Wikia

Wookieepedia

Wookieepedia:Good article nominations

Redirected from WP:GAN

128,145pages on
this wiki
Talk117
       
Good article
nominations
             
GoodIcon

This page is for the nomination of Good articles. A Good article is an article that adheres to certain quality standards but cannot reach Featured status due to its limited content. This page 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.

READ THIS FIRST!

An article must…

  1. …be well-written and comprehensively detailed.
  2. …be unbiased, non-point of view.
  3. …have comprehensive Appearances and Sources lists.
  4. …be fully referenced. See Wookieepedia:Sourcing for more information.
  5. …follow the Manual of Style, Layout Guide, and all other policies on Wookieepedia.
  6. …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.
  7. …not be tagged with any sort of improvement tags (i.e. more sources, expand, etc).
  8. …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.
  9. …have no redlinks.
  10. …have comprehensive detail with all information covered from all sources and appearances.
  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 the highest quality to illustrate the article, as source availability permits.
  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, select an article you feel is worthy of Good article status. Your nominated article must meet all seventeen requirements listed above to become a Good article.
  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 Good article status 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 may 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. Any objections may 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/6 Users/8 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)
  7. I know this already has enough votes, but I just gotta say, that article seriously looks fantastic. LoLuX12 (talk) 23:13, April 8, 2016 (UTC)
  8. Asithol (talk) 04:48, April 15, 2016 (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)
        • Toprawa, sorry for taking so long to reply. Perhaps I did misunderstand. In any case, I would like to get this resolved, so let's tackle it, and sorry for this being kind of lengthy. You're saying that "World of Reading" is a series, where as the sub-series aren't a defined series and therefore don't merit their own pages. I disagree in that while there is no formally defined series for the original trilogy or Rebels, I feel that if you just put them all under the banner "World of Reading," then you don't really have a series either, so much as a collection of books that happen to share certain characteristics, such as the fact that they're all illustrated and they all use simple language. For example, we have the DK Readers, such as What is a Wookiee?, which we've loosely defined as a "series" for the purpose of the infobox, but for those, we don't try to specify a "previous" book or "next" book because it's pointless. They aren't really intended to have a chronological order. So what I'm asking to simply remove is the statement that the book is "Followed by" Use the Force, assuming we redefine this as "World of Reading" and not "World of Reading original trilogy." Barring that, I'm not really sure how to satisfy your objection, as I can't really find anything specifically stated anywhere that states that "Use the Force" is the next book in the series. For that matter, if the intention would be to define the "following" book as the next book in the in-universe timeline, then that would actually be AT-AT Attack! ProfessorTofty (talk) 00:23, September 14, 2015 (UTC)
          • The last thing you say there is kind of what's making me iffy on listing Use the Force! That book is certainly the next in Siglain's series, but if you take the entire original trilogy set together, you're correct that AT-AT Attack is the next chronologically. Since AT-AT Attack is Level 1 and Use the Force! is Level 2, I think maybe the best solution would be to list both in that field on separate bullets and then just use each book's respective Amazon page as references. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 03:27, January 6, 2016 (UTC)
          • Ok, I just went ahead and did this one too to show you what I'm looking for. Let me know if you have any issues with this. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 16:10, January 6, 2016 (UTC)
            • No, I'm alright with it, mainly because I can't really think of any other way to do it. Thanks for taking care of it. ProfessorTofty (talk) 02:47, January 22, 2016 (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)
  • Site policy requires that you upload a screenshot of the Twitter post from reference 2, a la this. The image file must then be linked in the Twitter citation template.
  • Unsourced item in the infobox. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 19:30, January 5, 2016 (UTC)
    • Artist restored from Pilot Studio to Stéphane Roux per IRC discussion. Sourced from Amazon, Barnes and Noble also corroborates. ProfessorTofty (talk) 02:50, January 6, 2016 (UTC)
  • The Media type infobox field should list all the different versions of this book, which includes paperback, digital, and a hardcover version, as you will see from that link. Basically, long story short, it's a special type of school hardcover binding. Make sure you also detail the hardcover version in the article body. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 03:12, January 6, 2016 (UTC)
    • I just went ahead and did this myself, along with adding in the multiple publication dates for the varying editions. I replaced the iTunes reference with an Amazon reference to keep things simpler, since the eBook is the same everywhere. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 05:26, January 6, 2016 (UTC)
      • Thanks! Oh, if we're done with all of the World of Reading stuff now, could you strike the objection regarding that? Well, if necessary, you did say it "wasn't an objection exactly." ProfessorTofty (talk) 21:31, January 6, 2016 (UTC)
  • After reading through this book myself, I notice that this article has some fairly serious referencing issues. For example, the book never identifies the two ships by name, so this article can't accurately identify them as the Devastator and Tantive IV without proper referencing. You will need to cite their names to a source that actually identifies them as such. The same goes for any other specific nomenclature referenced in this article that is not identified as such in the book. "Imperial Star Destroyer," for example. I would be satisfied with letting you slide on the mentions of Han Solo and Chewbacca, since they are pictured on the last page, but the book doesn't even indirectly mention the Battle of Yavin. You're extrapolating pretty hard there. That, too, will need an independent source. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 04:24, January 7, 2016 (UTC)
    • Alright, how's it looking now? I sourced everything in question to Ultimate Star Wars, since that seemed to be the one source I could find that definitely identified everything by name. ProfessorTofty (talk) 02:47, January 22, 2016 (UTC)
      • Ok, that's not how references work. You basically just have the same redundant reference note duplicating itself four times in a row in the same paragraph. Also, references go after punctuation, not before it. You've been here long enough that you should know this stuff by now. I think what I'm actually going to recommend you do is to rewrite that paragraph while only referring to subjects to the extent that the book does. For example, if the book doesn't call the Star Destroyer the Devastator, then don't explicitly refer to it as such. You can pipelink specifics, but don't go any further than that. That way, you won't have to use supplementary referencing. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 00:36, January 27, 2016 (UTC)
        • You're right, I do know that they go after punctuation. Sorry about that. In any case, I think that's a good idea, so I've done as you suggested. Oh, BTW, about the artwork in the book, I'm looking at a copy now, and it actually says inside the book that Roux did the art. Therefore, I've sourced the reference for the artwork back to the book itself. That takes care of that. ProfessorTofty (talk) 01:18, February 1, 2016 (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)
          • Since in six months no one has cited a requirement for an External links section, is it safe to go ahead and remove it? Asithol (talk) 18:13, February 3, 2016 (UTC)
            • Oh yes, I'd certainly like to be free of this particular objection. And seeing as, like you said, nobody can seem to find this particular requirement, I've gone ahead and removed the section. Though, Tope, if you're reading, I'd certain welcome your input on this. If I happen to see you on IRC, I may still ask you about it. ProfessorTofty (talk) 07:27, February 10, 2016 (UTC)
  • The article looks great. There are just a couple minor technical issues that should be addressed:
  • There shouldn't be a comma between the subject and verb in the first sentence of the plot summary.
    • I think that's a relic of when the sentence was phrased differently. Fixed. ProfessorTofty (talk) 03:31, March 5, 2016 (UTC)
  • Typically "princess" is only capitalized as part of a name or in direct address, not in phrases like "the princess."
  • The another type link in "a droid of another type" (referring to C-3PO) should presumably link to protocol droid rather than astromech droid.
    • It sure should. Changed to protocol droid. ProfessorTofty (talk) 03:31, March 5, 2016 (UTC)
  • Merriam-Webster shows "on board" written with a space rather than a hyphen in a prepositional context. (Personally, I'd use the preposition "aboard" here instead.)
    • I went with that then. "Aboard" it is.
  • Using the passive voice for "R2-D2 is found by C-3PO" doesn't seem to add anything, and would probably read better as the more straightforward "C-3PO finds R2-D2." Whichever way it's phrased, though, it should be followed by a comma, since an independent clause follows the conjunction.
  • Although the publisher's summary incorrectly hyphenates "fully illustrated," you shouldn't repeat their error in the Development section.
  • "a U.K. edition by Egmont was issued" is clunkier and seems slightly less clear than "Egmont issued a U.K. edition." I see you're trying to mirror the construction used in the first clause of the sentence, but I'd say clarity is more important here. It might be better to change the first clause to active voice anyway, specifying who released the ebook.
    • Both changes have been made to put them both in the active voice. ProfessorTofty (talk) 03:31, March 5, 2016 (UTC)
  • "...a series of Star Wars titles under the World of Reading banner that retell events...": If you remove the intervening prepositional phrases, the subject/verb disagreement of "a series that retell events" becomes obvious.
    • I'm sorry, I'm not seeing the issue here. Sure "a series that retell events" is obviously wrong, but there's nothing wrong with "a series of titles that retell events." Clarify? ProfessorTofty (talk) 03:31, March 5, 2016 (UTC)
      • You are right; I was parsing one way and failed to see your intended (and correct) syntax.
  • http://lightsaberrattling.com/review-star-wars-escape-from-darth-vader-world-of-reading-level-1 is pulling up a blank page for me. Is this the correct URL? Or did the page just move or disappear?
    • It looks like it's more than just that. It seems the entire site is down. It also seems that due to their robots.txt, we're not going to be able to get anything out of the Internet Archive either. Alright, since it's just not there anymore, I went ahead and pulled it. I think with the Amazon reviews and the Mundie Kids, we have enough anyway. ProfessorTofty (talk) 03:31, March 5, 2016 (UTC)
  • Since Amazon.com provides editorial reviews for some of its books, you might want to clarify that you're not talking about those by saying "24 customer reviews at Amazon.com." (As a side note, that number has nearly doubled since you wrote this, but the article clearly specifies the date on which the number was 24, so that's not really an issue unless you feel like updating all the data about their customer reviews.)
    • Tweak applied. And seeing as it was an easy fix, I went ahead and updated the current info about the reviews as well. Though your point does seem valid that so long as a date is specified and there's no radical shift or anything, it's not something that really needs to be consistently updated. After all, even though the number has nearly doubled, the overall consensus is the same. ProfessorTofty (talk) 03:31, March 5, 2016 (UTC)
  • Similarly, since reviewers typically don't pay for books they review professionally, I'm not convinced the phrase "received a free copy of the title for review" needs to be there. I think clearly distinguishing customer reviews above, which follow different rules, helps makes this phrase unnecessary.
    • Makes sense. Moot point now, though, since I had to pull the reference to Lightsaber Rattling's review. ProfessorTofty (talk) 03:31, March 5, 2016 (UTC)
  • Commas should follow the two instances of the word "stated" where it introduces a quote.
    • Ah, that's a new one on me, but you're right. Commas added.
Props for using "whom" correctly, since that trips up most writers. :) Asithol (talk) 19:20, February 24, 2016 (UTC)
Aw, thanks! P.S.: I've also added a new bit to the Continuity section referencing the fact a version of the story is included a recently released volume titled 5-Minute Star Wars Stories. I think this is the best way to handle it, as this is in some ways a new version of the story that appears in an entirely separate volume.
Makes sense. There seems to be a word missing, though, from "a December 2015 from Disney-Lucasfilm Press". I also think "direct quotations from the film not featured in the original story" is not the most precise way to phrase that, since the film is the original story. Maybe something like "direct quotations from the film not featured in Michael Siglain's version"?
Added the missing word, chose "compilation." And, yes, I agree the wording is better that way, save that I decided to just go with "Siglain's version". ProfessorTofty (talk) 22:52, April 8, 2016 (UTC)
Also, I hope you don't mind that I converted your numbers to bullets. Trying to reply to them otherwise was completely breaking the formatting. ProfessorTofty (talk) 03:31, March 5, 2016 (UTC)
Don't mind at all. I numbered my points expecting you to do a block reply, and thought the numbers would be an easy way for you to refer to a specific point. But you're right, for inline replies the wiki format isn't very agreeable to that. Asithol (talk) 02:52, March 30, 2016 (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, Imperial officer's uniform, Hat and Boot (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)
  • This doesn't rise to the level of an objection, and I'm not even sure the best way to address it: per our discussion above, you removed references to the defunct Lightsaber Rattling site except for the quote that leads off the Reception section. I see no problem with this quote's presence—it's still a valid quote; a reviewer did actually say that—but the "[src]" link associated with it is dead. Asithol (talk) 05:03, April 15, 2016 (UTC)
    • Hmm. Seems to me this might fall under the recent Mofference thing about expired links and judging their validity. Of course, I'm not sure there's an easy way here to indicate the "information no longer available." ProfessorTofty (talk) 03:06, April 18, 2016 (UTC)
      • Just a heads up: it's saved on the webarchive. I found the quote there as well. Perhaps link the quote's source directly to the archived page? Manoof (talk) 09:39, April 18, 2016 (UTC)
        • Yeah, I'd say definitely that! I'm going to go ahead and do it now. That's interesting, though, because when I had checked before, it was most definitely not on there, which was why I had removed all other reference to it from the Reception section. ProfessorTofty (talk) 02:33, April 19, 2016 (UTC)

Vote to remove nomination (AC only)

  1. ACvote Unaddressed objection over two weeks old. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 18:08, January 21, 2016 (UTC)
    ACvote 1358 (Talk) 18:20, January 21, 2016 (UTC)
    Striking for now on the provision that this is handled within the next 12 hours. 1358 (Talk) 20:08, January 21, 2016 (UTC)
Could I ask that you guys hang on? I'll take care of it this evening, definitely. Sorry, didn't realize it was getting this late. Come on, I've been trying to get this done for over a year and I had to wait nearly four months for a further response after September. Believe me, I don't want this to just slip away. I have to head out right now, but I will address it this evening. ProfessorTofty (talk) 19:28, January 21, 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! I do appreciate it and I've responded to the posted objection and tried to satisfy it. I'll certainly try to be more vigilant in the future. ProfessorTofty (talk) 02:48, January 22, 2016 (UTC)


EV-9D9

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

(1 ACs/7 Users/8 Total)

Support

  1. Good work! - Clonehunter(Report your W.M.D.) 20:05, October 26, 2015 (UTC)
  2. Cwedin(talk) 05:18, October 30, 2015 (UTC)
  3. Ayrehead02 (talk) 13:57, October 30, 2015 (UTC)
  4. Cevan IMPpress (talk) 23:48, October 30, 2015 (UTC)
  5. Looks great, AV! Nivlacanator(talk) 23:09, November 3, 2015 (UTC)
  6. <-Omicron(Leave a message at the BEEP!) 02:08, December 18, 2015 (UTC)
  7. Aerospherology (talk) 16:29, January 15, 2016 (UTC)
  8. ACvote Sir Cavalier of OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 22:46, June 2, 2016 (UTC)

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)
Clone
  • Context needed on Tatooine. Moon, planet, repair shop, a twix factory?
  • Maybe reword this sentence?: "A protocol droid, EV-9D9 assigned C-3PO to be her master's new interpreter" as it seems to read that 9D9 is the protocol droid.
  • Now, I may be wrong on this: The infobox mentions that 9D9 has feminine programming. Although feminine pronouns are used throughout the article, I think the fact that she has such programming should be mentioned more explicitly in the article, kind of like how other articles tend to mention an individual's sex even when gender pronouns are in use.
  • Again, good work with the Canon articles! --Clonehunter(Report your W.M.D.) 16:19, October 24, 2015 (UTC)
Cwedin
  • (Ridiculously) Minor things: "...enjoy tormenting and dismembering of other droids," should either have "the" after "enjoy," or not have "of;" in paragraph two, "drink" should be plural; in the BTS section, "Revenge of the Jedi" should be italicized.
  • In most situations where a link is a possessive noun—in this case, "his palace's"—the 's should be outside of the closing brackets.
  • Fantastic work with this article (and many others)! Cwedin(talk) 05:53, October 27, 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks for reviewing! People like you are the reason the cogs of Wookieepedia continue to turn after the reboot. - AV-6R7Crew Pit 05:14, October 30, 2015 (UTC)
Cevan
  • The picture of EV assigning R2 to the Khetanna is from Behind the Magic, which was released before the canon reboot, so I don't think it can be used on this page. I'd recommend finding another picture from the actual movie and swapping it out with that. Cevan IMPpress (talk) 01:07, October 30, 2015 (UTC)
    • I've been meaning to ask JMAS to upload a Blu-Ray quality version of this image for some time. The current image was always intended to be a placeholder. - AV-6R7Crew Pit 05:15, October 30, 2015 (UTC)
      • I'll work on a suitable replacement. May not be exactly the same shot, since that is a promotional still, but it will be similar and clear. - JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 23:19, October 30, 2015 (UTC)
Cav
  • In what appears to a standard practice among Canon articles now, perhaps some BTS mention should be made as to when and where EV-9D9 was first identified in Legends media, as that is undoubtedly where the current Canon name was drawn from. - Sir Cavalier of OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 14:40, November 15, 2015 (UTC)
    • Sorry for the late response, but the name actually originated in the films script, as pointed out in the Bts section. I am, however, in the major rewrite of that section so that it progresses more logically and mentions the novelization in which she first appeared and her name was used. - AV-6R7Crew Pit 16:44, November 22, 2015 (UTC)
      • Done. - AV-6R7Crew Pit 22:01, November 22, 2015 (UTC)
        • I'm not really sure how the Complete BluRay set canonised EV-9D9's name, given it was released 3 years before the entire Canon/Legends split.
          • In light of this, would in universe information from the set be considered canon? - AV-6R7Crew Pit 19:37, December 24, 2015 (UTC)
            • Actually, I believe that we consider the set to be canon, even though it was released before the separation, along with releases of TCW. - AV-6R7Crew Pit 00:54, December 25, 2015 (UTC)
              • Can I see a citation for that? I thought we considered the actual films and whatnot canon, but not special features. - Sir Cavalier of OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 13:02, December 28, 2015 (UTC)
                • The special features are canonically strange, where we consider them canon even though they were published before the establishment of the new canon, similar to the Episode Guides on StarWars.com. - AV-6R7Crew Pit 04:55, December 29, 2015 (UTC)
  • New stuff
  • Context for R2 and 3PO needed in intro
  • Alternating between EV-9D9 and Eve in the article doesn't read quite right. Stick to one, EV-9D9 as the formal designation, throughout the article.
  • You have a redlink in the Sources. - Sir Cavalier of OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 00:29, December 22, 2015 (UTC)
    • I unfortunately don't own this issue, so I'll have to find someone else the write it. - AV-6R7Crew Pit 19:37, December 24, 2015 (UTC)
      • Nevermind, I just had a variant cover. - AV-6R7Crew Pit 20:25, December 24, 2015 (UTC)

More new stuff:

  • Affiliation: Jabba's Palace - is there something more specific to link to here, say Jabba himself or a canon article for his criminal empire?
    • I considered replacing that with Jabba Desilijic Tiure, but EV-9D9's entry in USW specifically says Jabba's Palace while another specifically says Jabba the Hutt, so I assumed there was more type of distinction. In addition, it seems that the idea of Jabba having an individual empire has been consolidated into the Hutt cartel. - AV-6R7Crew Pit 23:38, March 2, 2016 (UTC)
  • Also, are there categories for the members of Jabba's court/organization? - Sir Cavalier of OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 23:15, March 2, 2016 (UTC)
Ecks Dee
  • References in the intro? Bad.
  • See if you can rework this part of the intro somehow: "[...] until she was reprogrammed to enjoy the torture and dismemberment of other droids. She was acquired by Jabba the Hutt and assigned to oversee the droid pool in his palace, where she tortured her fellow droids with the assistance of the smelter droid 8D8 to keep them in line." Specifically, I recommend ending the first sentence of the intro before you mention reprogramming and then somehow combining the rest into two sentences to avoid the run-on in the second sentence right now.
  • You're more or less only using "she" throughout the intro. Please vary it.
  • More to come once these are fixed. 1358 (Talk) 21:43, January 26, 2016 (UTC)
  • "When R2-D2 and C-3PO, an astromech droid and a protocol droid respectively, arrived as gifts for her master from the Jedi Knight Luke Skywalker, EV-9D9 assigned them positions in her master's droid pool." This sentence reads a bit weird, specifically the "gifts for her master from the Jedi" is really choppy. I suggest rearranging the sentence to read something like "When Jedi Knight Luke Skywalker gifted Jabba R2 and C-3PO, EV-9D9 assigned...".
  • Check your image caption punctuation. Sentences in present tense can be complete as well, requiring punctuation.
  • The second paragraph in the biography is very choppy and jumpy; lots of shes and hes and theys doing things and it's kind of hard to follow who is being referred to. R2 isn't introduced as an astromech droid so when an astromech is suddenly mentioned it really sticks out. I suggest you rewrite parts of the paragraph for a smoother read. 1358 (Talk) 17:31, February 15, 2016 (UTC)

Comments

  • Star Wars: Absolutely Everything You Need to Know includes an image of EVE-9D9 with the caption "EVE-9D9 supervisor droid". I'm not entirely sure if this is meant to be the model or the individual droid, as it's on a page of different droids some of which are identified by individual name and some of which are identified by model. I'll leave it up to you if you want to include this or make an article for the model, but you may want to consult others first. Ayrehead02 (talk) 13:54, October 28, 2015 (UTC)
    • The reason I haven't created an article under that name is because the page also has the height of the IG-88 assassin droid listed when talking specifically referring to IG-88'when the model itself is actually called the IG assassin droid. Should it be called that again, I will write up an article on it and add the appropriate information here. - AV-6R7Crew Pit 05:09, October 30, 2015 (UTC)
      • That was my thinking as well. I'll remove the link from the book's appearances. Ayrehead02 (talk) 13:37, October 30, 2015 (UTC)
        • I've contacted Bray on Twitter on the matter. - AV-6R7Crew Pit 21:18, November 3, 2015 (UTC)
          • Bray wasn't sure, but considering the fact that every other named droid on the page didn't have their class identified after their name, and that IG-88 assassin droid was the IG assassin droid's name in Legends, I am beginning to come around to the idea that EV-9D9 may be the models name. - AV-6R7Crew Pit 23:17, November 3, 2015 (UTC)
  • The Databank identifies EV-A4-D as an "EV-series medical droid." Would this apply here? Cwedin(talk) 22:51, November 3, 2015 (UTC)
    • I don't think so, as 9D9 is consistently classified as a supervisor droid. - AV-6R7Crew Pit 23:01, November 3, 2015 (UTC)
  • Ok various new info from the new character encyclopedia.
    • "EV-9D9 added a third eye to herself to "see" droid pain." The label on the image of her describes the third eye as custom fitted.
    • Another image caption points to her head and says she has a degraded logic centre.
    • Her limbs are described as manipulator arms.
    • "EV-9D9 is not the only EV unit with the programming defect that causes her cruel behaviour. Many have the same flaw, but EV-9D9 was one of the few to escape the mass recall. EV-9D9 now relishes her role as task master of all droids at the palace. Ayrehead02 (talk) 11:45, March 30, 2016 (UTC)
    • So her entry is identical to the one in the original edition? - AV-6R7Crew Pit 12:53, March 30, 2016 (UTC)
      • Sadly I don't have access to the original encyclopedia, but unless there's anything drastically different that I haven't mentioned then I'd assume so, yes. Ayrehead02 (talk) 13:14, March 30, 2016 (UTC)
        • Could I ask you for some advice? This info will make it impossible to have info from the new novelization of Return of the Jedi in the Biography section, so would you recommend that I put that content in the Bts section? - AV-6R7Crew Pit 20:53, April 6, 2016 (UTC)
          • Hmm, is there no way both could be true, she could have a quirk but also have been reprogrammed? If not then I don't know which source takes precedence. I guess since the Encyclopedia was checked by Pablo himself that's probably the better source? Ayrehead02 (talk) 22:54, April 6, 2016 (UTC)

Vote to remove nomination (AC only)

  1. ACvote Idle objections. 1358 (Talk) 21:58, February 11, 2016 (UTC)
    • Sorry about missing those objections. I'll get it done right now. - AV-6R7Crew Pit 22:09, February 11, 2016 (UTC)
      • I'm not going to mince my words here, and this goes for not only you but also other nominators on this page. It is simply unacceptable that it takes someone who is otherwise active on the site two weeks to notice and address objections on their nominations. It is not the AC's job to babysit nominators and make sure they are aware of objections—that is solely up to the nominator. The wiki software offers several tools to assist nominators in keeping up with changes to the GAN and specific nomination pages. Especially when you, AV, have four current nominations, it would be in your interest to closely monitor the entire page. This is also the main reason why some nominations seem to stay on the GAN for ages. Personally (and I know the other ACs prefer this as well) I avoid any nominations with open objections, so if you and others want a smooth process, please monitor your nominations and address objections as quickly as possible. Please see to it that this doesn't happen again. Thank you. 1358 (Talk) 13:06, February 12, 2016 (UTC)


Quermian

  • Nominated by: AV-6R7Crew Pit 18:21, October 14, 2015 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: The second entry in my canon Quermian trilogy of nominations.

(2 ACs/3 Users/5 Total)

Support

  1. Ayrehead02 (talk) 01:58, October 25, 2015 (UTC)
  2. Clonehunter(Report your W.M.D.) 14:54, October 25, 2015 (UTC)
  3. Imperators II(Talk) 00:06, January 6, 2016 (UTC)
  4. ACvote Sir Cavalier of OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 22:09, January 27, 2016 (UTC)
  5. ACvote IFYLOFD (Talk) 01:33, May 29, 2016 (UTC)

Object

Ayrehead
  • Was it decided we're definitely treating the card trader as canon? For a long time its canon status was unclear due to the use of ABY dating on one card. Ayrehead02 (talk) 10:35, October 23, 2015 (UTC)
Clone
  • I think that, unless it's worded as such in a source, the sentence "During the Invasion of Naboo, only four Quermians were enrolled in the Jedi Order[...]" can drop the word "only." --Clonehunter(Report your W.M.D.) 21:23, October 24, 2015 (UTC)
Cav
  • four Quermians were members of the Jedi Order during the Invasion of Naboo, - the wording here makes it sound like the Jedi and these four Quermians were responsible for the Invasion of Naboo. A little context/rewording is needed here I think. - Sir Cavalier of OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 17:32, January 8, 2016 (UTC)

Comments

Elespad

  • Nominated by: Eyrezer (talk) 08:48, October 17, 2015 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: 1987 weirdness

(1 ACs/4 Users/5 Total)

Support

  1. <-Omicron(Leave a message at the BEEP!) 02:55, October 23, 2015 (UTC)
  2. Ayrehead02 (talk) 10:34, October 23, 2015 (UTC)
  3. Weirdness is Goodness - Clonehunter(Report your W.M.D.) 09:31, October 25, 2015 (UTC)
  4. JorrelWiki-shrinkableFraajic 20:05, January 26, 2016 (UTC)
  5. ACvote Sir Cavalier of OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 22:51, June 2, 2016 (UTC)

Object

Jorrel
  • Can you clarify your translation efforts in a reference note? It's clearly not a 1:1 translation (エ=E, レ=RE, ス=SU, パ=PA, ッ=elongation of next consonant, ド=DO, which therefore comes out Eresupaddo), so any steps you took toward Romanization should be noted.JorrelWiki-shrinkableFraajic 08:51, November 7, 2015 (UTC)
    • Good question. I've followed this discussion here, where a Japanese user gave his translation rather than a Google translation. Would you suggest that I add a link to that discussin in the BTS? The article will keep the "conjectural spelling" tag at the top.--Eyrezer (talk) 03:22, November 8, 2015 (UTC)
      • Wow, I'm sorry for forgetting about this. I'm not sure if that counts for self-referencing or not, but it's a good start. I'm not sure how the Wook system would take it, but we could alternately just move the page to エレスパッ and change all text references to the Japanese characters and explain the why in the BTS. Wouldn't need the {{conjecture}} tag for that :P JorrelWiki-shrinkableFraajic 19:42, January 26, 2016 (UTC)
Toprawa
  • Given the subject's appearance in the video game, it would seem that we have at least a general understanding of timeline placement here for the History section, which should be detailed. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 00:43, January 27, 2016 (UTC)
    • I added a placement of approximately 0 BBY given that it is meant to be a retelling of Episode 4, and also added that the timing is also unclear in the BTS. --Eyrezer (talk) 07:33, February 6, 2016 (UTC)
Cav
  • They had brown or orange skin color, - is this the result of the in-game sprite having one skin color, but the image in the infobox (and, therefore, presumably the game manual) having a different one? Or is it based on the two-tone shading effect of the infobox image?
    • The former - the gamebook and the game have different skin colouration. --Eyrezer (talk) 05:23, May 8, 2016 (UTC)
  • BTS - does information from the new SW.com article referencing the changelings as Vader's apprentices need to be factored into the second paragraph? - Sir Cavalier of OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 23:29, March 2, 2016 (UTC)
    • I added the quotation from the SW news article.--Eyrezer (talk) 05:23, May 8, 2016 (UTC)

Comments

Unidentified scout trooper (Operation Masterstroke)

  • Nominated by: StarsiderSWG (talk) 19:57, November 21, 2015 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: I'm partial to moving the image to the infobox, if a consensus is reached.

(1 ACs/3 Users/4 Total)

Support

  1. Lol at that website clarifying his name is NOT a typo. Hanzo Hasashi (talk) 18:18, November 23, 2015 (UTC)
  2. Clonehunter(Report your W.M.D.) 04:45, December 25, 2015 (UTC)
  3. Imperators II(Talk) 16:01, January 10, 2016 (UTC)
  4. ACvote Sir Cavalier of OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 22:57, June 2, 2016 (UTC)

Object

Ecks Dee
  • Some preliminaries: Please avoid referring to a subject with "this" in IU articles. Use "a" or "the" instead.
  • Re-read the first sentence of the bio and see if you can find something wrong there. 1358 (Talk) 01:01, January 30, 2016 (UTC)
    • I see what you mean. Those issues should be amended now. StarsiderSWG (talk) 20:32, February 2, 2016 (UTC)
Ayrehead02
  • Did he give the player any kind of reward for completing the task? Or is it not possible to tell from the game files? Ayrehead02 (talk) 14:09, April 4, 2016 (UTC)
  • Is there anything else that can be added about the individual you collect the container from? Were they randomly generated as well or do we simply lack any information on them? Ayrehead02 (talk) 14:09, April 4, 2016 (UTC)
    • I'm trying to search the game files for some extra info on that. I think it was just a randomly generated character, but I'll get back to you on that. StarsiderSWG (talk) 18:21, April 9, 2016 (UTC)
      • Sorry for the delay on this. I've been a bit busy lately. Give me a few more days and I'll get back with some article tweaks and/or answers to your questions. StarsiderSWG (talk) 19:24, June 12, 2016 (UTC)

Comments

  • Does the game itself actually reveal SX-212 is a Human? If not, then it can't be sourced to the game. The Complete Star Wars Encyclopedia reveals in its stormtrooper entry that all stormtroopers are Humans, as does Star Wars: The Complete Visual Dictionary, so those are two examples of sources that should be cited instead. Hanzo Hasashi (talk) 20:03, November 21, 2015 (UTC)
    • It's a good question, but yes, by using a certain in-game text command, it was possible to see that all stormtroopers, scout troopers, etc in SWG were Human. StarsiderSWG (talk) 20:08, November 21, 2015 (UTC)
      • With that said, I'm open to using one of those other sources if needed. StarsiderSWG (talk) 20:09, November 21, 2015 (UTC)
        • Sounds like that in-game text command is sufficient for his species. I notice that the article appears to be cut from the final game. Should the cut content template be implemented to the article? It seems like you're treating the character's existence as official, when it appears that, from not being included in anything other than cut from SWG, his existence is unverified. Hanzo Hasashi (talk) 20:15, November 21, 2015 (UTC)
          • In my view, the character itself should not be considered completely cut (only his follow-up quests were not known to be included). I would consider a cut character to be something like Ayn Eckener, who was never implemented to SWG at all (as far as we know). SX-212 and his first quest was however on all the live servers, and we have the TRE file dialogue to back up what multiple players have reported. It was not uncommon for NPCs to be removed or replaced with other NPCs, such as Omwaan. But as long as they at one point appeared on all live servers, I wouldn't consider it completely cut content. StarsiderSWG (talk) 21:36, November 21, 2015 (UTC)
            • Alright, so the character was actually in the game at some point before being eventually removed. Thanks for clarifying. Hanzo Hasashi (talk) 21:50, November 21, 2015 (UTC)
  • Just wanted to make sure: is "Nabooian" a proper demonym per SWG? Because all I've encountered is "Naboo". Imperators II(Talk) 01:22, January 9, 2016 (UTC)
    • Now that you mention it, I'm not sure Nabooian was every used. I've changed it to "Naboo". StarsiderSWG (talk) 15:55, January 10, 2016 (UTC)
  • You know what... after researching this a bit more, I'm somewhat skeptical that SX-212 was definitely this guy's name. Although the Allakhazam guy insists it's not a typo, it's possible it may have just been a randomly generated name which would change after each server reset. I could find the quest dialogue in the directory files (so this guy was definitely a quest NPC), but nothing that really suggests he was named SX-212. Unfortunately, this is just such an old subject (dating back to 2003), that it cannot really be verified 100% either way. So I'm thinking of moving this article to Unidentified scout trooper (Operation Masterstroke), and explaining the conundrum in the BTS. Sorry for the confusion! StarsiderSWG (talk) 19:45, January 23, 2016 (UTC)
    • Do you think then this GAN page title should be moved too? Hanzo Hasashi (talk) 18:55, January 24, 2016 (UTC)
      • Yep, hopefully I did that properly now. StarsiderSWG (talk) 20:17, January 24, 2016 (UTC)
  • As an added note, it turns out "Nabooian" was actually used as a demonym in SWG, but I can leave it how it is now if that's better. StarsiderSWG (talk) 21:52, February 2, 2016 (UTC)


Alora

  • Nominated by: Ruthless Xero(Talk) 05:06, November 24, 2015 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: Taking care of some long overdue unfinished business. Ruthless Xero(Talk) 05:06, November 24, 2015 (UTC)

(0 ACs/4 Users/4 Total)

Support

  1. Cool beans - Clonehunter(Report your W.M.D.) 03:29, December 6, 2015 (UTC)
  2. Imperators II(Talk) 09:59, January 12, 2016 (UTC)
  3. Jinzler (talk) 09:06, January 15, 2016 (UTC)
  4. JorrelWiki-shrinkableFraajic 10:14, January 16, 2016 (UTC)

Object

Hunter Clone
  • Ah neat, more Dark Forces Saga stuff. As a sarting note, I do not recall if the year 14 ABY was ever explicitly stated within the game itself. The scrawl does say "Ten years after the Battle of Endor," but a more specific reference would have to be written out, something along the lines of "Source A places the Battle of Endor at Date X. JA's Opening scrawl states that the game takes place ten years after the Battle of Endor, and using simple math it can be determined that the events of JA take place during Date Y." No abbreviations, however, and link to what needs to be. Better sentence structure too, I suppose. However, if the date is explicitly stated in the game, then nevermind, although a special reference note may need to state that.
  • I don't think it's necessarily required, but I would say it's good practice to look out for "orange links." There's an option in preferences that allows users to see links that are redirects to other pages, and they see these as bright orange links, instead of the normal blue/purple color. Currently, this is appears to be the case for Grey DeLisle, who has since taken the new last name of Griffin. I'd suggest pipe-linking in this case. Again, I don't think it's required, but I've always felt it to be a good practice (Because orange links are tacky). --Clonehunter(Report your W.M.D.) 01:10, December 5, 2015 (UTC)
    • I added a reference note citing the appropriate sources that place the game in 14 ABY. Also, I'm not sure how I missed that redirect before but it's fixed now. I wasn't aware she had changed her name either. Ruthless Xero(Talk) 04:03, December 5, 2015 (UTC)
      • The note looks about right. However, make sure that the reference is only being used to cite the date. For example, the fact that Alora was Lethan Twi'lek and Disciple of Ragnos is currently being sourced to the timeline reference, as opposed to the game, which I imagine is what it should be sourced too. I don't think that the timeline note needs to be reference the place of death either, unless the Essential Chronology mentions that Alora died on Taspir III. Scratch that, I think the infobox is fine, actually. --Clonehunter(Report your W.M.D.) 01:22, December 6, 2015 (UTC)
        • At first I was unsure what you meant, but yeah, it could be mistaken that the intro sentence was being referenced by the timeline. I added a reference to the game after the first sentence so as to avoid confusion. Ruthless Xero(Talk) 03:20, December 6, 2015 (UTC)
Imperators II
  • Eye color is currently infobox-exclusive.
    • Added a mention of eye color under Personality and Traits. Ruthless XeroClanOrdo(Talk) 02:24, January 12, 2016 (UTC)
  • Is the current infobox image canonical? I believe it depicts Alora in her alternate model outfit.
    • That is her second model which is available in multiplayer, so in a sense yes. I tend prefer it over the bulky cold weather gear, especially for an infobox image. I believe that it's fine as is, but maybe an additional opinion here would help? Ruthless XeroClanOrdo(Talk) 02:24, January 12, 2016 (UTC)
  • Review notes:
    • I've decapitalized "Master" in one instance so that the capitalization is consistent.
    • Per WP:LG, you should only put a period in an image caption if the caption uses a complete sentence. Here none of the captions do, so I've removed the periods for you. Imperators II(Talk) 04:07, January 9, 2016 (UTC)
Jinzler
  • Soon after, Axmis sent her Twi'lek apprentice to the planet Hoth, with support from the Imperial Remnant. Could you provide some brief context here on the Imperial Remnant, eg by stating something along the lines of "Axmis' allies the Imperial Remnant" to provide some background on who the Imperial Remnant are.
  • The cultist downloaded the flight information and transmitted the data to Alora before being killed by Jedi Initiate Jaden Korr. Could you also please provide some context on Jaden here, eg to briefly clarify why he was present in Echo Base.
  • Within the "Behind the Scenes" section I think it would be beneficial to the reader to explicitly confirm that the dark side path in Star Wars: Jedi Knight: Jedi Academy has been confirmed by subsequent Star Wars material to be non-canon.
    • Would a brief mention clarifying the dark side ending as non-canon suffice, i.e. "If the player chooses the non-canon dark side path..."? The article is getting awfully close to the GA word limit at this point. Ruthless XeroClanOrdo(Talk) 22:50, January 12, 2016 (UTC)
      • That would be fine, I have now added that to the article. --Jinzler (talk) 09:06, January 15, 2016 (UTC)
  • Nice article. --Jinzler (talk) 21:53, January 11, 2016 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I happen to be a little proud of it myself. Ruthless XeroClanOrdo(Talk) 22:50, January 12, 2016 (UTC)
Jorrel
  • Intro: "...during the early years of the New Republic..." - I don't know if 10 years into a government can really be called "early," especially one that fragmented 13 years later. "...during the formative years of Jedi Master Luke Skywalker's new Order..." is a bit more accurate (NJO was formed in 11 ABY) and has the bonus of being more relevant to Alora herself.
  • "In 14 ABY, she came under the tutelage of the Human female Tavion Axmis..." - Probably should be written as "By 14 ABY, she trained under the Human female Tavion Axmis..." because there's no source defining her training starting in 14 BBY, unless there is a source defining that, in which case it should be noted.
  • You mention Alora getting a second Adept hilt. What was her first hilt? I'm guessing it was another Adept, but that vagueness should be cleared up somehow.
    • I moved the mention of the specific hilt from the Biography section to the Powers and abilities section and elaborated on it there. Ruthless XeroClanOrdo(Talk) 00:57, January 16, 2016 (UTC)
  • Since we know that she uses specific equipment (Adept hilt lightsaber), an "Equipment" section is probably warranted per the Layout Guide, even though that may likely push the word count into FAN territory. At the very least, a mention to the hilt(s) and blade colors should at least be given in "Powers and abilities." For example, her lightsabers being red isn't mentioned anywhere in the article. JorrelWiki-shrinkableFraajic 10:15, January 15, 2016 (UTC)
    • I don't think an "Equipment" section is necessarily warranted here, there's no other equipment that would be listed and the only reason it's mentioned is because the game has unique names for each hilt model. In any case, I've rewritten the "Powers and abilities" section and mentioned her lightsabers there. Ruthless XeroClanOrdo(Talk) 00:57, January 16, 2016 (UTC)
      • I agree, and I like the change there. Nice work. JorrelWiki-shrinkableFraajic 10:14, January 16, 2016 (UTC)
Ecks Dee
  • Is there a particular reason to present the death date in the infobox as "14 ABY, Taspir III[1][2]" rather than "14 ABY,[2] Taspir III[1]"?
    • Must have been an oversight, fixed. Ruthless XeroClanOrdo(Talk) 19:33, February 10, 2016 (UTC)
  • The Layout Guide gives some leeway when it comes to alternating images left-right. Right now the last image is the Appearances section, which isn't very aesthetically pleasing. I recommend you move that one right as well. 1358 (Talk) 20:14, February 5, 2016 (UTC)
    • Moved to the right side of the article. Ruthless XeroClanOrdo(Talk) 19:33, February 10, 2016 (UTC)
Cav
  • were searching for Rosh Penin, Katarn's other apprentice who had renounced the dark side and was being held captive in the cult's large facility - since you don't mention Penin falling to the dark side, the information he renounced it as is Katarn's apprentice would indicate that Katarn himself in on the dark side which isn't the case. I would suggest expanding slightly on Penin's fall to the dark side here as well as his return.
  • Need to move the lightsaber stuff in the Power and Abilities section into an Equipment section. - Sir Cavalier of OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 23:12, June 2, 2016 (UTC)

Comments

Packered mortar gun

  • Nominated by: Clonehunter(Report your W.M.D.) 03:49, December 6, 2015 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: Here's one I've been waiting to binge on. Sits at 999 words. Oh, boy.

(1 ACs/2 User/3 Total)

Support

  1. JorrelWiki-shrinkableFraajic 07:26, March 21, 2016 (UTC)
  2. Manoof (talk) 07:14, May 6, 2016 (UTC)
  3. ACvote Sir Cavalier of OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 00:25, June 3, 2016 (UTC)

Object

Stuff
  • Is "packered mortar gun" used in-prose without a capital on Packered? I feel like that's probably the case, but I'd like to be sure.
    • The manual calls it the "Packered Mortar Gun." I noticed that name exists as a redirect. I haven't been able to look at the player's guide yet. --Clonehunter(Report your W.M.D.) 18:42, January 23, 2016 (UTC)
    • The player's guide calls it both the "Packered Mortar Gun" or just the "mortar gun." --Clonehunter(Report your W.M.D.) 18:32, January 24, 2016 (UTC)
      • Noted. Since "packered" isn't an actual word, and it appears to be used exclusively as a proper noun, any instance of "Packered" should retain the capitalization.
  • Intro: A lot of the description in the intro refers to the firing mechanism of mortars, not specifically the packered mortar gun. Rather than describe mortars in general, you could say that the packered mortar gun utilized the same principles for mortar weapons: arced firing, explosion radius, and distance. Describing how the gun works in this kind of detail is probably better suited for the description anyway (which you've done)
    • I removed some information from the intro since, as you say, it's covered in better detail in the description, and is a little redundant.
      • Nice, though I would suggest making the intro a single paragraph.
  • Intro: Pedantic, but "The higher the user aimed, the further the shell would fly." is an inaccuracy past ~45 degrees (though you mention as such in the Description field). In fact, this sentence could be culled per my first objection.
    • Removed. Also see notes below.
  • Description:"The higher the user aimed, the further the shell would fly, with the furthest distance achieved by holding the weapon at a forty-five degree angle." - Better to reword this, since the first part (higher aim = further shot) is immediately countered by saying "but there's a limit." Suggestion: "The distance a shell would travel depended on the user's aim: firing the weapon at forty-five degrees provided the maximum range."
    • I'm actually calling this into question, and would like some insight. The FAQ was meticulously researched, as any 90s Doom clone was. However, if I'm not mistaken, "45 degrees" is actually the maximum "up" that the player can even look, as the game isn't technically true-3D. As such, this may not even be a canon fact; rather it's a gameplay/game engine limitation. 45 degrees provides the farthest fire distance simply because you can't look any higher. Thoughts?
      • The limitation on the firing range would be considered game mechanics. However, physics dictates that projectiles achieve their maximum launched distance at 45 degrees; this fact exists regardless of game engine mechanics. The suggestion I provided helps ignore any mention of a limitation imposed by the game engine (therefore negating a game mechanics issue) and also avoids the initial contradiction of "shoot higher = goes further, except at any degree higher than 45." This also allows the statement to be made without referencing the FAQ, which I'll expand upon below.
        • So just remove that reference then for that sentence? Done, if that's what you want. --Clonehunter(Report your W.M.D.) 03:14, March 3, 2016 (UTC)
  • History: "The weapons could have been found on the Imperial capital planet Coruscant and in an Imperial prison located on the world of Orinackra, among other locations." - Reword to avoid vagueness. Suggestion: "Imperial establishments on the planets Coruscant and Orinackra, as well as other locations, held a stock of the gun."
    • Reworded.
  • History: "Katarn later visited other worlds as a part of his campaign against the Dark Trooper Project, including the planets Cal-Seti, Anteevy, the moon Nar Shaddaa, and Coruscant. When he was captured by the Star Jewel, the personal yacht of crime lord Jabbe the Hutt, Katarn was stripped of his weapons. He later regained his gear and escaped the ship. Katarn eventually made it to the dark trooper factory starship Arc Hammer after infiltrating Fuel Station Ergo and the Super Star Destroyer Executor." Related to Katarn, the Dark Trooper project, Katarn's actions against the project... but not really the packered. I know that the following paragraph, the one with the 100% notice, mentions the possible use, but I'd suggest merging the two or culling the possibility altogether. If kept, a single sentence mentioning the possibility should be all you need.
    • Suggestion: {{Gamemechanics}} Throughout the rest of his campaign against the Dark Trooper Project, as well as a brief interlude upon his capture aboard Jabba the Hutt's personal yacht Star Jewel, Katarn continued to carry the weapon and use it against scores of stormtroopers, mercenaries, and bounty hunters. {{endgame}}
    • Related: A mention that the weapon was useful against a variety of enemies (which seems to be largely the purpose of the gamemechanics section's second sentence) would be better placed in Description.
      • How does it all look now? I tried to cull what may have not been necessary, though I thought that the rule was "If it's the infobox then it has to be in the article," including every single location.
      • I had actually forgotten about that rule entirely. This brings up a different question, which I'll restate below.
  • Behind the scenes: I'm not positive that the FAQ used as a source can actually be considered a valid source. It's an unofficial Geocities page managed by a party unconnected to the game itself (at least by what I could determine in a quick Google search). What's your reasoning behind its use? JorrelWiki-shrinkableFraajic 04:00, January 17, 2016 (UTC)
    • I've noticed that the FAQ is available at the still active site here. Aside from it being used in at least one other article (Albeit for a quote and dev history), it's a very thorough research of the game's mechanics. The information covers several aspects in further detail than the player's guide. Having been rubbing around the kind of people who follow and write about this stuff, I'd say it's safe to say that all game mechanics mentioned are down to a T. However, up above, I called into question whether or not a game mechanic should be considered canon at all since it's more of a limitation. Other than that, it provides what otherwise seems to be words from Justin Chin himself, who as we know had a big hand in the game. Or, rather, he was the hand behind the game. Again, the FAQ quotes from Chin seem to be use elsewhere. The only way to go back and confirm the validity is to find Karsten A. Loepelmann (The FAQ author) or Chin and personally check with them. The odds of that being successful? Slim, probably. Especially in Chin's case, but who knows. He may be approachable. Normally, I would check with DF-21.net, but they had a site crash and have temporarily lost their forums. Personally, I would vouch for it simply because of how long it has been around, and that it has otherwise never been questioned before. But concrete proof would be a step further. Thoughts? --Clonehunter(Report your W.M.D.) 03:46, January 21, 2016 (UTC)
      • I'm fairly certain that a more concrete proof would be necessary for its inclusion in the article. At the very least, such information should be exclusive to the Behind the scenes section; nothing that's official can be sourced to it, since it's not an official source. The only similar instance I can think of comes from an article I wrote, Buick: this reference. However, this reference is from the source's personal website, not a collection of data from various sources. If the Chin quotes came from Justin Chin's own webpage, my example would fit better, but that's not the case here. It has been some time since you responded (sorry), so if DF-21.net is up again that might be a viable option to get an answer. In the meantime, I'll also consult with some of the review staff to get a better answer.
        • Got a better answer. Just qualify the information from the FAQ with something that specifies said information is fan-sourced. "According to a fan-made online guide..." or something like that. JorrelWiki-shrinkableFraajic 06:46, February 17, 2016 (UTC)
          • Seeing that without it in the body, it's relegated to the BtS with it's only worth being the email from Justin Chin. I still mentioned that it was fan-sourced in the note. --Clonehunter(Report your W.M.D.) 03:14, March 3, 2016 (UTC)
  • Regarding the locations in the infobox: Is a packered found in each of the locations, in a cache of weapons or something? Having not played the game in some time, I cannot remember if there was a pickup to be found in every level/planet.JorrelWiki-shrinkableFraajic 06:24, February 17, 2016 (UTC)
    • It's more that once you obtain a weapon, you can't somehow lose it (Even if you die and start over). The only time you do lose it is on Jabba's ship, but then you can get it again when you find all of your supplies (Everything you've amassed to that point). Because you can't lose the weapon, the weapon travels with Katarn everywhere after Orinackra (Although there's a few places that you can still find the weapon on later levels incase you never picked it up the first time. However, the Topps card more or less confirms that Katarn does first obtain the weapon on Orinackra). --Clonehunter(Report your W.M.D.) 17:44, February 24, 2016 (UTC)
      • Alright. I'd propose that the infobox (and, thus, the body) should only catalog places it could be found, not taken to by Katarn. Consider this example: If we treated the Falcon as an item rather than a ship in terms of infobox usage, we'd have to list every place it's visited in the infobox, which tells the reader pretty much nothing. Furthermore, it doesn't offer a context; you can place "Coruscant" on the Falcon's hypothetical list, but without a corresponding date you'd never know if it was during the Clone Wars or the New Jedi Order era.
      Furthermore, I'd argue for the removal of the field altogether, since it's more aptly used in the location of unique artifacts or relics which can only be in a single place at any given time (as opposed to a mass-produced item, presumably like the Packered, that could theoretically exist on every planet). I mean, the Packered's a pretty unique and isolated weapon, but if we were to apply these same rules to, say, the E-11, we'd have a list of every planet we've seen in the GCW. JorrelWiki-shrinkableFraajic 06:10, March 10, 2016 (UTC)
Manoof
  • I don't think Katarn can be listed as an owner if he only appropriated the weapon from the Empire. Similarly with the RA. Manoof (talk) 04:05, April 25, 2016 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the heads up, Manoof. I was busy with a lot of off-site stuff and wasn't finding the time. Anyways, you're probably right about the ownerships, so I removed them.
      • All good, RL takes priority no need to explain :) Manoof (talk) 07:14, May 6, 2016 (UTC)
  • I think you can remove military as a culture. Manoof (talk) 04:05, April 25, 2016 (UTC)
    • Okay.
  • In the intro, I'd remove the "The higher the user aimed, the further the shell would fly." or clarify it as you do further on, to indicate firing vertically doesn't give the maximum distance. It should be ok to just remove since this is the introduction, and the preceding sentence is, in my opinion, enough. Manoof (talk) 04:05, April 25, 2016 (UTC)
    • Makes sense. Consider it done.
  • Everything in the infobox needs to be in the article body. I can't see mention of the weapon being "anti-personnel" for example. Manoof (talk) 04:05, April 25, 2016 (UTC)
    • Added anti-personnel to the article and a mention of the mission to Coruscant.
  • You can say that Jan described the weapon to Kyle in that year, since it happens during the game. Manoof (talk) 04:05, April 25, 2016 (UTC)
    • That's true. Done.
  • Chin's quote mentions the weapons use in Jan's rescue, but there is no mention of this in the body. Even though the source doesn't explicitly say this, can we have this in the body? (It's been a while so I'm not sure :) ) Manoof (talk) 04:05, April 25, 2016 (UTC)
    • Body of the Behind the Scenes or the History section? I detail the event in the BtS and the fact that Chin's notes are not canon, as the information was never solidified in any source (Other than that Ors partially falsified her history with Katarn anyways. The only interaction they seem to have before he defects, as detailed in Dark Forces: Soldier for the Empire, is when he spares her life on an asteroid, while he's a stormtrooper).
      • Ok that's fine. Manoof (talk) 07:14, May 6, 2016 (UTC)
  • Judging by what you have in the infobox, you can add some more categories. Check the weapons category and go through the subcategories, you should see what I mean :) Manoof (talk) 04:05, April 25, 2016 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure what categories can be added. There's a lot of categories for similar weapons, but these are sub categories within sub categories. Aren't categories for articles supposed to be narrowed down?
      • You know, I have no idea what category I was thinking of when I wrote this, you seem to have it all covered o.0 I might've thought there was an anti-personnel weapons category. Manoof (talk) 07:14, May 6, 2016 (UTC)
  • Not an objection, but you might want to make sure the FAQ is backed up on the webarchive Manoof (talk) 04:05, April 25, 2016 (UTC)
    • There are some versions that are, but I found this version which wasn't, as the main site still seems to be updated. I just saved a version of the page though, anyways.--Clonehunter(Report your W.M.D.) 20:21, May 5, 2016 (UTC)

Comments

As some notes: 1) The infobox image does not come in color per a published source. The B&W was scanned from the game guide and had the levels adjusted in Photoshop. 2) I'm unsure if the last line in the BtS would be considered original research or not, or if that information should even be mentioned. 3) That image in the body is of Orinackra. The card said so. I'm specifying that as the image information doesn't mention that, nor does anywhere else on the site mention that. 4) I'm uncertain about the BtS quote and how it is sourced. I just put the URL in there. Is there another way to do it? Should I copy in the whole reference format? Also, that page is archived and being linked through the WayBack Machine, FYI. 6) This is my first weapon nomination. I think. Although I tried to follow how others were formatted, I'd like a clearer image of how the infobox should look. 7) I skipped 5). --Clonehunter(Report your W.M.D.) 03:49, December 6, 2015 (UTC)

  • Bought you some words in the copyedit :P JorrelWiki-shrinkableFraajic 04:00, January 17, 2016 (UTC)
  • Per point 3, perhaps add mention to the file's page in the description? Maybe even quote what the card says? Manoof (talk) 04:10, April 25, 2016 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure if it needs to be quoted, though I wrote out the card's backside on the file page. I think this what you're looking for (In the BtS)? --Clonehunter(Report your W.M.D.) 18:53, May 6, 2016 (UTC)


Trandosha

  • Nominated by: AV-6R7Crew Pit 02:08, January 15, 2016 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments:A CAN that got too long. The original nomination can be found here.

(0 ACs/4 Users/4 Total)

Support

  1. Cevan IMPpress (talk) 00:51, January 25, 2016 (UTC)
  2. JorrelWiki-shrinkableFraajic 07:22, January 27, 2016 (UTC)
  3. Because it's the forests, not the game, that make a world a hunter's paradise! Imperators II(Talk) 10:55, January 30, 2016 (UTC)
  4. Added the new character encyclopedia to sources, but there's no new info. Ayrehead02 (talk) 14:29, April 4, 2016 (UTC)

Object

Imperators II
  • I think you should section the article per WP:LG and provide an intro.
  • I don't see where in the source of ref 11 does it say that it was the proximity of Kashyyyk and Trandosha that caused the rivalry of the two species.
    • Cleaned up to be more ambiguous, but I don't care for the wording. This issue will probably be taken care of once I split the article into sections. - AV-6R7Crew Pit 14:19, January 15, 2016 (UTC)
  • Hmmm... couldn't the mention of the convor in Missing in Action be interpreted to mean that the bird is native to Trandosha?
    • By that logic, the momong could also be a native life form, as in concept art it is referred to as a Trandoshan monkey. - AV-6R7Crew Pit 14:19, January 15, 2016 (UTC)
  • Ref 4 does not confirm/inform that Trandosha orbits a single star like the infobox field does. And adding a source for that (like in ref 2) if you can would be nice. Imperators II(Talk) 09:24, January 15, 2016 (UTC)
  • Intro shouldn't be referenced.
  • "Dosha" is intro-exclusive.
  • Per WP:LG, info on non-sentient species should be in the Description section, instead. And you could add short bits of context for those creatures, just like you did for Trandoshans. Imperators II(Talk) 23:50, January 15, 2016 (UTC)
  • Currently, in the intro it is stated that Trandosha was positioned in the same system as Kashyyyk, while the Description section only says Kashyyyk neighbored Trandosha. I believe you should swap the two, since the Description section does not mention that the system was shared and in general it should be more detailed than the intro.
Jorrel
Ecks Dee
  • Some notes on your referencing: I can see at least one place where identical referencing is used consecutively, which means either one of them is wrong or the first one is unnecessary. Please double-check.
    • I was missing a reference to Journey Through Space. This has been corrected. - AV-6R7Crew Pit 14:42, February 12, 2016 (UTC)
  • As for your references 1+2 and 5+6, I'd recommend you go with just 2 and 6 wherever you currently have both. A well-written reference explains the logic without needing to double-reference. Make sure to link properly in your references too. 1358 (Talk) 21:58, February 11, 2016 (UTC)
    • Killed the double references. - AV-6R7Crew Pit 14:51, February 12, 2016 (UTC)
      • Linking is still an issue. Everything needs to be linked once in every reference as per WP:S#Rules #7. 1358 (Talk) 18:41, February 24, 2016 (UTC)
Cav
  • First things first - is the Netflix audio description really the only source that Wasskah is Trandosha's moon? Because one ref states that it is in the episode guide for Padawan lost but another sources it to the Netflix audio description.
    • The audio description is the only source that explicitly says that Wasskah orbits Trandosha. I think I fixed your objection. - AV-6R7Crew Pit 16:00, June 3, 2016 (UTC)
  • I made some changes to the wording in places. Nothing wrong with it really except it didn't flow very well. Check out my changes and see what you think. - Sir Cavalier of OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 15:50, June 3, 2016 (UTC)

Comments

  • I don't want to make this an official objection, as I don't want to be redundant, but I agree with Imperators regarding adding an intro. JorrelWiki-shrinkableFraajic 09:38, January 15, 2016 (UTC)
    • It will be done. I am currently trying to decide what pictures, if any, I'm going to add to the article. - AV-6R7Crew Pit 14:23, January 15, 2016 (UTC)


Emarr Ottkreg

  • Nominated by: Ayrehead02 (talk) 15:01, February 25, 2016 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: Time for some more Imperial nominations

(0 ACs/3 Users/3 Total)

Support

  1. Cwedin(talk) 19:45, February 25, 2016 (UTC)
  2. Manoof (talk) 11:33, May 1, 2016 (UTC)
  3. Lewisr --Lewisr (talk) 16:39, May 1, 2016 (UTC)

Object

Cwedin
  • Could you add a picture of the battle? Cwedin(talk) 19:33, February 25, 2016 (UTC)
    • I did look for an image before nominating the article but couldn't find any that I thought looked that relevant. I've added one of the Imperial Fleet, but if you have a different image in mind feel free to change it and we'll see how it looks. Ayrehead02 (talk) 19:41, February 25, 2016 (UTC)
      • Looks good to me! Cwedin(talk) 19:45, February 25, 2016 (UTC)
Manoof
  • Context on Pondakree. I see it is a planet, but is that actually established? Manoof (talk) 10:53, April 30, 2016 (UTC)
    • There's no context for it in new canon other than it being his homeworld. Ayrehead02 (talk) 16:21, April 30, 2016 (UTC)
      • Can you mention it is a planet or his homeworld in the article proper then. Currently the only indication it is a planet is in the infobox. Manoof (talk) 07:46, May 1, 2016 (UTC)
        • We don't know that it is a planet though only that it's his homeworld. It could easily be a moon. Ayrehead02 (talk) 08:58, May 1, 2016 (UTC)
          • Good point, well thought! Manoof (talk) 11:33, May 1, 2016 (UTC)
  • Could we get some clarity on "After the agent asked how Sloane had identified three distant CR90 corvettes during a command..."? I ask as "a command" is a bit ambiguous. Manoof (talk) 10:53, April 30, 2016 (UTC)
    • Added a bit more detail. Ayrehead02 (talk) 16:21, April 30, 2016 (UTC)
  • You say sapphire squadron is the ships complement on star fighters. Strictly speaking, that would all the TIEs assigned to the ship, which could be 72 fighters, which is an unusually large squadron. Just wanting to make sure of the details here. Manoof (talk) 10:53, April 30, 2016 (UTC)
    • Changed to say it was only part of the ship's contingent. Ayrehead02 (talk) 16:21, April 30, 2016 (UTC)
  • Do we know if vigilance is an Imperial I or Imperial II class? Manoof (talk) 10:53, April 30, 2016 (UTC)
  • Was she informed of the DSII's communication/chain of command issues by the DSII or her comm officer? If the former, then she got her communications from the death star. Was she asking for orders, rather than communication? Manoof (talk) 10:53, April 30, 2016 (UTC)
    • She was informed by her comm officer Ives, which I've now added. Ayrehead02 (talk) 16:21, April 30, 2016 (UTC)
  • Ottkreg refused to believe what was true? the breakdown of communication from the DSII, the lack of orders from the throne room? the emperor's death? Manoof (talk) 10:53, April 30, 2016 (UTC)
Lewisr
  • Communications officer currently redirects to a legends article, would you be able to create a canon page to correct this? --Lewisr (talk) 11:08, May 1, 2016 (UTC)
Cav
  • I've redlinked lake-diver in the PT quote which needs creation. Also, can his comment be construed as something he did back on his homeworld (catching lake-divers) and if so then it needs to be worked into either the bio or PT. - Sir Cavalier of OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 16:15, June 3, 2016 (UTC)
    • Created the article, but I don't know we should assume that he personally caught lake divers, as it might simply be a phrase from his homeworld. For example I've said "as easy as shooting fish in a barrel" but have never done so myself. Ayrehead02 (talk) 08:33, June 7, 2016 (UTC)

Comments

Malakili

  • Nominated by: Cwedin(talk) 05:11, March 8, 2016 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: I've always felt sorry for the guy.

(0 ACs/3 Users/3 Total)

Support

  1. AV-6R7Crew Pit 06:23, March 8, 2016 (UTC)
  2. Brules (talk) 06:49, March 8, 2016 (UTC)
  3. Ayrehead02 (talk) 10:36, April 18, 2016 (UTC)

Object

AV-6R7
  • The bit about his clothing belongs in the equipment section, not P&T. - AV-6R7Crew Pit 06:02, March 8, 2016 (UTC)
Ayrehead02
  • Could you add just a little more detail to Luke and the rancor encounter? When Luke first tries to escape through the back door, you can see Malaki and Giran sitting at a table. They then get up and start shouting at Luke while he tries to get through. Ayrehead02 (talk) 14:42, April 4, 2016 (UTC)
Cav
  • Explanation of why the rancor would suffer injuries eating prisoners is needed.
    • Unfortunately, there isn't one. The source simply reads, "He tends any wounds the rancor receives while eating prisoners."
  • Is it not worth mentioning the Gamorrean who entered the pit with Skywalker at all in the article? - Sir Cavalier of OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 19:26, June 4, 2016 (UTC)

Comments

Oollie

  • Nominated by: Cwedin(talk) 05:04, March 21, 2016 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: My first Legends nomination

(1 ACs/3 Users/4 Total)

Support

  1. Ayrehead02 (talk) 01:23, April 5, 2016 (UTC)
  2. Good stuff. Makes me more interested in this particular title. ProfessorTofty (talk) 20:31, April 10, 2016 (UTC)
  3. Good work! Manoof (talk) 06:47, May 6, 2016 (UTC)
  4. ACvote Sir Cavalier of OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 19:39, June 4, 2016 (UTC)

Object

Ayrehead02
  • The Twi'lek and pirate racers will both need articles as will the two referees. Ayrehead02 (talk) 15:09, April 4, 2016 (UTC)
  • Could the intro be expanded a tiny bit, maybe to mention the two different races, or at least the final one with Drako. Ayrehead02 (talk) 00:37, April 5, 2016 (UTC)
ProfessorTofty
  • I'm not entirely sure if the disambiguation for Oliver Novachez is necessary, given that his "Ollie" is a nickname that doesn't even match and the material in which they appear is so disconnected. Nevertheless, I'll leave the final decision to your judgment. ProfessorTofty (talk) 19:54, April 10, 2016 (UTC)
    • I also don't think it's needed. (I only included it on the chance that someone would mention it.) Cwedin(talk) 20:11, April 10, 2016 (UTC)
      • Glad I could verify your feeling about it, then. ProfessorTofty (talk) 20:31, April 10, 2016 (UTC)
  • Found and corrected "Skywaker" in the intro. Given this, it might be a bad idea to give the article another sweepthrough to make sure there aren't any other errors like this. I didn't spot anything else myself, but my eyes don't always catch everything. ProfessorTofty (talk) 19:54, April 10, 2016 (UTC)
    • Nice catch! I also couldn't find anything else. Cwedin(talk) 20:11, April 10, 2016 (UTC)
  • For the final sentence, I think the active voice would maybe be better. Perhaps "Skywalker remembered Oolie as he reminisced about his past ten years of adventures." ProfessorTofty (talk) 19:54, April 10, 2016 (UTC)
Manoof
  • I assume skywalker retired from racing due to the incident, but you need to make it clearer in the body. The way it is now sounds like the incident forceably ended his career, rather than skywalker choosing to retire as a result of the incident. Other than that it looks good! Manoof (talk) 10:10, May 5, 2016 (UTC)

Comments

Sakas

(2 ACs/3 Users/5 Total)

Support

  1. Cwedin(talk) 23:02, March 27, 2016 (UTC)
  2. Ayrehead02 (talk) 14:49, April 4, 2016 (UTC)
  3. Inqvote Supreme Emperor (talk) 16:16, April 8, 2016 (UTC)
  4. Manoof (talk) 09:53, May 10, 2016 (UTC)
  5. ACvote IFYLOFD (Talk) 00:06, June 3, 2016 (UTC)

Object

Manoof
  • Should you have Alliance Special Forces in the infobox, as a bullet point between the alliance and pathfinders. Otherwise it seems Pathfinders are a stand-alone branch of the Alliance, rather than a specific branch of the SpecForces. Manoof (talk) 07:32, May 6, 2016 (UTC)
  • I would recommend making sure your urls are backed up on the archive. Also, does tumblr count as a social media site, and so requires a screenshot? Manoof (talk) 07:32, May 6, 2016 (UTC)
    • There isn't really a mechanism to do either of these things right now because we don't have a Tumblr template, unless you have an alternative suggestion. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 16:10, May 6, 2016 (UTC)
      • I went ahead and made sure the url is backed up, and added it to the reference. Manoof (talk) 22:12, May 6, 2016 (UTC)
  • Can we say somewhere what species Dameron and Solo are? Manoof (talk) 07:32, May 6, 2016 (UTC)
    • That seems like unnecessary detail. To my knowledge we don't require species-level context for each character who is referenced. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 16:10, May 6, 2016 (UTC)
      • I consider it minimum context for characters, but I leave it up to you. Manoof (talk) 22:12, May 6, 2016 (UTC)
        • I think the rank info, which is provided, is more appropriate context since it reflects what they do and how they relate to Sakas. If someone wanted species info they could look at their respective pages. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 22:17, May 6, 2016 (UTC)
  • In the P&T, can you say something about what sort of fighter she was? Manoof (talk) 07:32, May 6, 2016 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure what you mean by "what sort of fighter" she was. Other than being in the Pathfinders, which is referenced in the biography, we don't know much about her. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 16:10, May 6, 2016 (UTC)
      • She seems skilled with a blaster rifle, did she demonstrate hand to hand combat skills at all? Is it worth mentioning or not really? Manoof (talk) 22:12, May 6, 2016 (UTC)
        • She didn't demonstrate hand to hand combat skills, no. I feel like "skilled with a blaster" is already implied. She didn't demonstrate any particular skills of note, so the fact that she's Alliance Special Forces can speak for itself IMO. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 22:17, May 6, 2016 (UTC)
  • What do you mean by "black site", is this something that should be an article? Manoof (talk) 22:12, May 6, 2016 (UTC)
    • In real life, a black site is a secret base where secret projects are conducted. For example, there are CIA black sites where less-than-good operations have been conducted. What that means in the Star Wars galaxy, though, was never stated. We didn't learn anything about the base beyond the fact that it's an ISB black site, so the most we could do with creating an article is a dictionary definition. In terms of giving more detail about what black site means in this article, we have nothing Star Wars-related to source that to. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 22:17, May 6, 2016 (UTC)
  • My apologies, I know I struck and support voted, but I must not have submitted. Manoof (talk) 09:53, May 10, 2016 (UTC)
Floyd
  • "Nearly three weeks after the Battle of Endor, the battle in which the Alliance delivered a devastating blow to the Empire by destroying its Death Star II superweapon and defeating Emperor Palpatine, Sakas served with the Pathfinders, an Alliance Special Forces unit under the command of General Han Solo, in a raid on an Imperial Security Bureau black site at the Wretch of Tayron, located in the Outer Rim Territories." This is the unwieldiest sentence ever Brandon
  • Is the Wretch of Tayron the black site itself? The way this is worded it makes it seem like the Wretch of Tayron is a larger location that houses the black site. If so, I think the actual facility itself could use a link.
    • It's unclear if the Wretch of Tayron is the location of the black site or the black site itself. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 06:12, May 29, 2016 (UTC)
  • Is there really nothing else you can put in the P&T? She seems to have at least a few speaking lines.
    • The lines are pretty straight-forward, and about the actions being taken. Sakas doesn't have much in the way of characterization. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 06:12, May 29, 2016 (UTC)
Cav

Comments

Hostis Ij

  • Nominated by: Geek'ari (talk) 01:26, April 12, 2016 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: I originally nominated this for CA, but in the revisions I made to make it better, it passed 250 words xD

(2 ACs/4 Users/6 Total)

Support

  1. Nice work. -Clonehunter(Report your W.M.D.) 16:44, April 14, 2016 (UTC)
  2. ProfessorTofty (talk) 23:47, April 14, 2016 (UTC)
  3. Good stuff --Lewisr (talk) 23:52, April 14, 2016 (UTC)
  4. Looks beautiful - LoLuX12 (walkietalkie) 23:56, April 14, 2016 (UTC)
  5. ACvote Watch your use of the character's first name in place of surname - surname should always be used when referring to the character. - Sir Cavalier of OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 21:36, June 4, 2016 (UTC)
    • Yes sir, I'll remember that. Sorry for the mistake, thanks for the help! It's fixed now. Geek'ari Talk 13:09, June 6, 2016 (UTC)
  6. ACvote Another note: Don't strike people's objections after you think you've addressed them. Just because you've answered them doesn't necessarily mean the reviewer considers them adequately addressed. Wait for the reviewer to do it. IFYLOFD (Talk) 01:49, June 7, 2016 (UTC)
    • Ah, OK, sorry about that Geek'ari Talk 02:43, June 7, 2016 (UTC)

Object

  • If I'm not mistaken, stuff that's mentioned in a quote should only be linked in the quote if it isn't mentioned in the article. Therefore, I would say clear the links from the quote and link them in the intro section instead. ProfessorTofty (talk) 19:37, April 14, 2016 (UTC)
  • Seeing some other terms in the biography that could be linked - these include "death," "blood" and "days." Also, again, anything linked the intro has to be in the body also, so that would include "Mon Mothma." ProfessorTofty (talk) 19:37, April 14, 2016 (UTC)
    • OK, I added the links for those, plus one for "village" (city). Geek'ari Talk 20:04, April 14, 2016 (UTC)
  • In the novel, Mothma brings Ij and Korbin to Nalool to see the price of war. However, I don't think this really made clear in the article. The intro does mention that the Military Disarmament Act is proposed on Nalool, but the biography only refers to the fact of Mothma herself visiting the planet, not really making clear in the text that Ij and Korbin were there with her to witness the devastation. ProfessorTofty (talk) 19:37, April 14, 2016 (UTC)
    • I added some context in the first Biography paragraph. They went to Naalol to "assess the aftermath of the fighting"Geek'ari Talk 20:04, April 14, 2016 (UTC)
  • Your behind-the-scenes makes reference to the concept of "shoulder angel" / "shoulder devil" a human analogy that I'm not sure is present in the Star Wars universe or actually referenced specifically in the text. While it kinda seems to fit, it might be better to word it another way, rather than trying to reference this particular concept. ProfessorTofty (talk) 19:37, April 14, 2016 (UTC)
    • It's an analogy used in the novel. I think this wiki treats such analogies as in-universe, right? Geek'ari Talk 20:04, April 14, 2016 (UTC)
      • The analogy is used? Okay, sorry, I missed that. No worries then. ProfessorTofty (talk) 23:46, April 14, 2016 (UTC)
Floyd

Just a couple objections here:

  • First, need context on Naalol in the intro.
  • You also have to introduce who Hostis Ij is in the bio. The intro is meant to just be a general overview, the same information on exactly who he is has to also be in the body of the article itself.
  • All in all, solid work. IFYLOFD (Talk) 03:33, June 5, 2016 (UTC)

Comments

Roodown

  • Nominated by: Ayrehead02 (talk) 12:00, April 16, 2016 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: Our first TFA nomination.

(2 ACs/7 Users/9 Total)

Support

  1. That looks really good. - LoLuX12 (walkietalkie) 12:12, April 16, 2016 (UTC)
  2. Awesome article Geek'ari Talk 12:34, April 16, 2016 (UTC)
  3. Nice work! - AV-6R7Crew Pit 16:56, April 16, 2016 (UTC)
  4. Great work indeed! TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders AnilSerifoglu (talk) 01:13, April 26, 2016 (UTC)
  5. ACvote Sir Cavalier of OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 21:58, June 4, 2016 (UTC)
  6. ACvote IFYLOFD (Talk) 03:12, June 5, 2016 (UTC)
  7. <-Omicron(Leave a message at the BEEP!) 03:08, June 23, 2016 (UTC)
  8. Cevan IMPpress (talk) 22:08, June 23, 2016 (UTC)
  9. --Lewisr (talk) 22:15, June 23, 2016 (UTC)

Object

Comments

Geek'ari

In the first sentence, when it says Roodown "was a Abednedo scavenger on the planet Jakku who angered his employer, the junk dealer Unkar Plutt, who suspected he was selling salvage to a different buyer," do you think you could change the wording a bit so it doesn't use the word "who" for both Unkar and Roodown? Maybe split the sentence in two/change the wording? Otherwise, great article! Geek'ari Talk 03:38, June 9, 2016 (UTC)


AV-6R7

Roodown appears in the new Jakku scene for Star Tours: The Adventures Continue; this info should be somewhere in the article. The full scene can be found on YouTube. - AV-6R7Crew Pit 03:54, June 23, 2016 (UTC)

  • Added a paragraph to the Behind the Scenes section. I've left it out of appearances and sources for now since it mostly seems to be treated as legends? I can added it to appearances with the non-canon tag though if people would prefer that. Ayrehead02 (talk) 08:46, June 23, 2016 (UTC)

Tera Sinube's lightsaber

  • Nominated by: TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders AnilSerifoglu (talk) 03:03, April 25, 2016 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: Adapted the legends page into the canon, which was a former good article. Then I updated the necessary parts and added legends info to the "behind the scenes".

(0 ECs/1 Users/1 Total)

Support

  1. Manoof (talk) 07:17, May 12, 2016 (UTC)

Object

Manoof
  • Please use FacebookCite for that facebook reference. It should still work even if it is a note rather than a status update. If you need help with a screenshot please ask. Manoof (talk) 12:11, May 6, 2016 (UTC)
    • Done. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders AnilSerifoglu (talk) 17:10, May 6, 2016 (UTC)
      • Good work. Just a note, when you upload a social media screenshot, add it to the Wookieepedia:Social media screenshots page. I've done it for you here, so you can see how it works (simply add the file and then the description). It just stops the wiki from thinking it's an orphan file and getting deleted. Manoof (talk) 22:29, May 6, 2016 (UTC)
  • You have a lot of images, maybe cut out one or two. Manoof (talk) 12:11, May 6, 2016 (UTC)
  • Canon articles don't use the era attribute, as this describes the legends publishing era. Manoof (talk) 12:11, May 6, 2016 (UTC)
  • Rewrite the first sentence in description. As it is, you are associating his age with the fact he used a lightsaber, rather than that it was also a mobility aid. Maybe something like "The Cosian Jedi Master Tera Sinube utilized a lightsaber which, due to his advanced age, was a specialized device that was also a walking stick."Manoof (talk) 12:11, May 6, 2016 (UTC)
  • The second sentence doesn't make much sense, and also needs to be rewritten. Manoof (talk) 12:11, May 6, 2016 (UTC)
    • To clarify, there's ALOT of breaks in the sentence created by explaining things. Maybe look at breaking the sentence into two parts?
  • Reference 7 and 8 need to be fixed, they don't tell us enough. You need to mention a source that gives the start of the clones wars 22 years before the battle of yavin. Once you have that information, both references can be fixed. Manoof (talk) 12:11, May 6, 2016 (UTC)
  • You should mention that Tano's lightsaber was retrieved from Cryar, as well as that Cryar was not killed. Maybe just a line like "The jedi then retrieved the lightsaber from the unconscious thief" Manoof (talk) 12:11, May 6, 2016 (UTC)
  • Context on a few things. When you mention something for the first time, let us know a little about it. For example, that Coruscant is a planet or the species of each of the characters. The idea is I shouldn't have to click on something to find out what it is talking about in the article I'm already on. Manoof (talk) 12:11, May 6, 2016 (UTC)
    • Changed a few things (explained Clone Wars, Coruscant; added "Jedi Knight" Anakin Skywalker and "Padawan" Bariss Offee). See if there is still need for change. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders AnilSerifoglu (talk) 13:45, May 7, 2016 (UTC)
      • I'll strike this and bring anything up as new points. Manoof (talk) 22:59, May 7, 2016 (UTC)
  • Make sure everything in the infobox appears in the article body somewhere. For example, you say the weapon is custom made in the infobox and introduction, but I can't see it in the article itself. Manoof (talk) 12:11, May 6, 2016 (UTC)
    • I think the article's description part pretty much covers everything from the infobox (also states "a specialized device" to clear the saber's custom-made status). If you are talking about "date created" part, it is not an info from a specific source, just dates when we first saw it (which is also mentioned in behind-the-scenes). Can you please explain which info you want to see more specificity? Or if you want to, please feel free to edit yourself. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders AnilSerifoglu (talk) 02:47, May 8, 2016 (UTC)
      • Ok, you specifically say it was handcrafted. In the body you only say it was a specialized device, which indicates it is custom made. You need to settle on one wording, as while they are all synonyms, they have different meanings that convey different things. I can get something custom-made, but that doesn't mean it is handcrafted. I can also get a specialized device that is mass-produced. I don't have the ultimate star wars book, which is what is referenced, but I would check that and use whatever wording they use. Manoof (talk) 04:36, May 8, 2016 (UTC)
        • The term "hancrafted" is not particularly about Tera Sinube's lightsaber. It was used for all lightsabers in Ultimate Star Wars. You can also see it in other canon lightsaber pages (like Dooku's, Darth Maul's, Mace Windu's etc.). That's why I didn't add it to the article, because it is not a specification. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders AnilSerifoglu (talk) 03:15, May 10, 2016 (UTC)
          • If that's what the source says, that is fine, but you still need to add it into the body though. As mentioned, those alternate words can have different meanings. Handcrafted suggests that it was made by hand. Custom suggests it was a special order, with specific manufacturing specifications/needs that require the special order. Specialized suggests it has a specific purpose for a specific need. See my suggestion below, I think I have the solution to adding it in. Manoof (talk) 09:19, May 10, 2016 (UTC)
      • If you want to keep the info in the date created, you need to specify somewhere in the article that same information. Namely, that it was created sometime before the battle of saleucemi. You don't mention saleucemi at all, which I would assume is the first chronological time we see it. The History section should start with that. Manoof (talk) 04:36, May 8, 2016 (UTC)
        • Yes, it has first appeared just before the Battle of Saleucami (during the briefing before the battle). But I didn't mention it because we just see Sinube with his walking stick for aboUt ten seconds. in the background. If you stiil think it is needed to mention, I suggest adding a small line like "Dated back to before the Battle of Saleucami". What do you think? TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders AnilSerifoglu (talk) 03:15, May 10, 2016 (UTC)
          • Simply "Crafted before the battle of saleucami" is sufficient. The briefing may have occurred minutes or hours before the battle, and the battle is easier to reference. Open with that in the history. To retain all the information in the first sentence without adding a separate sentence you could say "Handcrafted(reference for being handcrafted) before the battle of saleucami,(reference for the battle) Jedi Master Tera Sinube utilized a specialized lightsaber which, due to his age, was both a crutch and a lightsaber.(current reference)" This solves the above issue as well by mentioning it is handcrafted. Manoof (talk) 09:19, May 10, 2016 (UTC)
          • The sentence you suggest is very nice and solves the problem, but it is the first sentense of "description", not "history". TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders AnilSerifoglu (talk) 13:42, May 10, 2016 (UTC)
            • Sorry, my mistake! Since I believe the information of the weapons origin should be in history, maybe replacing the first two sentences with "Tera Sinube's lightsaber was crafted sometime before the battle of saleucami,[Reference] a conflict during the pangalactic Clone Wars which pitted the Galactic Republic against the Separatist Alliance. Tera Sinube utilized his lightsaber while on a quest to find the missing lightsaber of Jedi Padawan Ahsoka Tano on the world of Coruscant, eventually finding the Terrelian Jango Jumper Cassie Cryar in possession of Tano's weapon." Manoof (talk) 08:30, May 11, 2016 (UTC)
  • Reference 6 doesn't mention a source at all. The statement you have is fine, but you should add something like "needed, as demonstrated in [source sidious], [source yoda] and [source maul] respectively." Manoof (talk) 12:11, May 6, 2016 (UTC)
    • I couldn't find any canon source for Sidious (only possible appearance was in Lords of the Sith, but found no evidence that he carried his stick with him), so I removed him and added sources for Yoda and Maul as you suggested. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders AnilSerifoglu (talk) 02:56, May 7, 2016 (UTC)
  • "Later in the war, around 20 years before the Battle of Yavin" has a problem. You haven't mentioned any war at this point, so that doesn't make sense. You could say something like "In the second year of the clone wars, a conflict between the galactic republic and the confederacy of independent systems,...". This way you could also just reference Star Wars everything you need to know. Manoof (talk) 22:59, May 7, 2016 (UTC)
    • Changed it as you suggested, except the Clone Wars "explanation". It seemed unnecessary because there is a similar sentence in the introduction: "a conflict that pitted the Republic against the Separatists" TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders AnilSerifoglu (talk) 00:35, May 8, 2016 (UTC)
      • It's one of those things that is treated independently from the introduction, like the first link rule. You haven't explained it in the body, so it hasn't been explained. I know it seems like it has been explained already, but the introduction is there for a brief overview. If you like you could remove that mention in the introduction and have it just in the body, or have it in both, I leave that up to you. As to the reference, you can remove the last bit leaving just the source book, since at the moment you essentially explain in the reference what you tell us in the article. Manoof (talk) 02:18, May 8, 2016 (UTC)
  • I've just noticed this (and I should have noticed earlier sorry) that the events you describe as taking place in 22 BBY can't use that attribute, since that is when the clone wars started, not when the events took place. Since we don't have a date of when the episode took place canonically (that I can see), you're probably better off saying "Sometime after the commencement of the clone wars in 22 BBY" and using that same attribute. You may have to rearrange stuff in the history section so it runs chronologically. this link places it between two episodes which can be placed to 21 bby, so personally I'd put it there. Template:TCWdates places the events of lightsaber lost in 21 BBY, so you know where to place it chronologically. Just don't attribute a date to that since those sources are legends material. Almost there! Manoof (talk) 04:36, May 8, 2016 (UTC)
    • Changed it! Now it is just "during the Clone Wars". TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders AnilSerifoglu (talk) 02:45, May 10, 2016 (UTC)
      • Good work! Manoof (talk) 09:19, May 10, 2016 (UTC)
  • I notice you only reference events from two episodes in the history section (three when we add the mention of it's first appearance. For each episode, is the lightsaber utilized in a meaningful way? If so, the events should be added to the section. Manoof (talk) 09:19, May 10, 2016 (UTC)
    • As you can see, most of them are flashbacks from other episodes. He used his lightsaber in only two episodes. These are the other appearances that I didn't see worth to add: "Secret Weapons: Present during to briefing of the D-Squad", "Sabotage: Walking around in the Jedi Temple", "The Jedi Who Knew Too Much: Attending the Jedi funeral", "The Big Bang: Present during Anakin & Obi-Wan's holo-report from Utapau" TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders AnilSerifoglu (talk) 13:32, May 10, 2016 (UTC)
      • Cool, just wanted to check. Manoof (talk) 08:30, May 11, 2016 (UTC)
Cav
  • My main concern with this article is how closely it is copied from the Legends version of the article with only minor alterations. I would suggest overhauling the article as much as possible to make it as distinct from the Legends version as possible. - Sir Cavalier of OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 22:04, June 4, 2016 (UTC)

Comments

Fiula Blay

(1 ACs/5 Users/6 Total)

Support

  1. Cwedin(talk) 04:12, April 25, 2016 (UTC)
  2. Pre/IRC reviewed. JorrelWiki-shrinkableFraajic 04:41, April 25, 2016 (UTC)
  3. Ayrehead02 (talk) 07:22, May 3, 2016 (UTC)
  4. ACvote IFYLOFD (Talk) 22:39, May 10, 2016 (UTC)
  5. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders AnilSerifoglu (talk) 13:31, May 13, 2016 (UTC)
  6. <-Omicron(Leave a message at the BEEP!) 00:28, June 4, 2016 (UTC)

Object

Ayrehead
  • Could you vary your use of the word suspicion slightly more in the body? You repeat it three times in pretty quick succession and use the phrase "to avoid raising suspicion" twice. Ayrehead02 (talk) 18:49, May 1, 2016 (UTC)
Cav
  • Why no PT section? Also, would an Equipment section be appropriate? - Sir Cavalier of OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 22:11, June 4, 2016 (UTC)
    • I've included a mention of their amphistaffs now. As for the P&T, there really isn't anything to say. Supreme Emperor (talk) 04:07, June 11, 2016 (UTC)

Comments

"The Tale of the Aiwha Pod"

  • Nominated by: Manoof (talk) 12:39, May 13, 2016 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: It's been a while...

(1 ACs/2 Users/3 Total)

Support

  1. Cwedin(talk) 16:52, May 18, 2016 (UTC)
  2. ACvote Sir Cavalier of OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 22:33, June 4, 2016 (UTC)
  3. Interesting article. I like it. Geek'ari Talk 12:27, June 9, 2016 (UTC)

Object

Cwedin
  • Could the intro paragraph be expanded to include bits of the synopsis? - Cwedin(talk) 21:59, May 17, 2016 (UTC)
    • I could so I did. Manoof (talk) 10:05, May 18, 2016 (UTC)

Comments

  • I changed the italics to quotations based on the status article for kikla. - Cwedin(talk) 21:59, May 17, 2016 (UTC)
    • I looked at your edits, they're great! There is one though, we don't know if it was written in Kaminoan. It could have been a folklore story passed down verbally, all we know is it was translated. Or is that stretching it? Since the translated story is written, is that enough to say the original was too? Manoof (talk) 10:05, May 18, 2016 (UTC)
      • Good point. I'll correct that. - Cwedin(talk) 16:52, May 18, 2016 (UTC)
        • Beautiful! Thanks for the look over! Manoof (talk) 07:22, May 19, 2016 (UTC)


Desolation Station/Canon

  • Nominated by: Geek'ari Talk 03:28, June 9, 2016 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: My second GA nom/My second pet project :P

(0 ACs/2 Users/2 Total)

Support

  1. JorrelWiki-shrinkableFraajic 00:56, June 13, 2016 (UTC)
  2. Good job! - AV-6R7Crew Pit 03:22, June 13, 2016 (UTC)

Object

Ayrehead
  • Good job so far, but there a few things that need tweaking. Firstly the information about the scientists and workers being dealt with at the station following the actions of Teller's cell needs to be included in the body. Ayrehead02 (talk) 06:26, June 9, 2016 (UTC)
    • OK, I added a sentence about their capture and interrogation. Unfortunately, it wasn't stated in the book what happened to them after they were tortured for info.Geek'ari Talk 12:22, June 9, 2016 (UTC)
      • The information you've added about what happened to Teller's cell is good, but I was actually referring to the warehouse workers and scientists from Desolation that are mentioned in the intro quote. Ayrehead02 (talk) 20:17, June 14, 2016 (UTC)
        • Ah, OK. As far as I can tell, all of the mentioned scientists and warehouse workers were part of Teller's cell, so their fate was the same as the rest of those rebels. I made that more clear in the article.Geek'ari Talk 00:43, June 15, 2016 (UTC)
  • The Intro should be expanded to include a little more information on the defectors and their punishment as well as Teller's cell slowing work. Ayrehead02 (talk) 06:26, June 9, 2016 (UTC)
  • A few things in the body need more context, for example you should say that the clone wars was between the republic and the separatists and then identify Dooku as head of the separatists when you mention him. Geonosis and the Antar Atrocity could also use a little more context. Ayrehead02 (talk) 06:26, June 9, 2016 (UTC)
  • It's worth mentioning that the construction project on Geonosis' moon was known as Sentinel Base. Ayrehead02 (talk) 06:26, June 9, 2016 (UTC)
  • Could you go into a little more detail on what exactly Teller's cell did that set the base back four years. Ayrehead02 (talk) 06:26, June 9, 2016 (UTC)
    • I accidentally worded that sentence poorly in the previous version of the article. Actually, the rebel cell attempted to set the Empire back, and failed. I fixed that point and info on it. Thanks for the advice!Geek'ari Talk 12:22, June 9, 2016 (UTC)
  • After looking briefly at the novel again it seems this article is missing a fair amount of the smaller details given about the station. The novel states that Teller was reassigned to be head of security at Desolation shortly after the Antar Atrocity but then vanished shortly after arriving. During his short time there he could have learned about the Carrion Spike, which is what led to its theft. The many fugitive staff members were often blamed for attacks on Imperial targets. Artoz arrived at desolation after three years of work had already been done on the hyperdrive. These are all detail I found just by using Ctrl-F to look through the first few mentions of Desolation Station in the ebook, so I imagine there are other details further on that are missing as well. While a lot of this might seem trivial, for an article to reach status all these kinds of details need to be included. I hate to ask, but could you go back through and make sure you've included everything pertaining to the station? I'd do a more thorough search myself to help, but sadly most of my time at the moment is taken up with exams. Ayrehead02 (talk) 20:17, June 14, 2016 (UTC)
    • Ah yes, I remember reading that stuff, I forgot to include it when I made the article. Thanks for pointing that out. I have the ebook as well, and I searched through and I think you pretty much covered what I missed. I added now, but I'll keep looking for more just in case.Geek'ari Talk 00:43, June 15, 2016 (UTC)
AV-6R7
  • Please clean up the flow of the Bts.
    • OK, done. How does it look now? Geek'ari Talk 18:43, June 9, 2016 (UTC)
  • Not all of the info in the Bts section can be sourced to the relaunch article.
    • Alrighty, I sourced it to Tarkin as well. Is that how it should be? Geek'ari Talk 18:43, June 9, 2016 (UTC)
  • Can we get a release date for Elite Squadron? - AV-6R7Crew Pit 18:30, June 9, 2016 (UTC)
  • I opted to fix the issues myself. There were some major referencing errors, and the canon reboot isn't really relevant to Desolation Station itself. I also added that it only appears in the DS version of Elite Squadron. BTW, the release date of ES can't be sourced from the game itself. - AV-6R7Crew Pit 19:07, June 9, 2016 (UTC)
    • Ah, OK. Now I see what you were saying. It looks much better now, nice job! Geek'ari Talk 19:11, June 9, 2016 (UTC)
    • Oh, as for the canon-reboot thing, I thought that was relevant because it would explain to the casual reader why it wasn't canon because of Elite Squadrons. Are you sure it wouldn't be better with the inclusion of that info? Geek'ari Talk 19:14, June 9, 2016 (UTC)
      • I don't think the casual reader really cares. If they're interested, they can click on the Legends link. - AV-6R7Crew Pit 19:33, June 9, 2016 (UTC)
  • According to the Databank entry for the Death Star, "Even as the Clone Wars raged, the Death Star secretly took shape in space above Geonosis." The article currently states that construction of the Death Star began after the Clone Wars. Please fix this. - AV-6R7Crew Pit 02:49, June 13, 2016 (UTC)
    • Ooh, interesting. OK, I fixed it. Geek'ari Talk 03:00, June 13, 2016 (UTC)
      • I'd move the mention of the construction taking place over Geonosis to the new sentence. - AV-6R7Crew Pit 03:08, June 13, 2016 (UTC)
        • Good point. Fixed.Geek'ari Talk 03:16, June 13, 2016 (UTC)
          • Did a little more adjusting, but it looks good. - AV-6R7Crew Pit 03:18, June 13, 2016 (UTC)
            • Thanks so much for the help! Geek'ari Talk 03:20, June 13, 2016 (UTC)
Jorrel
  • Add/reorder some context to the Death Star in the intro - it's mentioned that it's a superweapon in the sentence after it's mentioned, but it's not immediately clear in the intro that the Death Star is a superweapon to one unfamiliar with the saga.
  • Trouble from rebels: Mention that Artoz was working for the rebel cell in the quote attribution, because (assuming the quote is correct) Luceno's word choice is bizarre and suggests Artoz is working for both teams at the same time:
    "Even with perfected plans and redoubling of our efforts, I suspect that we will set them back four years." Artoz uses "our" for the redoubling efforts of the scientists, and immediately follows it up with a "we" regarding attacking the convoy.
    • Agh, sorry. I made a mistake in the quote. It says "their" instead of "our". Sorry about that, that's a mistake I shouldn't have allowed to happen.Geek'ari Talk 22:06, June 12, 2016 (UTC)
  • Where along the route did the cell attack the convoy? That could be added to the sentence with the hit-and-run attack.
    • OK, I added that it occurred over the moon.Geek'ari Talk 22:06, June 12, 2016 (UTC)
  • Reasoning for having the Death Star databank entry in the Sources list? I don't see Desolation Station mentioned at all.
    • The Death Star image is sourced to that.Geek'ari Talk 22:06, June 12, 2016 (UTC)
      • Ah. You actually don't need to source the article to the databank entry based on that image, because the image itself sources to the databank much like the "Notes and references" links to the miscellaneous non-Tarkin information. The "Sources" section is for information specific to the article itself—in this case, Desolation Station—rather than the affiliated information, like the source for the Death Star image.
  • As for the BTS info regarding canonization, I suggest leaving it in. It's been fairly SOP to mention any time something from Legends is brought over into Canon, from what I've seen. That said, I would suggest reordering the sentences so that the canon mention is primary. Something like:
    Desolation Station was first mentioned in canon in James Luceno's novel Tarkin, released on November 4, 2014. The station had previously appeared in Star Wars Legends, featured in the Nintendo DS version of the video game Star Wars Battlefront: Elite Squadtion, released on November 13, 2009.
    • OK, I kinda just added a small mention of it to AV-6R7's Bts, mentioning the reboot a little. What'd'ya think?Geek'ari Talk 22:06, June 12, 2016 (UTC)
  • Some miscellaneous points: use — (check edit for code) for dashes setting aside a phrase (example: "...interrogated—though Teller himself escaped—ending...") and avoid abbreviations (Dr. --> Doctor). I fixed both but bear in mind for future work. JorrelWiki-shrinkableFraajic 16:18, June 11, 2016 (UTC)
    • OK, I added a few. Thanks for the help!Geek'ari Talk 22:06, June 12, 2016 (UTC)
      • The — suggestion was specifically referring to the singular use of dashes (the one I mentioned) in the original review, not a request to change every set-aside phrase from commas to dashes. Commas are perfectly fine in such a method, and I returned one such use because it flowed better the original way. Sorry for the confusion, and good job! JorrelWiki-shrinkableFraajic 00:56, June 13, 2016 (UTC)

Comments

HK protocol pacifist package

  • Nominated by: JorrelWiki-shrinkableFraajic 05:35, June 14, 2016 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: The HK protocol pacifist package positively perfected the pacifistic, peaceful personality prescribed for the problematic performance that one with a perchance for premeditated perforations of predisposed persons possesses.

(1 ACs/0 Users/1 Total)

Support

  1. ACvote IFYLOFD (Talk) 01:33, June 20, 2016 (UTC)

Object

Comments

In other languages

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki