvote Winterz (talk) 03:09, April 19, 2015 (UTC)

Object

Brandon

  • Right off the bat - the sections were in the wrong order. I fixed it, but please keep the Out of Universe Layout Guide for published narrative works in mind in the future.
  • Is there no information anywhere about the creation/development of this book? No author interviews or tweets or anything? The development section, as it currently stands, is all about the release. Obviously if that's all there is then that's fine.
  • Are there no reviews from significant sources that you can use for a reception section?
  • Also, Wookieepedia is definitely not a source in this context. For all we know, that information was wrong. That will need to either be sourced or removed.
  • More later, if I find anything. Brandon Rhea(talk) 23:58, December 8, 2014 (UTC)
    • Regarding point 1: I was actually using an existing good article for a book as a model for the order of the sections. It would seem that one then has them out of order. I'll have to go back and fix that one later, but thank you for fixing this one. Regarding point 2, given its being a somewhat minor children's book, I wouldn't be surprised if there aren't, but I'll research this one and report back here. Regarding point 3 - good idea. I'll add that. As for the last point, hmm. Okay. This is going to take some digging, but I'll try to find something with a date attached to it regarding the book going that far back. I'll try to take care of all of this tomorrow. In the meantime, any other objections or thoughts from anyone else are welcome. ProfessorTofty (talk) 01:31, December 9, 2014 (UTC)
      • Thanks. Remember, when it comes to things like what I mentioned in the first point, your first stop to figure out how it should be are Wookieepedia policies, not existing articles. They may have been written before policies were updated/created, issues may have been missed, etc. Existing status articles are a good guide for new nominations, and I’ve used then myself, but the policies trump existing status article in regards to how you should do it. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 01:51, December 9, 2014 (UTC)
        • Yeah, I'll definitely make sure to do that in the future. Okay, point 2: there is nothing. Nothing. Michael Siglain has a Twitter, but started in May of this year and says nothing on about this book. Neither does Roux on hers. I couldn't find anything else, anywhere, whatsoever. Point 3: Reception section added. Point 4: Ee. This really stings, but again, there's nothing. I couldn't grab anything off of Internet Archive and I couldn't find anything else anywhere that proves that that listing was there at that time. Information removed. ProfessorTofty (talk) 20:40, December 9, 2014 (UTC)
  • It should be noted: items in the Appearance section should be listed alphabetically, not by order of appearance. I've fixed the Appearances section to reflect.
  • Also regarding the Appearances section, it seems a bit lacking. You mention in the summary, for example, that the ship is pursued by a Star Destroyer (via a link to the ISD page) but that's not in the Appearances section. Please check through the Appearances section and add anything that's missing.
  • Having not read the book, the plot summary seems light on details. Please expand it to include a more detailed summary of the story. Additionally, can you clarify (on this review page) at what point in A New Hope that the story ends? The publisher's summary, for example, mentions Luke, yet your plot summary doesn't.
  • Your linking was a bit inconsistent; sometimes you'd like to something a few times after it was mentioned, or even not at all. I've fixed this as well. Check out the diffs to see what I did.
  • More later, if I find anything. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 03:00, December 21, 2014 (UTC)
    • Thank you for fixing this.
    • The Appearances section is lacking because the book is small. I've added Imperial-class Star Destroyer, but see more my next bullet-point. I will also check the book again just to be absolutely sure, but I really doubt I missed much of anything else. It may have to wait a day or two, though, because I checked it out from the library and I'll have to get it back from there.
    • Having read the book, the plot summary is light on details because the book is light on details. Visit the links and check out the preview pages; you'll see that each page has at most two sentences; some have less than one sentence. If I added anymore detail, I might as well just reprint the content of the book. The story ends with R2 and C-3 landing on Tatooine, followed by a page that presents several of the characters as illustrations, simply as a way of saying "here's what's coming next in the story." The bit about them "meeting Luke" is publisher puffery - that doesn't happen in this book.
    • Thank you for fixing that also! Not sure why I didn't notice that myself, but I checked over your edits. ProfessorTofty (talk) 15:37, December 21, 2014 (UTC)
      • Plot summary updated with a few additional details. I don't think I can do anymore than that without basically just plagiarizing the book. Appearances updated, mainly just starship classification and a couple of other miscellaneous items. Two other Appearance items considered but rejected due to being unable establish notability - "Binary star" and "Cloak." ProfessorTofty (talk) 00:03, December 30, 2014 (UTC)
501st
  • I'm assuming the book doesn't mention Devastator by name, but it should be pipelinked to in the body. Also, it should be added to the Appearances section.
    • You're right, it doesn't mention it by name. I've added it to the Appearances, but I'm not sure how can work it into the body and pipelink it. Should I just mention it by name in the body? ProfessorTofty (talk) 01:59, January 23, 2015 (UTC)
      • Yeah, that would work.
  • You'll need to find somewhere in the body to add that it is 32 pages long, as that is infobox exclusive info right now. I'd place it in the Development section. Author, cover artist and illustrator also needs to be mentioned in the body, preferably in the Development.
    • Okay, that's all done. Cover artist is the same as the illustrator, do I need to mention that specifically, or will just saying that Roux illustrated it do? ProfessorTofty (talk) 01:59, January 23, 2015 (UTC)
      • That'll do just fine.
  • That last part of the Continuity section will have to be sourced.
    • Is it okay now? I just took the Amazon links to the two titles and placed them both at the end. ProfessorTofty (talk) 01:59, January 23, 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd recommend sourcing the article to itself, like here, just so that you can fully source the article. It helps show what info is from what, and avoids the ambiguity currently present when you don't source a section, making the reader wonder if it's from the book, or someone forgot to source it. 501st dogma(talk) 22:04, January 21, 2015 (UTC)
    • So would simply source it as The Rebellion Begins? And should that be at the end of the Plot summary section? ProfessorTofty (talk) 01:59, January 23, 2015 (UTC)
      • Not sure what you mean by the Rebellion Begins, but just source all facts that come directly from the book (i.e plot) to Escape from Darth Vader. 501st dogma(talk) 02:58, January 23, 2015 (UTC)
        • Haha, I had The Rebellion Begins on the brain because I'd been addinga lot of Appearance information to it. Anyway, that's now done. The book itself is referenced at the end of the Plot summary section. ProfessorTofty (talk) 03:44, January 23, 2015 (UTC)
          • Timeline, ISBN, and series fields in the infobox can probably be sourced to itself as well. 501st dogma(talk) 17:45, February 3, 2015 (UTC)
            • Timeline and series done. ISBN cannot be done, on this or any other page. Attempting to do so breaks the infobox. ProfessorTofty (talk) 00:09, February 4, 2015 (UTC)
Floyd
  • There are some things in the intro that require context: for instance, the Tantive IV, the Star Destroyer (which I would name) and the two droids.
    • Added material to give context. Alright now? ProfessorTofty (talk) 17:58, March 17, 2015 (UTC)
  • C-3PO and R2D2 must keep Darth Vader from discovering the Rebels' secret plans!" Is R2D2 written this way in the actual summary?
  • I'd also toss a mention of the author into the intro. IFYLOFD (Talk) 04:32, March 16, 2015 (UTC)
Ayrehead
  • I've not reviewed many out of universe articles but should the Battle of Yavin timeframe be infobox exclusive? Ayrehead02 (talk) 11:42, April 4, 2015 (UTC)
    • You know, I'm not really sure. Perhaps precedent would be helpful in this case, but I don't know off-hand of any other good or featured articles for books like this. However, I did add a line at the end of the plot summary regarding the book's events being part of ones key to the future of the Alliance, and linked to the Galactic Civil War. How's that? ProfessorTofty (talk) 01:53, April 8, 2015 (UTC)
      • I still think a direct mention of the Battle of Yavin in the body somewhere might be better. Ayrehead02 (talk) 10:38, April 15, 2015 (UTC)
        • Okay, I added a direct mention in there at the end. ProfessorTofty (talk) 02:02, April 19, 2015 (UTC)
Toprawa
  • All external link referencing requires the use of Cite web. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 20:45, July 21, 2015 (UTC)
    • All such links updated to use that, with the exception of one that was changed to an Amazon link. Also made a couple of other tweaks based on developments since this was last reviewed. ProfessorTofty (talk) 19:58, July 22, 2015 (UTC)
      • That's how you use Cite web. All possible fields should be filled in. The instructions are on the template page. Please read them. Additional issue: There's no reason why reference 9 should be a separate citation. Just incorporate it into reference 1. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 04:22, July 30, 2015 (UTC)
        • Okay, thanks, I'll definitely keep those guidelines in mind. Though I have no idea where you managed to find some of those names, like "Peter Morrison." Also, I changed the reference you mentioned to use reference 1. ProfessorTofty (talk) 21:33, August 4, 2015 (UTC)
          • The article tagline reads, "Posted on September 16, 2014 by Peter." A quick search of the site indicates that it is maintained by one Peter Morrison. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 01:36, August 5, 2015 (UTC)
  • The Bibliography is meant for officially licensed sources from Lucasfilm and its licensees. Links to Amazon and other bookseller sites belong in the External links section. We don't really have a set practice for this since very few OOU book articles have been taken to status, but there's really no reason to list all of these bookseller sites. I would suggest listing Amazon only, unless you're citing one of the other websites in the article someplace. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 04:22, July 30, 2015 (UTC)
    • Name of the section changed to External links and limited to Amazon and iTunes download, since that one I am citing within the article. Besides, might not be a bad idea to have that at least, since it's an entirely different format. ProfessorTofty (talk) 21:33, August 4, 2015 (UTC)
      • Basic Layout Guide rule: External links section goes after the Notes and references. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk)
        • Ah yes, the change in section type necessitates a change in placement. Moved. ProfessorTofty (talk) 02:17, August 5, 2015 (UTC)
  • Referencing: In any article you write, you should reference as much as you possibly can to primary sources. For example, if you're writing a film subject from Attack of the Clones, you should source as much information as possible to the film itself rather than secondary sources such as reference books. In the case of this article, you should source as much as you can to the book itself (the primary source) rather than secondary, unofficial sources like Amazon. In the infobox, you're sourcing the author, illustrator, publisher, media type, and number of pages to Amazon. Can none of these be sourced to the book itself? Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 02:40, August 5, 2015 (UTC)
    • Everything except for the release date sourced to the book itself, as the book gives the month and year, but not the exact date. ProfessorTofty (talk) 02:30, August 8, 2015 (UTC)
  • Going through the infobox, there is nothing on this Amazon page that says that Use the Force! follows Escape from Darth Vader. I understand that you're making a basic inference here that Level 1 is followed by Level 2 in this reader's series, but your referencing is basically bollocks. I don't even know how to tell you to fix this exactly. Maybe a manual reference note would be best.
    • Given your below take that this World of Reading isn't even a series, would it be alright if I simply removed it? I'm not sure I really have a good answer for you on this, otherwise. The books themselves don't list which books are part of the series, as such, and I can't find anything anywhere online that simply lists them and starts definitively that one follows from the other. ProfessorTofty (talk) 00:20, August 30, 2015 (UTC)
      • I'm requesting clarification on your comment here: What are you asking to remove exactly? I'm confused because you seem to have misunderstood what I'm saying. World of Reading is definitely a series; there are just no defined sub-series, such as World of Reading original trilogy. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 02:34, September 1, 2015 (UTC)
  • This isn't an objection exactly, since any resolution here will ultimately need to play out through the Trash compactor, but your "World of Reading original trilogy" article is a complete fabrication, as is "World of Reading Star Wars Rebels." The reading series here is World of Reading. There's no other name for it or defined sub-series as part of World of Reading. If we should have any article for this (which I'm not sure we should, necessarily), it should simply be covered under one centralized "World of Reading" article, and then we can categorize pages from there; example, Category:World of Reading Level 1. I will most likely bring these pages to the Trash compactor. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 19:41, August 17, 2015 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure I agree. I know the name is conjecture, but I still feel that there's a distinct series there and the page is useful to have. Still, if you feel it should go to the trash compactor, that's fine, though I wouldn't object to your idea of simply having a centralized "World of Reading" article. On a side-note, would you be willing to address the discussion below, in Asithol's objections, regarding the requirement or non-requirement of having either an External links or Bibliography section? ProfessorTofty (talk) 00:20, August 30, 2015 (UTC)
Asithol
  • Expanding on Toprawa's last point above, what purpose does the amazon.com link serve at all? As an informational site, Wookieepedia should not be giving even the appearance of endorsing any one particular online bookseller. Any user, knowing the book's title and how to use a search box, can find the book on any bookseller's site he or she chooses. Same is true of the iTunes link, unless iTunes is an exclusive source of the electronic edition, in which case pointing this out falls within the realm of providing information. Asithol (talk) 05:44, August 5, 2015 (UTC)
    • Well, site policy requires an external links or bibliography section of some sort, and in this case, since there is nothing that I know of that would go in the bibliography, then external links it is. And Amazon and iTunes are the choices since they're being cited in the article - Amazon for the release date of the regular print book, and iTunes for the release date of the electronic edition. I suppose if it's preferred, a more neutral source could be used to source the release date, such as Disney's website. It's just that Amazon, in the case of the print release date, anyway, is normally the first one to provide these details, so they're the one that gets posted. And thus I never really saw any need to change it. Same for the other details, before the book was released, which was why I hadn't changed the sourcing on those either. ProfessorTofty (talk) 02:30, August 8, 2015 (UTC)
      • Pardon my ignorance: where is this policy specified? I can't find it in the Bibliography or External links sections of WP:LG/OOU, which is where I'd expect to see it. I'm curious at the rationale for requiring a section even if there's no relevant information to include in that section.

        I think it's fine to cite a commercial web site in a reference when that site provides relevant information. But providing one in the External links section—especially when it's the only one present—sends the unintentional message that Wookieepedia endorses that business as a provider of the item in question. Asithol (talk) 19:26, August 8, 2015 (UTC)

        • Well, you know, I'm actually sort of going by Toprawa here. He's warned both me and Dentface before when creating new articles that simply having Notes and references indicating the existence of a title isn't enough; there has to be either a Bibliography or an External links section of some sort. Presumably, that doesn't stop applying once the article stops being new or the product is released. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding though, exactly what's being gotten at here. Seeing as Toprawa is also reviewing the article, perhaps he can weigh in here. I'm sure this can be cleared up easily enough. ProfessorTofty (talk) 21:31, August 9, 2015 (UTC)

Comments

  • I will say that it might be worth going through the book and adding every appearance, there's a lot of things on wookieepedia that might not occur to you. For example, if an imperial officer is pictured, you can link to Imperial officer's tunic/Canon, Imperial officer's uniform/Canon, Hat/Canon and Boot/Canon (since Durasteel-toed boots are not canon) to name a few. If the binary star was pictured only, you can always add the {{Po}} tag :) Manoof (talk) 20:03, February 18, 2015 (UTC)
    • That's not a bad idea. Might be worth one more look through to make sure that anything minor like that hasn't been overlooked. I'll check it out ASAP. Still can't do "binary star" though, unless that term is used somewhere in canon that I don't know about. That's the reason I didn't include it before, because as far as I know it doesn't qualify for a canon article. ProfessorTofty (talk) 22:49, February 18, 2015 (UTC)
      • I have another copy of the book waiting for me at the library and will check it out sometime this week and do a final once-over to make sure there isn't anything missed that could be in Appearances. ProfessorTofty (talk) 03:26, March 2, 2015 (UTC)


Xexto/Canon

  • Nominated by: AV-6R7Crew Pit 07:49, June 23, 2015 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: It's amazing what you can find when your not looking for it. For example: the entire population of Troiken loves slingshots.

(2 ACs/4 Users/6 Total)

Support

  1. Squishy Vic | message 22:50, June 28, 2015 (UTC)
  2. Clonehunter(Report your W.M.D.) 23:01, July 1, 2015 (UTC)
  3. Manoof (talk) 06:34, August 5, 2015 (UTC)
  4. CC7567 (talk) 23:36, August 9, 2015 (UTC)
  5. ACvote Sir Cavalier of OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 00:40, August 28, 2015 (UTC)
  6. ACvote IFYLOFD (Talk) 04:40, August 31, 2015 (UTC)

Object

Vic
  • I did minor cleanup but the remainder of the BTS lacks sourcing, this needs to be added for the tidbit about the concept and skeletal design and implementation mentioned in that section. Squishy Vic | message 19:42, June 28, 2015 (UTC)
    • Couldn't find source for portion that I deleted, sourced other part. - AV-6R7Crew Pit 22:43, June 28, 2015 (UTC)
Attack of the Clone
  • A couple preliminaries. First of all, an intro of two sentences is way too short for an article of this length. I'd advise expanding it to at least four to five sentences.
  • Have you checked every single Encyclopedia and Databank entry for mentions or depictions of the Xexto? At the very least, sources that picture the species should be included with {{Po}}, as is the case with some of the Encyclopedia entries already listed.
    • Anything listed on the page is what I could find. - AV-6R7 (talk) 20:57, July 28, 2015 (UTC)
  • At a glance, I'm already noticing several subjects within the article that are missing links, including Alien/Canon and Mouth/Canon. Please go through the article again and carefully check for missing links. CC7567 (talk) 21:19, July 28, 2015 (UTC)
  • Pipelinks need to be capitalized, e.g. [[Species/Canon|species]] instead of [[species/Canon|species]]. Normally this is a {{Sofixit}}-level objection, but seeing as I've already objected to this for one of your previous articles, please fix it throughout the article. I'd also encourage you to review the Evazan GAN to see if any other of those objections would apply here.
    • Fixed. - AV-6R7 (talk) 22:58, July 30, 2015 (UTC)
  • TPM doesn't identify the species by name, so you need to use {{1stID}} to specify which source does. CC7567 (talk) 03:23, July 29, 2015 (UTC)
    • Fixed, and added note in the Bts section. - AV-6R7 (talk) 22:58, July 30, 2015 (UTC)
  • In Biology and appearance, TPM is cited twice in succession. Please check whether one of those references is simply a duplicate ref or if it was intended to be a different source.
    • Fixed. - AV-6R7 (talk) 03:04, August 2, 2015 (UTC)
  • The body of the article has room for at least one image.
    • Done. - AV-6R7 (talk) 03:03, August 2, 2015 (UTC)
  • More detail can be added on why Jenkes killed Wallaway.
    • Done. - AV-6R7 (talk) 02:55, August 2, 2015 (UTC)
      • Quotation marks need to be placed outside of punctuation. Also, GAN Rule 8 states that GANs cannot have any redlinks. Furthermore, I'm noticing at least two grammatical errors, one of which is the fact that the proper idiom is "tie up loose ends," not "tie off." Please go back and carefully check your additions. CC7567 (talk) 04:54, August 2, 2015 (UTC)
        • Redlinks taken care of. - AV-6R7 (talk) 19:35, August 7, 2015 (UTC)
          • Could you point out the errors you've found to speed up the correction process? - AV-6R7 (talk) 05:24, August 8, 2015 (UTC)
            • As I previously stated, quotation marks need to be placed outside of punctuation. That means "the Commissioner". should be "the Commissioner." CC7567 (talk) 23:21, August 9, 2015 (UTC)
              • Fixed. - AV-6R7 (talk) 23:34, August 9, 2015 (UTC)
  • Similarly, more detail can be added on Gasgano, particularly the fact that he came in second place, his temper, and his affiliation with Gardulla.
    • Done. - AV-6R7 (talk) 02:55, August 2, 2015 (UTC)
      • TPM, which is what all of the new information is currently sourced to, does not mention the "Ord Pedrovia" name, nor the fact that Gasgano raced for Gardulla or the fact that he came in second place. Please provide the source that does. CC7567 (talk) 04:54, August 2, 2015 (UTC)
        • Fixed. - AV-6R7 (talk) 18:45, August 7, 2015 (UTC)
  • An article for Wallaway's pawnshop needs to be created and linked where appropriate in the article.
    • Per my above reply, the article still needs to be created. It also needs to be linked where appropriate in the intro. CC7567 (talk) 04:54, August 2, 2015 (UTC)
      • Fixed. - AV-6R7 (talk) 19:59, August 7, 2015 (UTC)
  • Star Wars Rebels: Rebel Journal by Ezra Bridger needs to be listed in the Sources. Depending on whether or not it directly refers to the species, it might deserve a {{Imo}} or {{Po}} tag. Please go through Gasgano's and Wallaway's appearances to check for similar scenarios. (Also, Wallaway's Quermian-like appearance in Rebel Journal is something that's relevant to mention in the Bts.)
    • Please note that the unstricken portion of this objection still remains. CC7567 (talk) 04:54, August 2, 2015 (UTC)
      • AV, I'm not sure whether you haven't seen this objection or you just haven't gotten to it yet, but this still needs to be addressed. CC7567 (talk) 02:48, August 8, 2015 (UTC)
        • Done. - AV-6R7 (talk) 05:21, August 8, 2015 (UTC)
  • No relevant quotes? CC7567 (talk) 04:30, July 31, 2015 (UTC)
    • No, not really. The Xexto is really described only by Bridger mental, not spoken out loud. - AV-6R7 (talk) 04:44, July 31, 2015 (UTC)
  • Please check which category or sub-category within Category:Sentient species by biology would be appropriate for the article. CC7567 (talk) 23:21, August 9, 2015 (UTC)
    • Couldn't find anything in canon that establishes that. Nothing even calls them humanoid. - AV-6R7 (talk) 23:42, August 9, 2015 (UTC)
Cav
  • When describing the Xexto's number of fingers, I think mentioning how many fingers per hand would be needed. Quick mental calculations are fine, specifics are better.
    • Fixed - AV-6R7 (talk) 19:36, August 7, 2015 (UTC)
  • Per rule 8 of the GAN; an article cannot have any redlinks. You have two; Ferpil Wallaway's pawnshop and Gladiator Night. - Sir Cavalier of OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 17:59, August 5, 2015 (UTC)
  • The last part of the paragraph dealing with Wallway and Jenkes; I think the reveal needs to state that he was visited by the Commissioner and then reveal his identity, not vice versa. Also, how was Jenkes' illegal activities in danger of being discovered? - Sir Cavalier of OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 21:35, August 19, 2015 (UTC)
    • Done. - AV-6R7 (talk) 00:00, August 20, 2015 (UTC)
Toprawa
  • The infobox image is sourced to a Legends book and therefore cannot be used for this article unless the image is also used in a Canon source, in which case you are required to properly source your image. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 02:09, September 1, 2015 (UTC)

Comments

  • I can tell just by looking at the Gasgano/Canon article's sourcelist alone that this article does not have a complete sourcelist. Though unfortunately those Encyclopedia pages are outdated, I'd recommend to do a more thorough check of the current Databank pages. Hanzo Hasashi (talk) 03:56, June 24, 2015 (UTC)
    • I added the ones I could find to the sources section. Thanks! - AV-6R7Crew Pit 04:09, June 24, 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd also suggest looking at some TPM creation material such as the insider's guide. Gasgano/Canon also includes some material on the species' conceptual stages, such as several artists who worked on the species. There is a Gasgano maquette, but I have no idea where those names came from. The Insider's Guide, I believe, is still a valid source for behind the scenes material, though I don't think it can be added to the actual sources list. --Clonehunter(Report your W.M.D.) 21:09, June 29, 2015 (UTC)

If I every acquire the book and find the info, I will put it back in. For now, however, it is unverified information. - AV-6R7Crew Pit 21:13, June 29, 2015 (UTC)

  • It's verified on Gasgano/Canon, check the notes. Also, the insider's guide is a disc set that only works on Windows 95/98. Pretty cheap, but the issue is compatibility, unfortunately. --Clonehunter(Report your W.M.D.) 00:45, June 30, 2015 (UTC)
  • I will be taking a temporary hiatus for the next three weeks as I will be in Europe and may not always have a good internet connection. - AV-6R7Crew Pit 03:10, July 2, 2015 (UTC)


Dreed

  • Nominated by: Ayrehead02 (talk) 11:02, July 21, 2015 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments:Standard Imperial bad guy

(0 ACs/0 Users/0 Total)

Support

Object

  • Nitpicky, but you make no mention of Nunb alliance with Organa in the body, but you do in the intro. The inference is that he is helping the Princess, of course, but and no point do you state this. Also, is there any further information on how the Mellcrawler avoided the Star Destroyer's sensors?
    • Nunb isn't mentioned in the intro? I've added that he was aiding them to the body and intro now, but the comic makes no mention of how they avoid the sensors. Ayrehead02 (talk) 08:20, August 6, 2015 (UTC)
  • A little explanation on why the Star Destroyer followed the Mellcrawler to Espirion is needed; I find it strange that a crewed Imperial Star Destroyer would follow rebels after the death of its commander. - Sir Cavalier of OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 18:23, August 5, 2015 (UTC)
    • Expanded on what happened following Dreed's death. Ayrehead02 (talk) 08:20, August 6, 2015 (UTC)
      • So, exactly how did the Rebels and Espirions destroy the Star Destroyer? Is there at least an article to link to? - Sir Cavalier of OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 21:39, August 19, 2015 (UTC)
        • They just all fire on it pretty much. I'm not really sure it needs and article of its own beyond the mission article, the Star Destroyer shoots one or two ships then they all shoot it and it's over. Ayrehead02 (talk) 23:51, August 19, 2015 (UTC)
          • I think it's going to either need a full article detailing the destruction of the Star Destroyer, or you're going to have to go into a little more detail on how the Star Destroyer was destroyed. - Sir Cavalier of OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 00:43, August 28, 2015 (UTC)
            • Added how specifically they destroyed it, but since Dreed is already dead by this stage I don't feel further information is relevant. Ayrehead02 (talk) 14:07, August 30, 2015 (UTC)

Comments

EV-9D9/Canon

  • Nominated by: AV-6R7 (talk) 04:53, July 25, 2015 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: Hopefully life wont get in the way of this char nom.

(0 ACs/0 Users/0 Total)

Support

Object

Cubert

It looks great, except I personally think her affiliation should be marked as the Hutt Clan rather than Jabba's palace. And if so, that should be added to the body somewhere, too. Cheers! Nivlacanator(talk) 20:53, July 25, 2015 (UTC)

  • The reason I changed it to his palace rather that the Clan is that in Ultimate Star Wars, characters affiliated with the clan have that marked in their affiliation box. Eve simply has Jabba's palace as hers. It's the same reason I changed 8D8's affiliation to that. In essence, I personally believe it should be kept the way it currently is since she is affiliated to the palace, and we don't know whether or not the Clan is still intact by that point. - AV-6R7 (talk) 21:02, July 25, 2015 (UTC)
Grunny
  • You're referencing the same ref twice in a row, should the first one just be removed or is one meant to point to a different source? "in the murky depths of the palace's dungeons[1] into a grim torture chamber[1]" grunny@wookieepedia:~$ 15:12, July 30, 2015 (UTC)
    • Fixed. - AV-6R7 (talk) 20:22, July 30, 2015 (UTC)

Comments

Tivvy

  • Nominated by: Ayrehead02 (talk) 09:03, July 31, 2015 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: Another nom from Leia

(0 ACs/1 Users/1 Total)

Support

  1. 501st dogma(talk) 01:04, August 18, 2015 (UTC)

Object

501st
  • It might be good to state in the BtS that the comic is canon. Also, I'm assuming the ambush doesn't warrant an article. 501st dogma(talk) 17:26, August 17, 2015 (UTC)
    • Added and nope it's over in a few panels and can just be covered in the mission article. Ayrehead02 (talk) 17:54, August 17, 2015 (UTC)
Cav
  • Names of Leia's companions in the intro would be appreciated. - Sir Cavalier of OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 21:46, August 19, 2015 (UTC)
  • One thing - Leia infers that Tivvy is a Smuggler because he is Sullustan. Does the source actually state he is a smuggler, or is this supposition from Leia's remarks? - Sir Cavalier of OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 00:51, August 28, 2015 (UTC)
    • Leia suggests it but then Tula directly states that he's one elsewhere in the comic. Ayrehead02 (talk) 09:41, August 28, 2015 (UTC)

Comments

Dorai

  • Nominated by: Trip391 (talk) 04:36, August 8, 2015 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments:

(0 ACs/1 Users/1 Total)

Support

  1. Ayrehead02 (talk) 20:00, August 12, 2015 (UTC)

Object

Toprawa
  • Preliminary objection: The intro should be longer. Having just written the Mayth Duvel article, that's about the same length as Dorai, and its into is about the size of what I would like to see here. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 23:05, August 17, 2015 (UTC)
    • I expanded it. Trip391 (talk) 17:13, August 19, 2015 (UTC)
Cav
  • I'm seeing some RPG skills on page 50 of Platt's that need to be incorporated into the article; such as bureaucracy, astrogation, etc. - Sir Cavalier of OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 21:48, August 19, 2015 (UTC)
    • Incorporated. Trip391 (talk) 05:54, August 20, 2015 (UTC)
  • Why no era info? Usually, WEG sourcebooks are set in the timeframe of the Rebellion between Episode IV and Episode V unless stated other. Is there no mention of a timeframe in the book? - Sir Cavalier of OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 01:01, August 28, 2015 (UTC)
    • The conflict between the Empire and Rebel Alliance is mentioned, but I can't find anything that would tie it specifically to either the Rise of the Empire era or Rebellion era. Trip391 (talk) 04:03, August 31, 2015 (UTC)

Comments

Cauley

  • Nominated by: Ayrehead02 (talk) 19:35, August 12, 2015 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments:

(0 ACs/0 Users/0 Total)

Support

Object

  • BTS - mentioning that A New Dawn was the first Canon novel might be a good idea. - Sir Cavalier of OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 21:57, August 19, 2015 (UTC)
  • Looking over it again, I'm seeing items that should probably have links/articles, like ID transponder, headset, etc.
    • Added links and articles. Ayrehead02 (talk) 14:06, August 30, 2015 (UTC)
  • The ending feels a little truncated; Vidian betrayed Empire, gets killed in an explosion. But how did he betray the Empire, and did the baradium destroy Forager? I know that it might be too much detail to go into in Cauley's article, but if small clarifications can be made without spinning off on tangents, that would help. - Sir Cavalier of OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 01:14, August 28, 2015 (UTC)
    • Added a bit more detail, but I feel anything more isn't relevant to Cauley. Ayrehead02 (talk) 14:06, August 30, 2015 (UTC)

Comments

Unagin

  • Nominated by: Imperators II(Talk) 08:30, August 15, 2015 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: FCAN, GA, FGA, FCAN, now GA again?

(2 ACs/1 Users/3 Total)

Support

  1. Ayrehead02 (talk) 18:11, August 16, 2015 (UTC)
  2. ACvote Sir Cavalier of OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 22:02, August 19, 2015 (UTC)
  3. ACvote For Jonny Gomes. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 01:56, September 1, 2015 (UTC)

Object

Ayrehead
  • Is Hutt Space referred to as "the Hutt Space" in one of the sources used? I've never seen it referred to like that anywhere before. Ayrehead02 (talk) 10:00, August 16, 2015 (UTC)
Toprawa
  • As stipulated by our Layout Guide, cut/canceled content should be covered exclusively in the Behind the scenes section. Everything from The Big Switch should be reworked into the BTS. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 21:00, August 24, 2015 (UTC)

Comments

  • Question: Am I correct in presuming you're getting these Atlas map images from the pdf? Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 02:58, August 21, 2015 (UTC)


Holshef

  • Nominated by: ProfessorTofty (talk) 18:43, August 15, 2015 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: Newest nomination from the Star Wars Rebels spinoff series Servants of the Empire. Spent the past couple of weeks or so getting the necessary redlinked articles created and after looking this over once more, I'm ready for the nomination. ProfessorTofty (talk) 18:43, August 15, 2015 (UTC)

(0 ACs/1 Users/1 Total)

Support

  1. Ayrehead02 (talk) 18:13, August 16, 2015 (UTC)

Object

Ayrehead
  • Wispy isn't a description of color, so I'm not sure it should be included in the hair color field of the infobox. Ayrehead02 (talk) 09:51, August 16, 2015 (UTC)
  • Could you mention who Governor Pryce is? Ayrehead02 (talk) 09:51, August 16, 2015 (UTC)
    • Edited to describe her specifically as "Governor of Lothal." Is that enough? I don't think more is really relevant to the article. ProfessorTofty (talk) 15:38, August 16, 2015 (UTC)
  • A bit more context on Merei is needed. Ayrehead02 (talk) 09:51, August 16, 2015 (UTC)
    • Added content explaining why she was involved with the Gray Syndicate. ProfessorTofty (talk) 15:38, August 16, 2015 (UTC)
Cav
  • First paragraph of Biography is unreffed. I assume its to Imperial Justice, but I haven't read the book.
    • Right, okay. I was basically intending for the second paragraph reference to reference the entire thing. I forgot about the paragraph-by-paragraph. Added. ProfessorTofty (talk) 21:57, August 20, 2015 (UTC)
  • Did Spanjaf take the bounter hunter to Holshef? It's a little unclear. The intro makes it sound like he was given to the bounty hunter, the bio is more ambiguous. - Sir Cavalier of OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 22:14, August 19, 2015 (UTC)
    • The book doesn't say that she does, but then again, it doesn't say that she doesn't. I think the strong implication is that she doesn't because A.) she liked Holshef and didn't want to do such a thing to him and B.) with Laxo toasted by the Empire, she would have no reason to, since only Laxo knew that she was the one that had been tasked with taking the bounty hunter to him. I've edited the article to try to make things a bit more clear, but it's sort of like what I was discussing here with Voorpee in relation to the fact that we're dealing with a situation where the exact details simply aren't stated explicitly in the book. ProfessorTofty (talk) 21:57, August 20, 2015 (UTC)
      • Unfortunately, the additions now take on the air of speculation. I was mainly concerned not by the book's depiction of events, but consistency in the article. The intro reads as if Holshef was taken, the bio did not. They should be more in sync with one another is the point I was trying to make. I would take the additions out, and attempt to reword either the intro or bio (the intro would be my choice) for consistency within the article. Either that, or addressing the ambiguity in the BTS might be the way to go. - Sir Cavalier of OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 01:23, August 28, 2015 (UTC)
        • Alright. I've restored the bio to its previous state and kept things more vague in the intro. I've also added a bit to the Behind the scenes about it. ProfessorTofty (talk) 18:39, August 28, 2015 (UTC)

Comments

Pashvi

(1 ACs/1 Users/2 Total)

Support

  1. Ayrehead02 (talk) 09:45, August 16, 2015 (UTC)
  2. ACvote Sir Cavalier of OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 22:17, August 19, 2015 (UTC)

Object

Toprawa
  • Preliminary objection: I'm going to argue that this article should be moved to "Pashvi" and the species article moved to "Pashvi (species)" based on our naming policy. Jason Fry has confirmed (see here and here) that Atlas systems are named for their most recognizable celestial object. In this case, we can safely judge that the Pashvi system's most recognizable object is the otherwise unnamed Pashvi homeworld, which we can therefore take to mean that the planet's name is Pashvi. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 01:50, August 30, 2015 (UTC)

Comments

Kendall

  • Nominated by: 501st dogma(talk) 15:58, August 17, 2015 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: A 966 word nom to solve the no-Dogma-noms-on-the-GAN-page problem.

(1 ACs/1 Users/2 Total)

Support

  1. ACvote Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 01:52, August 19, 2015 (UTC)
  2. Ayrehead02 (talk) 09:46, August 20, 2015 (UTC)

Object

Toprawa
  • Question: The article cites the Hapan Battle Dragon's length to HAP1-2. Do both of these pages really need to be sourced? If the information is only on HAP1, for example, you don't need to reference HAP2. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 00:59, August 18, 2015 (UTC)
    • HAP 2 is the only one with the length info, so I've changed the reference to reflect that.
  • You also totally messed up your subsection formatting. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 01:06, August 18, 2015 (UTC)
    • Yep, looks like I added an extra 2 equal signs to the History subsectioning for some reason. Fixed. 501st dogma(talk) 21:41, August 18, 2015 (UTC)
  • Who made this plan? "...a plan was made to move the Killiks..."
    • There. Also, upon looking for for who thought of the plan, I managed to find a quote for the description section, and a bit of the Description section and the last paragraph of Killik troubles has been tweaked.
  • Ok, is it "Kendall" or "the Kendall"? I see it used both ways in quotes. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 23:53, August 18, 2015 (UTC)
    • Joiner King has it as Kendall, while Tempest has it as the Kendall. Since Joiner is the first source to name Kendall (and Aleson Gray's TCSWE entry doesn't help much by only referring to the ship once as "the Battle Dragon Kendall", I'm going with no the, though I'd be fine with switching stances if you believe Tempest should take precedent since it's the latest source to be released. 501st dogma(talk) 01:35, August 19, 2015 (UTC)
      • Yeah, since it's the most recent source and latest chronologically, I think you should follow suit with its formatting. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 01:39, August 19, 2015 (UTC)
        • There we are. 501st dogma(talk) 01:45, August 19, 2015 (UTC)
Cav
  • A little explanation for the Solo's initial support of the Heritage Fleet might be needed; I know they supported Corellia early in the civil war, but the article doesn't explain that. - Sir Cavalier of OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 22:24, August 19, 2015 (UTC)

Comments

Hurati

  • Nominated by: –Alexander 14:49, August 22, 2015 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: I read Hard Contact recently, and since non-droid Separatist officers have always interested me, I decided to expand on this character's article.

(0 ACs/0 Users/0 Total)

Support

Object

Comments

Sunfruit

(2 ACs/2 Users/4 Total)

Support

  1. grunny@wookieepedia:~$ 16:05, August 25, 2015 (UTC)
  2. Hanzo Hasashi (talk) 20:17, August 25, 2015 (UTC)
  3. ACvote Exiled Jedi (talk) 01:15, August 27, 2015 (UTC)
  4. ACvote IFYLOFD (Talk) 01:06, August 28, 2015 (UTC)

Object

Comments

In other languages

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki