Wikia

Wookieepedia

Wookieepedia:Good article nominations

Talk116
121,955pages on
this wiki

Redirected from WP:GAN

       
Good article
nominations
             
GoodIcon

This page is for the nomination of good articles. This is not a way to showcase the articles of your favorite characters, spaceships, or the like. For a list of Good articles, see Wookieepedia:Good articles.
A Good article is an article that adheres to quality standards, but cannot reach FA status due to its limited content.

READ THIS FIRST!

An article must…

  1. …be well-written and detailed.
  2. …be unbiased, non-point of view.
  3. …be sourced with all available sources and appearances.
  4. …follow the Manual of Style, Layout Guide, and all other policies on Wookieepedia.
  5. …following the review process, be stable, i.e., does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars. This does not apply to vandalism and protection or semi-protection as a result of vandalism.
  6. …not be tagged with any sort of improvement tags (i.e. more sources, expand, etc).
  7. …have a proper lead that gives a good summary of the topic if the length of the article supports it. This may not be appropriate on articles with limited content.
  8. …have no redlinks.
  9. …have comprehensive detail with all information covered from all sources and appearances.
  10. …be completely referenced for all available material and sources. See Wookieepedia:Sourcing for more information.
  11. …have all quotes and images sourced.
  12. …provide at least one quote on the article if available. A leading quote at the beginning of the article would be preferred, though not required if no quotes are available. Although quotes may be placed in the body of the article, a maximum of one quote is allowed at the beginning of each section.
  13. …ideally include a "Personality and traits" section on all character articles if information is available.
  14. …ideally include a "Powers and abilities" section for Force-sensitive characters and a "Skills and abilities" section for non–Force-sensitive characters, where said powers and/or abilities are stipulated.
  15. …include a "Behind the scenes" section for in-universe articles.
  16. …include a reasonable number of images of sufficient quality to illustrate the article, if said images are available.
  17. …counting the introduction and "Behind the scenes" material, be at least 250 words long (not including captions, quotes, or headers, etc). Alternatively, a good article cannot exceed 1000 words. Articles that do so should be nominated for Featured status.

How to nominate:

  1. First, find an article you find is worthy of good status. Nominated articles must meet all seventeen requirements stated above.
  2. Add {{GAnom}} at the top of the article you are nominating and save the page. NOTE: If the article you are nominating has been nominated for GA one or more times previously, you will need to specify a new subpage name as a parameter in the template (e.g. {{GAnom|Lorum ipsum (second nomination)}}).
  3. Open the redlink (in a new tab or window, if possible) and fill out the form according to the instructions provided.
  4. Copy the code provided to the bottom of this page.
  5. Purge the article to update the template.
  6. Per AgriCorps consensus, nominators are restricted to four nominations on the GAN page at any one time. Once one nomination is removed from the page as either successful or unsuccessful, another can be added.

How to vote:

  1. Before doing anything, be sure to read the article completely, keeping a sharp eye out for mistakes.
  2. Afterward, compare the article to the criteria listed above, and then either support or object the article's nomination.
    • If you object, please supply concrete reasons for doing so, and how it can be improved.
  3. As stated above, any objections will be looked upon by the nominator, supporters, and anyone willing to improve the article, and action will be taken to please the objectors. Do not strike other users' objections; it is up to the objector to review the changes and strike if they are satisfied.
  4. Once a nomination has a total of five votes, with at least three votes coming from AgriCorps or Inquisitorius members—two of which must be AgriCorps votes—after at least a week since it was nominated (beginning the day of its nomination) and no objections (or the objections have been stricken or overridden), the article will be considered a "Good article" and tagged with the {{Eras|good}} template. The talk page will also be tagged with the {{GA}} template. Alternatively, if a nomination receives a total of five AgriCorps/Inquisitorius votes—three of which must be AgriCorps votes—with no outstanding objections before one week has passed, the nomination will be considered successful.
  5. The article is placed on the Good article list.


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


Good article nominations

To nominate an article for Good article status, place the {{GAnom}} template on the top of the article and then follow the instructions above. Nominated articles must meet all seventeen requirements stated above. If an article has a total of five votes, with at least three votes coming from AgriCorps or Inquisitorius members—two of which must be an AgriCorps vote—after at least a week since it was nominated (beginning the day of its nomination) and no objections (or the objections have been stricken or overridden), the article will be considered a "Good article" and tagged with the {{Eras|good}} template. The talk page will also be tagged with the {{GA}} template. For complete instructions on archiving nominations please see here.

View recent changes for this page and its subpages

Voorpee

  • Nominated by: ProfessorTofty (talk) 23:15, September 23, 2014 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: My first try at a good article nomination. I've checked everything, read it over and all the rules and I think it qualifies, but I guess we'll see.

(1 ACs/1 Users/2 Total)

Support

  1. Manoof (talk) 10:07, February 17, 2015 (UTC)
  2. ACvote IFYLOFD (Talk) 05:22, February 28, 2015 (UTC)

Object

Ecks Dee
  • Lacks sourcing throughout.
  • Linking really needs to be checked.
    • Still lacking throughout, particularly past the intro.
      • This still isn't fixed. 1358 (Talk) 22:29, October 8, 2014 (UTC)
  • I'll review it again once these glaring issues have been fixed. 1358 (Talk) 20:22, October 4, 2014 (UTC)
    • I have added additional references on Behind the scenes and added what links I could find. There is really only one reference and one appearance for the main content: Jedi Academy: Return of the Padawan. Are you just saying that I should link it in more places? I do seem to recall though reading that it doesn't need to be referenced in the intro. As for the linking, I think that's about all that can be done, unless you believe that certain items mentioned in the article are worthy of their own articles that haven't been created yet. ProfessorTofty (talk) 00:43, October 5, 2014 (UTC)
      • You need to source everything. Every paragraph, every infobox item, needs a reference. See other GAs for examples. 1358 (Talk) 08:46, October 5, 2014 (UTC)
  • Please use the same layout for pets as for individuals (see Gor for precedent).
  • References go after punctuation. 1358 (Talk) 14:59, October 7, 2014 (UTC)
    • Done and done. Doesn't really have much in the way of a personality, sort of a Star Wars tribble, but I did what I could. As for the linking, again, I really think that's about all that can be done, unless you think maybe something like Roan's journal or the care center would be article-worthy. ProfessorTofty (talk) 18:01, October 8, 2014 (UTC)
      • Still present in the infobox.
  • Please use bullet lists for infobox fields with multiple entries.
  • You don't need to source the name in the infobox.
  • To be honest, I think most of the big glaring issues in this article could be fixed by reading other Good Articles. They should give you a general idea of what a GAN should look like. 1358 (Talk) 22:29, October 8, 2014 (UTC)
    • Objections regarding punctuation and using bullets taken care of. Well, actually, the latter really took care of the former. As for your latter point, I'm looking at Ceasar right now, and it actually seems like you're holding me to a higher standard, as that article has no references or sourcing whatsoever. Anyway, I've answered all of your objections, save the bit about the linking. Again, unless you feel that more links should be added because other subjects are article-worthy, I don't see anything else to be linked. I can't just conjure them. ProfessorTofty (talk) 22:34, October 9, 2014 (UTC)
      • Just interjecting here, Ceasar is an anomaly with the lack of sourcing which will be fixed. All GANs need to be sourced. 501st dogma(talk) 22:49, October 9, 2014 (UTC)
      • Actually, Ceasar gets away with that for historical reasons. A year or two ago, articles with a single source didn't require referencing (although it was still recommended), but that was changed a while ago. Thanks to your observation, it'll probably be on the agenda for the next AgriCorps meeting, as it definitely needs to be fully referenced now. However, look at any other GA and you'll see that they're all (hopefully) completely referenced as they should be. As for linking, what I'm trying to say here is that the intro and the body should work independently. That isn't the case right now—if you disregard the intro, the biography starts off completely abruptly. You should make sure to rewrite the beginning of the intro to properly introduce who Voorpee actually is. As for the linking, since the intro and the body are independent from each other, every subject needs to be linked both in the intro and the body. 1358 (Talk) 22:50, October 9, 2014 (UTC)
        • Okay, sorry that I seized on Ceasar (heh), but I was looking for an example of another named pet that was a good article, and that was the one that came up at the top. Anyway, I think I'm really starting to get this now. I've made updates to both the intro and main body and I think, hope, that all problems should be squared away now. ProfessorTofty (talk) 18:54, October 12, 2014 (UTC)
  • Does Coruscant really count as homeworld in the infobox if he was only on loan?
  • Is there any sort of timeline given in the source material? If yes, specify. If no, how do we know it's Rise of the Empire era?
  • A lot of things are mentioned in your article with any sort of context. As a general rule, most things require at least some context. I'm just looking at the intro right now, and the first sentence requires context for Coruscant and Roan. Please go over the article and give context to things when they're first mentioned. 1358 (Talk) 20:30, October 16, 2014 (UTC)
    • Regarding the first point-- well, he spent nearly a year there, if not longer, so it really became a sort of home. The article for homeworld states that it could be a world that one migrated to. Still, if you feel it's stretching the point, I could just remove it. Regarding the second question-- yes. In the first book, it is stated that Yoda is 700 years old. So we've sort of been running with that for articles related to the series. In any case, the series does clearly depict a pre-Clone Wars Yoda. I can try to add a more specific citation, though, if you feel one is necessary. (Edit-- never mind, I just went ahead and added the direct reference.) Last point-- all right, that one I'll work on, should have done in a couple days at most. ProfessorTofty (talk) 22:31, October 16, 2014 (UTC)
      • I'd say that if he only was on loan there, it's a bit of a stretch to call it a homeworld. It would be another thing if he moved there permanently.
        As for the timeline reference, that's a start, but you definitely need to elaborate more. Something like "In source 1, Yoda is said to be 700 years old. source 2 states Yoda's birth year as X BBY, which means the events of source 1 take place around Y BBY". Don't use my exact wording, but you probably get the concept. 1358 (Talk) 19:17, October 20, 2014 (UTC)
        • Coruscant as homeworld removed per suggestion. Reference regarding Rise of the Empire Era improved to make it clear why that period as specified. I've also added the context requested, explaining more clearly what the Jedi academy at Coruscant was and who the various characters referenced such as Roan and Gaiana were. I hope these will be enough to finally push the article to where it needs to be to achieve status. ProfessorTofty (talk) 18:41, October 23, 2014 (UTC)
        • P.S.: I've also added two new images and quotes. ProfessorTofty (talk) 15:02, October 24, 2014 (UTC)
          • While you're getting there, this isn't exactly the context I'm looking for. Generally subjects in the intro need less context than the body. Remember that the body should work independently from the intro, which means you'll need to provide context in both instances. I suggest you move the context on Jedi academy to the body. What I'm looking for is really a word or two explaining subjects you introduce. For example, when you mention Coruscant, tell the reader it's a planet. It's not much, but it's something. Who is Yoda? Tell the reader. 1358 (Talk) 11:28, October 26, 2014 (UTC)
            • Okay. I've gone through the article and I've tried to expand and explain on anything that might require context. I think I've tried to provide a good balance of providing good information without going into too much detail. For example, I'm assuming that I don't need to explain to readers that "the Force" is a field of energy that binds and penetrates the Galaxy, given that, say, Force speed doesn't do so. If there's anything else that needs done, I think I need specifics at this point. Also, I was wondering, do you agree with the recent addition of "Infinities" to the Eras tag for the article? Because, if so, then it applies by extension to every other article in the series. I'd been leaving it out because it was not originally included on the entries for those books, nor is included on articles on subjects for things such as the LEGO Star Wars series. ProfessorTofty (talk) 01:59, November 2, 2014 (UTC)
              • Apologies for the delay. The reason why I added the Infinities tag in the eras was because the header template said so, but if it's not explicitly labeled Infinities, then go ahead and remove it.
  • You could probably expand the intro with a short mention of what the bullies did instead of leaving it at a cliffhanger.
  • No timeline established in the body. 1358 (Talk) 19:51, November 19, 2014 (UTC)
    • No biggie about the delay. Thank you for taking the time to review the article again! As for the Infinities thing-- that bit about Infinities always appears on the non-canon template. Personally, I think it needs to be removed or clarified-- "Infinities" is a branding term and not a general purpose catch-all for "non-canon." See this here. Anyway, I went ahead and added a brief bit in the intro explaining the bullying and I've modified the body to more clearly establish a timeline. ProfessorTofty (talk) 00:06, November 20, 2014 (UTC)
      • Not quite what I meant in regards to timeline; please see my next objections. 1358 (Talk) 20:16, November 30, 2014 (UTC)
  • The lead quote: The proper plural form of Padawan is Padawans, not Padawan. If this is quoted correctly, please add a [sic] tag in the quote.
  • The biography starts off a bit rushed. You could probably end the sentence after his homeworld and then talk about his loan in the next one. Also see the following objection, which has some relevance for this one.
    • Check your sourcing here. You're currently sourcing the entire first sentence of the bio to the age reference, which is obviously incorrect. Please rectify. Also note that you have two consecutive [1] references in the bio; I believe one of them should simply be removed. As an aside, I believe Naboo's location in the Mid Rim needs a separate source as well. 1358 (Talk) 12:55, December 5, 2014 (UTC)
      • Okay, those objections are handled. Better referencing for the first sentence, source for Mid Rim and no more two consecutive of the same reference. ProfessorTofty (talk) 15:48, December 5, 2014 (UTC)
  • When I said timeline, I was actually talking about the dates that we went over earlier. As it is, the Rise of the Empire era and the nice date reference is exclusive to the infobox. This needs to be in the bio as well. My suggestions is something like "Around 200 years before the Battle of Yavin[date reference goes here], Voorpee was temporarily in loan..."
  • I've added a bunch of {{Fact}} tags to the bio.
    • Number 1: Is it stated in the source that the temple was the Jedi HQ? If not, please find a source.
    • Number 2: Find an appropriate source for rank of Jedi Master. As a side note, I tweaked his context a bit.
    • Number 3: "Powerful" sounds like POV, Unless it's explicitly stated in the source that they were training under powerful Jedi, you should probably remove the word altogether.
      • I feel like the context you added is a bit unnecessary and unrelated to Voorpee. See if something like "and various other Jedi, including Mr. Garfield and Principal Mar. As a side note, should Principal Mar's article be at simply Mar? 1358 (Talk) 12:55, December 5, 2014 (UTC)
        • Regarding the first point, sure. That's done. As for the second, the character is invariably referred to as "Principal Mar." And Mar is currently a disambiguation. Still, if you really feel the article should be at "Mar," then I suppose that could be done and the current contents moved to "Mar (disambiguation)." Though, personally, I think it would be okay, similar to how we list Maul as "Darth Maul" and not simply "Maul." ProfessorTofty (talk) 15:01, December 5, 2014 (UTC)
          • I feel like Mar should indeed be at Mar (principal) or similar. 1358 (Talk) 00:29, December 26, 2014 (UTC)
            • Okay, I'll move it, though I'm still not sure exactly why, given that Maul is "Darth Maul" and not "Maul (darth)." No further objections, then, regarding anything else in the article? ProfessorTofty (talk) 19:57, December 28, 2014 (UTC)
  • You should probably move the "Arriving with the class at the beginning of the school year," to an earlier point as it's a bit confusing when you first talk about Gaiana caring about Voorpee and then suddenly mentioning Voorpee arriving.
  • More to come once these are fixed. You show good persistence in handling objections, keep it up. 1358 (Talk) 20:16, November 30, 2014 (UTC)
    • Oh, no problem. I definitely plan to keep going until we get this done and I think it'll really help me with going ahead with future good or featured articles. Anyway, I just answered one of your objections and have added "[sic]" to the quote. The rest will have to wait until I'm able to consult my copies of the books, probably sometime tomorrow. ProfessorTofty (talk) 19:09, December 2, 2014 (UTC)
      • Objections answered, I think. I've referenced Yoda being a Master; that comes straight from the Jedi Academy books. I also added context for them training under "powerful" Jedi, which I believe is fully supported by them training under Masters like Yoda and Mr. Garfield. Other objections handled. The edits did introduce one redlink, Principal Mar, which I believe is permissible under the GA rules, and heck, I'll just go ahead and create the article. ProfessorTofty (talk) 11:28, December 5, 2014 (UTC)
Manoof
  • "Using Force power..." (2nd paragraph) may need to be tweaked. What force power? (force sense?) if we don't know then it should probably just say "Using the Force..." or "Using a Force power..."
    • Since it's not really clear, I changed it to "using a Force power." ProfessorTofty (talk) 20:52, February 16, 2015 (UTC)
  • "Roan thought that he might have used the Force to figure out what happened." you might want to specify it was Yoda who may have used the force as it is a bit ambiguous.
    • Changed to read "thought that Yoda might have..." ProfessorTofty (talk) 20:52, February 16, 2015 (UTC)
  • You have a picture of vorpee in gammy's kitchen, but there is no mention of this in the article. I'd recommend removing that image. Manoof (talk) 10:06, February 16, 2015 (UTC)
    • It's the only color image of the character available and the fact that no such scene is described in the book is the reason I specifically put the image in the "Behind the scenes" section and not somewhere in the plot summary or anywhere else like that. But if you absolutely feel it shouldn't be there, I'll remove it. ProfessorTofty (talk) 20:52, February 16, 2015 (UTC)
      • Personally I'd probably remove one of the last 3 images, the last bit of the article seems image heavy but it's up to you (hence why I've struck this). Manoof (talk) 10:07, February 17, 2015 (UTC)
Floyd
  • I don't think you need the subsections in the bio. When there's only one paragraph for one, you could probably just dump them altogether.
    • Hmm, well, I'm trying to follow standard format, but alright. I removed them. ProfessorTofty (talk) 03:50, February 28, 2015 (UTC)
      • Usually for GA-length articles you aren't gonna need them. The bios are going to be short enough that they don't need to be subdivided for readability. IFYLOFD (Talk) 05:22, February 28, 2015 (UTC)
  • Secondly: image placement. I'd advise you take out the last image of Voorpee in the kitchen—such a short article doesn't really need that many images, especially having two right up against each other like that.
    • I still really hate to lose the only color image, but okay, it's done. ProfessorTofty (talk) 03:50, February 28, 2015 (UTC)
  • Dump the ampersands, we don't use those.
  • Roan, at least, I know has a last name—use that instead of his first.
    • Feels kinda odd to refer to everyone else by first names but use a last name for just one character, but that's done, except for those instances where I've used his full name. ProfessorTofty (talk) 03:50, February 28, 2015 (UTC)
      • Yeah, that's standard procedure. Last names always, except when there are multiple people floating around with the same one. IFYLOFD (Talk) 05:22, February 28, 2015 (UTC)
  • Sorry you had to wait forever for people to review this. This isn't bad for a first go-around, keep at it. IFYLOFD (Talk) 01:59, February 27, 2015 (UTC)
    • No biggie - thank you for reviewing it now! ProfessorTofty (talk) 03:50, February 28, 2015 (UTC)

Comments

  • Also, just FYI, as this is your first nomination, I'm going to be more "harsh" in my review. Some of the objections are things I'd normally fix in my copy-edit, but it's probably for the better if you go through them and fix the issues so that you know what's expected from a GAN. In addition, it's a good idea to go through the edit history of the article and look at the copy-edits other people do. The changes will give you a good idea of what's expected from a GAN. 1358 (Talk) 11:28, October 26, 2014 (UTC)
  • So I guess Xd and I have sort of been collaborating on this, but seeing as he's just gone away for six months, could someone else come in on this? I think things are close here. As far as I know, all of the outstanding objections have been answered, but if anyone else has any, I'd be happy to fix them. ProfessorTofty (talk) 11:51, January 8, 2015 (UTC)
    • Do not worry, ecks will be here this weekend. I will review this too soon. Winterz (talk) 17:20, January 12, 2015 (UTC)


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)

(1 ACs/3 Users/4 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)

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)

Comments

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


17

  • Nominated by: Manoof (talk) 05:22, January 13, 2015 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: 2nd nom

(2 ACs/1 Users/3 Total)

Support

  1. 501st dogma(talk) 02:53, January 23, 2015 (UTC)
  2. ACvote Sir Cavalier of OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 13:13, March 16, 2015 (UTC)
  3. ACvote Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 22:04, March 16, 2015 (UTC)

Object

501st
  • " 17 and 35 then joined two other clone troopers in defending a barricade from Confederate B1 battle droids." You're lacking mention of how Boss was with them here. I know you later say Boss was with them, but make sure you do it right away. 501st dogma(talk) 14:06, January 17, 2015 (UTC)
    • How's that? Manoof (talk) 09:03, January 18, 2015 (UTC)
Toprawa
  • Is this sentence really that critical for the intro? It doesn't have anything directly to do with 17 and is kind of extraneous. "One of the troopers died in the attack, while the other survived."
    • Not critical at all. Removed. Manoof (talk) 22:09, March 15, 2015 (UTC)
  • I removed two of the BTS sentences because they were highly trivial and not really necessary. Concerning the second sentence about 17 saying "commandos," are we sure that's really an error, or is he indeed just referring to the commandos in general? Because it seems like that sentence can easily go as well if it's not exactly a mistake. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 18:48, March 15, 2015 (UTC)
    • Regarding your removal of the reference to the guide, I was under the impression that all sources/appearances had to be mentioned in the BTS (I think from this nomination)? The quote included previously is exactly how it is said in the game, so "Hey look, commandos..." should probably have been "Hey look, a commando..." This happens as soon as you come across the troopers. It was also suggested in the previous nomination to add note this in the BTS. Manoof (talk) 22:09, March 15, 2015 (UTC)
      • There's no policy or precedent that says every source has to be mentioned in the BTS. If anything, our precedent is to do the exact opposite. The BTS only needs to mention sources that introduce new information or otherwise expand greatly upon a subject's history. It's very unnecessary to mention sources that indirectly mention something. And regarding the commandos, I don't see this as an error. I think it's clear that 17 and Three-Five are intending to reference a group of approaching commandos (plural), who apparently are off-screen, and that Boss is just a part of an arriving group. I would suggest removing that last BTS sentence, since it's really just kind of trivial either way. There's no definitive error there. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 00:15, March 16, 2015 (UTC)
        • Ah, gotcha. Removed. Manoof (talk) 04:57, March 16, 2015 (UTC)
  • This final objection is certainly a sofixit, but I'm leaving it here to raise awareness with you for this kind of thing. Please look at the title for the Notes and references section. It currently says "Notes & References." That's horribly wrong. We neither use ampersands nor capitalize "References." It should be "Notes and references." Please revise and pay attention to this for future nominations. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 16:10, March 16, 2015 (UTC)
    • Wow, don't know how that happened... Thanks Tope, I'll definitely keep an eye out on that in future. Manoof (talk) 20:55, March 16, 2015 (UTC)
Exiled Jedi
  • Does the game use the names DC-15S blaster and Phase I clone trooper armor?
    • No, they are visually identified compared to other sources which name them, the duck test I believe it's called? I thought the reference was fine, since although the game doesn't identify them, they are what they are? To reference it do I instead say something like "Although Republic Commando doesn't identify the blaster or armor, they are visually identical to the DC-15S blaster and Phase I clone trooper armor, as identified in [source]", splitting it into two references if two separate sources? Manoof (talk) 00:36, March 17, 2015 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I would reference the names in a manner similar to this.--Exiled Jedi Oldrepublic crest (Greetings) 03:25, March 17, 2015 (UTC)
        • On second thought, just use a double reference for them with one ref being the game and the other being the source with the name. <ref name="RC" /><ref name="Name source">''[[Name source]]''</ref>--Exiled Jedi Oldrepublic crest (Greetings) 03:32, March 17, 2015 (UTC)
          • Hmmm, struggling to find a source that names either one, nothing I have names them specifically (best I have names the blaster as a DC-15 blaster, rather than the DC-15S)... Will get in contact with people who have the other sources and see what can be found... Manoof (talk) 07:06, March 20, 2015 (UTC)
            • The only source that calls it DC-15S and identifies it visually is the Revenge of the Sith Visual Dictionary. That's your source. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 02:02, March 23, 2015 (UTC)
              • Awesome, does it also specify the clone armor as Phase 1? If I change it to just "clone trooper armor" and pipelink it, is that ok instead? Manoof (talk) 06:19, March 23, 2015 (UTC)
                • Correct, to answer your first question. To answer your second, it's not my objection, but that would not satisfy the issue for me. You're still asserting Phase I armor even if you're pipelinking. Looking through these sources to find this information is about as easy as going through everything in the DC-15S and now the Phase I Sources lists. It took me about 15 minutes to do the first one, which makes me wonder how much effort you actually put into it after saying you struggled to find a source. If you don't have access to sources and are unable to satisfy this objection by yourself, say so, and other people will likely be able to help you. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 16:04, March 23, 2015 (UTC)
                  • Sorry, thats kind of what I meant about struggling. I'll make sure to make it clear I don't have access to those sources. Thanks heaps again Tope! Manoof (talk) 03:50, March 24, 2015 (UTC)
          • Thanks to Tope, this is now referenced as you suggested. Manoof (talk) 03:50, March 24, 2015 (UTC)
  • You use both Three-Five and 35 to refer to the other clone. Are both correct?
  • I just want to make sure that the game refers to this guy as "17" while also referring to the other guy as "Three-Five." It just seems odd that there would be a difference.--Exiled Jedi Oldrepublic crest (Greetings) 23:08, March 16, 2015 (UTC)
  • Please see my first objection on Three-Five and correct as necessary.--Exiled Jedi Oldrepublic crest (Greetings) 23:22, March 16, 2015 (UTC)

Comments

  • At the moment Three-Five redirects. I will be moving 35 (Geonosis) to that page as he is referred to as "Three-Five" in the audio, and only "35" in the subtitles. I have thus put a conjecture tag at the top of this page, instead of the callsign. Manoof (talk) 05:22, January 13, 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks to EJ who did the move for me when I wasn't looking. Manoof (talk) 09:55, January 13, 2015 (UTC)


Three-Five

  • Nominated by: Manoof (talk) 10:10, January 13, 2015 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments:2nd nom (1st under "35" pseudonym)

(2 ACs/1 Users/3 Total)

Support

  1. ACvote IFYLOFD (Talk) 01:55, January 29, 2015 (UTC)
  2. 501st dogma(talk) 13:14, February 25, 2015 (UTC)
  3. ACvote Sir Cavalier of OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 13:11, March 16, 2015 (UTC)

Object

Floyd
  • "and outwardly cheered RC-1138 when he approached." If the main quote is his only line, I'd say this is a bit misleading. He doesn't seem to be actually cheering, he's sort of just remarking on their rumored skill. IFYLOFD (Talk) 03:39, January 17, 2015 (UTC)
    • The outwardly cheering is reference to his throwing his first up in the air and waving it, physically cheering. Not sure how to phrase that though to clarify... Manoof (talk) 08:56, January 18, 2015 (UTC)
      • OK then, that's fine. Sorry I forgot about this. IFYLOFD (Talk) 01:55, January 29, 2015 (UTC)
501st
  • In the intro, you have the droids getting pushed back to a gun emplacement, while the body has it as a bunker. Which is correct? 501st dogma(talk) 17:41, February 24, 2015 (UTC)
    • Advisor describes it as a gun emplacement, and it looks like a bunker. Changed to gun emplacement to be safe. Manoof (talk) 07:28, February 25, 2015 (UTC)
Exiled Jedi
  • The ordering of events at the barricade seems slightly different between this article and the body of 17. 17's article seems to have Boss, 17, and 35 join up with the other two clones, while this article has Boss meet up with the other clones at the barricade. Which is correct?
    • Technically speaking, both. You walk down a corridor, with a large room. 17 and 35 are on the entrance to the room, the other two troopers inside. The barricade is at the other end of the room. You therefore meet 17 and 35, then all proceed into the room where the other trooper says something and the fourth trooper is at the bacta station. 17 and 35 shoot through the barricade while he talks, before he joins them. When he joins them, and Boss walks further into the room, the fourth trooper stands near a wall which explodes, killing him and unleashing more droids. They're defeated then all survivors (including 35) continue on... Not sure what to do Manoof (talk) 00:48, March 17, 2015 (UTC)
      • Just try and keep the chronology of who they meet up with straight. If they meet up with Boss first, then you should state it that way. From your description of the fight, 17's article appears to have things correct for this. I would try and write this section of the article similarly, but using different words and structure to keep it from being a copy.--Exiled Jedi Oldrepublic crest (Greetings) 03:17, March 17, 2015 (UTC)
        • How's that? Manoof (talk) 08:09, March 17, 2015 (UTC)
  • From the picture, I think you can add an equipment section.
    • Since it'll be similar to 17's, I'll just wait till I can reference it per your objection there :) Manoof (talk) 07:12, March 20, 2015 (UTC)
    • I've added the section, it's just pending a resolution on the armor source. Manoof (talk) 06:24, March 23, 2015 (UTC)
    • AAaaand done :) Manoof (talk) 03:53, March 24, 2015 (UTC)
  • The bio does not clearly state whether Three-Five survived or not.--Exiled Jedi Oldrepublic crest (Greetings) 23:22, March 16, 2015 (UTC)
    • After the gun emplacement is taken out, we don't know as Boss continues, leaving the troopers behind. I've clarified to mirror 17's article. Manoof (talk) 00:48, March 17, 2015 (UTC)

Comments

Rikal Stargunner

  • Nominated by: Trip391 (talk) 08:05, January 15, 2015 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments:

(1 ACs/2 Users/3 Total)

Support

  1. The RPG template probably only needs to be on the last part of the bio involving the players, but I'll leave it up to you. Ayrehead02 (talk) 10:54, January 29, 2015 (UTC)
  2. Manoof (talk) 23:16, March 10, 2015 (UTC)
  3. ACvote Sir Cavalier of OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 23:34, March 23, 2015 (UTC)

Object

Ayrehead
  • A RPG template is needed in the body as its assumed the players accept the job. Ayrehead02 (talk) 10:10, January 15, 2015 (UTC)
    • Actually, I don't think this is necessary. The adventure only has them doing the job, and doesn't really give them a choice. The only things that could be changed by player choice are what they know about some of the npcs involved (not Rikal or Ungassan). The only choice they can really make about Rikal and Ungassan is about their fates after the fight in Juaka Canyon, and I refer to that in the Bts.
      • In an RPG though players can do anything, they could immediately kill Stargunner upon seeing him for the first time. I've had players do it in sessions I've run. In general as soon as players are introduced in the body I think an the RPG template is needed. Ayrehead02 (talk) 20:33, January 15, 2015 (UTC)
        • I've added it, though I still don't really think it applies here
  • He can have a personality and traits section and an equipment section based on his roleplaying stats. Ayrehead02 (talk) 10:10, January 15, 2015 (UTC)
    • Snow Job doesn't give Rikal any stats, but referred to him as a general elite trooper (soldier 4). Is the information in the Star Wars Roleplaying Game Revised Core Rulebook applicable for Rikal?
      • If it says use the stats from that book then I would think so. Ayrehead02 (talk) 20:33, January 15, 2015 (UTC)
        • Added his equipment per Revised Core Rulebook Trip391 (talk) 03:55, January 29, 2015 (UTC)
  • The intro should include a little more detail about the fight. Ayrehead02 (talk) 10:10, January 15, 2015 (UTC)
501st
  • I believe that the RPG header should be moved further down into the body, where the players are introduced. The players have no control over things that happened before they get there.
    • Done
  • Intro could maybe use a tad bit of beefing up. It's looking a little short at the moment. 501st dogma(talk) 03:29, March 4, 2015 (UTC)
    • Added a bit more Trip391 (talk) 06:13, March 4, 2015 (UTC)
    • Objection(s) overridden by AgriCorps 03:03, March 16, 2015 (UTC)
Manoof
  • Context on Vonium. You say it's valuable, but is it a mineral, metal, crystal...? Manoof (talk) 07:48, March 9, 2015 (UTC)
    • It's a metal; added
  • You should specify before using CSA that you are talking about the corporate sector authority. Manoof (talk) 07:48, March 9, 2015 (UTC)
    • Done
  • I'd recommend you change "sources of vonium" to "deposits of vonium" or something similar, but this one's up to you. Manoof (talk) 07:48, March 9, 2015 (UTC)
    • Changed
  • I'm not 100% on this, but should the second ref specify that Snow Job says Stargunner uses the stats of the general elite trooper (soldier 4), which are found in the core rulebook, rather than just the core (since I assume it doesnt have his stats by name)? Manoof (talk) 07:48, March 9, 2015 (UTC)
Cav
  • To do this, Ungasan planned to host a new event, the Ungasan Cross Country, had the Twi'lek Podracer Ree acquire scanning equipment from Geon Justic of the Elesa Mining Union in exchange for CSA merchandise, and had the scanning equipment attached to Podracers to scan for deposits of Vonium during the new event. - the middle part of this sentence doesn't flow from the first. Also, I would consider breaking it up for clarity. - Sir Cavalier of OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 13:04, March 16, 2015 (UTC)
    • Reworded a bit Trip391 (talk) 17:44, March 16, 2015 (UTC)

Comments

Barefoot Squadron

  • Nominated by: 501st dogma(talk) 19:55, January 20, 2015 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: A short GAN at 270 words. To explain the infobox's triple reference, Ylesia + Way are needed to confirm that the squadron was formed in 28 ABY, while ERC is needed for the exact date

(2 ACs/4 Users/6 Total)

Support

  1. JorrelWiki-shrinkableFraajic 21:13, January 20, 2015 (UTC)
  2. If I could go barefoot all the time, I would. But apparently that's not "socially acceptable". Icon_rolleyes.gif —MJ— Jedi Council Chambers 19:26, January 21, 2015 (UTC)
  3. Ayrehead02 (talk) 12:50, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
  4. ACvote IFYLOFD (Talk) 01:38, January 30, 2015 (UTC)
  5. Manoof (talk) 11:51, February 21, 2015 (UTC)
  6. ACvote Sir Cavalier of OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 23:36, March 23, 2015 (UTC)

Object

From the Council Chambers:
  • The triple reference is confusing. Can you please squash it into a single explanatory reference that details how those three sources interact to provide the date?
    • That should do it.
  • Normally I'd fix this myself, but I'm going to object this time so you know to watch out for it: the curly apostrophes in the quotes are a major no-no. They should be changed to standard, straight apostrophes. This is something that you always have to watch out for when copying and pasting.
    • Didn't even know apostrophes could get so curly. Killed.
  • Otherwise, good job. I found nothing to change in my attempt at a copy-edit, besides the apostrophe issue. —MJ— War Room 20:16, January 20, 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the review. 501st dogma(talk) 20:46, January 20, 2015 (UTC)
  • Your new reference leaves me concerned here. Do we know for sure that Barefoot Squadron was formed as part of this initiative to pair rookies with veterans? Right now, the wording sounds as if your assuming based on circumstantial evidence, and one piece of circumstantial evidence alone isn't enough for us the last time I checked. We need an explicit connection. If this is an assumption, then the date needs to go, along with mentions of this initiative, and that may kick this straight back to CAN. Also, if we do have explicit confirmation of being part of this initiative, then do we know that the initiative started actually in 28 ABY, or does the book leave it open to the possibility that it started earlier than that? If it's possible that it started earlier, then the date again needs to go. —MJ— Training Room 06:39, January 21, 2015 (UTC)
    • Since the author wrote both of Ylesia and Way, then it's extremely likely that it was formed then, as there is a lot of talk about rookies in Ylesia. However, it's possible that it wasn't, so the note's been changed. The bio as is should be good, because it doesn't directly say it was one of those squadrons, and that it was only formed at a time where the New Republic was mixing things up. Veila fought at Borleias before taking command as squadron leader, meaning it was formed 27 ABY to 28 ABY, so that's the new date note; coincidentally, the new squadrons were also formed after Borleias according to Way. 501st dogma(talk) 13:22, January 21, 2015 (UTC)
Cav
  • In the intro you state the squadron was formed in 28 ABY, but the body says between 27 ABY and 28 ABY. The definite statement from the intro probably needs to be changed to "around 28 ABY," or the body should reflect the intro.
    • Good catch, remedied.
  • Since they appear in Ylesia, is there any indication they participated in the Battle of Ylesia (28 ABY)? - Sir Cavalier of OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 12:59, March 16, 2015 (UTC)
    • Not that I could find when I searched the source when writing this. Tahiri participates, but that alone does not mean that the Barefoots are there. Thanks for the review. 501st dogma(talk) 20:29, March 18, 2015 (UTC)

Comments

  • I fixed an instance of "that" --> "than" in the second quote, but I can't verify that it's not wrong in the book. If it is "that", [sic] 'em. JorrelWiki-shrinkableFraajic 21:13, January 20, 2015 (UTC)
    • Seem's it actually that. Siced. 501st dogma(talk) 21:39, January 20, 2015 (UTC)


Vizam/Canon

  • Nominated by: Ayrehead02 (talk) 12:29, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: My first nomination from the films! This might take a while.

(0 ACs/1 Users/1 Total)

Support

  1. Manoof (talk) 20:10, February 22, 2015 (UTC)

Object

Manoof
  • There's several redirects on the page.
    • I didn't realise we'd merged those pages, fixed. Ayrehead02 (talk) 12:56, February 21, 2015 (UTC)
  • A few things missing context - Nikto in the bio (as a species) and Jabba in the infobox (as a hutt) as examples. [User:Manoof|Manoof]] (talk) 12:05, February 21, 2015 (UTC)
    • Done, although context generally isn't needed for infobox. Ayrehead02 (talk) 12:56, February 21, 2015 (UTC)
  • Could we get a year for the CCG in the BTS?
  • Just had a look and it appears Vizam is on the cover of Rescue from Jabba's Palace which won't be released till the end of April. I'm not sure if it's ok to add that as an appearance due to his being on the cover, but thought I'd let you know. Manoof (talk) 22:49, February 21, 2015 (UTC)
    • Is there an alternate cover? The one we have on our article has Kithaba and Pagetti Rook on it with two Gamorreans, but I can't see Vizam anywhere. I'll be certain to check the book once it actually comes out though don't worry. Ayrehead02 (talk) 10:10, February 22, 2015 (UTC)
      • My mistake, I didn't look close enough ^^' Manoof (talk) 20:10, February 22, 2015 (UTC)
Exiled Jedi
  • You could probably mention in the P&T about him going to watch Oola being devoured by the Rancor.
  • I don't think the movie identifies the pistol as a DL-18.
    • Referenced to the Rebels visual guide. Ayrehead02 (talk) 10:10, February 22, 2015 (UTC)
  • Similarly, are the laser cannon and skiff identified as such in the movie?
    • Referenced skiff to 100 scenes, as for laser cannon I was just using it as a generic term based on appearance, should I change it to blaster turret or something? Ayrehead02 (talk) 10:10, February 22, 2015 (UTC)
      • Hmmm, I'm going to ask around about the laser cannon question.--Exiled Jedi Oldrepublic crest (Greetings) 20:39, March 15, 2015 (UTC)
  • Do we know that he was trying to hit Calrissian from the movie?
    • You see Vizam place the gun, then it cuts to Calrissian and Vizam fires, hitting very close to Calrissian. Given that the other Rebels are all at the complete opposite end of the skiff, Calrissian seems like the only obvious target but I can remove it if that doesn't seem like enough. Ayrehead02 (talk) 10:10, February 22, 2015 (UTC)
  • Does Star Wars Costumes: The Original Trilogy provide in-universe information? I want to make sure that the information about his costume isn't all out-of-universe.
    • This was something I debated with myself for a while. The source is an out of universe description of the costume, but I've included the terms like kimono and tabard as they are more accurate to a source then if I just said shirt, since that would be based on anything other than how it looks. I can change it if you'd prefer but I'm not sure what I'd change it too except for saying something like garments. Ayrehead02 (talk) 10:10, February 22, 2015 (UTC)
      • If the source does not use those terms in an in-universe fashion, I do not believe they should be used in the main body. You could mention the specific real-world terms in the BTS though.--Exiled Jedi Oldrepublic crest (Greetings) 20:39, March 15, 2015 (UTC)
        • Ok, I've moved the clothing entirely to the bts and left it out of the body. Should I still add anything to the body about clothes? It seems redundant given the bts detail.Ayrehead02 (talk) 10:51, March 19, 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure if Aveleyman counts as a reliable source. You can probably include this information if you have the actor information in its own sentence and say something like: "According to the fan website Aveleyman..."
    • I wouldn't even say that at all, and would look for more reputable sites that mention Paul Weston was Vizam, or autographs in that regard. I don't consider Aveleyman reputable unless it has comparison photos of the actors and characters (wouldn't apply to Vizam). I feel the same with IMDB. Hanzo Hasashi (talk) 23:38, February 21, 2015 (UTC)
      • All right, if that's the case, then another source should be found.--Exiled Jedi Oldrepublic crest (Greetings) 23:41, February 21, 2015 (UTC)
        • I've changed it to directly mention aveleyman in behind the scenes for now, but if it isn't allowed as a reference at all then quite a few other status articles need to be changed. Spending just a minute or two looking I've already found that Hurst Romodi and Sim Aloo reference Aveleyman and Lorth Needa and Romas Navander reference IMDB. There are also certainly others. Ayrehead02 (talk) 10:10, February 22, 2015 (UTC)
          • Romodi and Sim's Aveleyman actor pages also have pictures of the actors attributed to playing them, and it is a duck test case with those two. And the IMDB ones should be changed. For both the latter two, I know that there are plenty of other more reputable sites to source that info. Hanzo Hasashi (talk) 16:08, February 22, 2015 (UTC)
            • A quick Google search will show that there are other sites which include Paul Weston autographing pictures of Vizam, those should be used instead of Aveleyman. Please find at least one of those. And the problem with IMDB and Aveleyman is they are both fan-edited and might not always be accurate. Take Bolvan and Hija on Aveleyman. It appears John Forgeham, who was previously thought, and even thought of himself as Hija, was in fact confirmed to be Bolvan, while Hija was in fact played by John Wreford. But Aveleyman says Bolvan was played by David Fennell (don't know how, and failed to see anything outside Aveleyman mentioning that), and still says Forgeham played Hija. As for IMDB, I know in the past it listed Cy Town as a stormtrooper in ANH, when in fact Cy Town was said to have never been a stormtrooper. I see that's no longer there, but what we can clearly see is that unverified info can make it onto both sites. Hanzo Hasashi (talk) 16:25, February 22, 2015 (UTC)
              • Upon looking more carefully, it appears here that Paul Weston only mentioned playing Vedain in RotJ, and that was it. It also appears that he's autographed Lathe's CCG card too, but that can't be really him. I'll leave you to interpret that interview, and if you come to the same conclusion that Paul Weston couldn't have been Vizam, please check linking pages to get rid of anything else claiming that to be the case. Hanzo Hasashi (talk) 16:36, February 22, 2015 (UTC)
                • Good catch, your definitely right he pretty clear states he didn't play anyone else. I'll remove the info and just leave it as an uncredited extra. Just to be clear I was happy to change the reference from aveley as well, but just wanted to point out that this might be an issue that needs addressing beyond the scope of this nomination. Ayrehead02 (talk) 17:19, February 22, 2015 (UTC)
  • Could you add release years for Episode VI and the Decipher set?
  • There seems to be a lot of context in the article than information that pertains to Vizam. I know a lot of this is necessary to knowing what is going on, but think it could be condensed slightly.--Exiled Jedi Oldrepublic crest (Greetings) 23:36, February 21, 2015 (UTC)
    • I've cut down the bit about Boushh, but other than that I'm struggling to find stuff to remove. Are they any other parts in particular you'd cut? Ayrehead02 (talk) 10:10, February 22, 2015 (UTC)
      • The first paragraph does not really have a lot of information related to the character and could condensed some to just give the important details. The stuff where he is just there watching could probably be pared down slightly as well. my next objection fits into this as well.--Exiled Jedi Oldrepublic crest (Greetings) 20:39, March 15, 2015 (UTC)
        • Cut down the first paragraph and merged it with the second. Ayrehead02 (talk) 10:51, March 19, 2015 (UTC)
  • There is also a lot of play-by-play information that needs to be cut down. You need to talk about the events related to the character, but the wording should be condensed.--Exiled Jedi Oldrepublic crest (Greetings) 20:39, March 15, 2015 (UTC)
    • Ok I've severely cut down the body to remove play by play and unnecessary info. Is it better now? Ayrehead02 (talk) 10:51, March 19, 2015 (UTC)
Hanzo
  • I'm going to make a formal preliminary objection to actually look through the pages that link to Vizam and get rid of the misinformation about Paul Weston playing the character. While this might be a sofixit, I have seen in the past you made the mistake of not checking pages linking to Grunda Dolma to make sure there was nothing else mentioning the character's unconfirmed death. This seems to be a common oversight for Wookieepedians, but I think more vigilant measures should be taken when working on an article, particularly one that had unverified info at any point that has the tendency to spread to other articles on the site. Hanzo Hasashi (talk) 01:46, February 23, 2015 (UTC)
    • Removed it from the Paul Weston page and couldn't find it anywhere else. Also weirdly the Kensaric page claims Weston played that character as well. Ayrehead02 (talk) 02:16, February 23, 2015 (UTC)
      • Okay good. Yeah I worked on the Kensaric article, and I added that thing myself from seeing his autograph. The difference is, though, that Kensaric was among the strike team members who, from what I could tell, was never in the film itself. Thus I find no contradiction with Paul Weston's words that he played no other role in the film. He just simply wore a commando outfit onset, but was never actually filmed in that outfit. Hanzo Hasashi (talk) 04:51, February 23, 2015 (UTC)

Comments

  • I've checked through the various behind the scenes books and couldn't find any information pertaining to Vizam. Ayrehead02 (talk) 12:29, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
  • Gender has been left out of the article since I'm not sure if based on current canon information we can tell a Nikto's gender based on appearance. To be honest there's barely even any female Nikto in legends. Ayrehead02 (talk) 12:29, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
  • Updated for Star Wars Costumes: The Original Trilogy. Ayrehead02 (talk) 07:34, February 3, 2015 (UTC)
    • That appears to confirm he's male. If so, please update accordingly. If you don't think Phil Tippett's word is solid enough proof, then get rid of the gendered pronouns and either way don't make these careless mistakes again. Hanzo Hasashi (talk) 19:30, February 5, 2015 (UTC)
      • The text in the book does not refer to Vizam or Wooof specifically as male, always calling the character just "this Nikto" or something similar. The quote given is in reference to the production process of the Nikto and Wooof costumes in general, and so doesn't necessarily show Vizam's gender. Gendered pronouns removed. Ayrehead02 (talk) 23:27, February 5, 2015 (UTC)
  • Note: After rewatching the intro for the dozenth time I've noticed another appearance which I somehow previously missed and have added it to the bio accordingly. Ayrehead02 (talk) 14:09, February 21, 2015 (UTC)


Crispus Commons

  • Nominated by: ProfessorTofty (talk) 02:29, January 23, 2015 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: I had actually intended to reply to the remaining objections yesterday, but I got distracted and then today the original nomination was closed like snap for them not being answered... so, yeah. To review, the unaswered objections were as follows, along with my responses that I'm adding, having edited the article. The objections listed were all by Ayrehead:


  • You still effectively say that Clone Wars veterans got sent their twice in the same sentence. I'd include the context for the war immediately after you mention it.
    • I have reworded this so that, as far as I can tell, the described problems no longer exist. ProfessorTofty (talk) 02:29, January 23, 2015 (UTC)
  • The extra detail on the shelter is good, but you need to mention when he actually returns to it and Hera finds him (if I'm remembering the details correctly).
  • I think the first sentence of the bts now needs to be split.


If anyone needs to see it, the original nomination and the objections/answers are here. ProfessorTofty (talk) 02:29, January 23, 2015 (UTC)

(0 ACs/4 Users/4 Total)

Support

  1. Ayrehead02 (talk) 20:03, March 17, 2015 (UTC)
  2. Brandon Rhea(talk) 20:57, March 17, 2015 (UTC)
  3. Manoof (talk) 04:22, March 18, 2015 (UTC)
  4. 501st dogma(talk) 17:16, March 18, 2015 (UTC)

Object

501st
  • "Later, Skelly revisited there to meet with Hera Syndulla..." Is "there" the apartment, or the shelter, as you go on to say that Syndulla notices what he has in the shelter.
    • Edited, and also corrected to clarify that it was actually Hera who had tracked him there, a detail I'm afraid I missed before. ProfessorTofty (talk) 23:30, February 25, 2015 (UTC)
  • Last sentence of the Description is more appropriate in the History, ideally before you say that Skelly cleans the mold out.
    • I'm not sure what you mean. The final two sentences of the Description tie into each other, and I don't see how the bit about Dooku relates to Skelly and cleaning out the mold. ProfessorTofty (talk) 23:30, February 25, 2015 (UTC)
      • That sentence is purely history stuff, so it should go in the history, not the description. You'll have to reword if of course though, to make it fit.
        • Moved and reworded, I think it should work now. ProfessorTofty (talk) 04:01, February 28, 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not really seeing the necessity of having the last sentence of the BTS, as Skelly's living in the Commons is already covered by the body. Kill it please.
  • You have a back to back referencing to [1] in the Description. Please kill the first one, as you only need a single there.
    • Okay, that's done. ProfessorTofty (talk) 23:30, February 25, 2015 (UTC)
      • Good, but I'm seeing a back-back ref to 3 in the BtS now (I might have just missed it before).
  • According to our quote policies, you cannot use the current lead quote as a quote, as it is the character thinking something, and not actually saying it. 501st dogma(talk) 20:53, February 22, 2015 (UTC)
    • Ouch. That kinda stings, as I like that quote. Alright, though, done, and moved to the end of the quote in Behind the scenes, though I may go back to the audiobook and record the entire thing so it can be a sound file again. Is a quote needed at the beginning, then? Because I really can't find anything else that anyone specifically says about the apartments. ProfessorTofty (talk) 23:30, February 25, 2015 (UTC)
      • If nothing fits, then don't put in a quote. It's like that sometimes with articles, and you end up not having any appropriate quotes. 501st dogma(talk) 17:14, February 26, 2015 (UTC)
  • There should be some connection made between Dooku and Grievous and the Seperatists in the History.
    • Explained that Grievous was the Separatist military commander and Dooku the political leader. ProfessorTofty (talk) 03:44, March 2, 2015 (UTC)
  • The intro is a tad short in comparison to the rest of the article. It could use at least one additional sentence.
    • Added a sentence describing the various features of Crispus Commons. ProfessorTofty (talk) 03:44, March 2, 2015 (UTC)
  • Since you're sourcing most of the BtS, you should source that last part of the last sentence. 501st dogma(talk) 13:56, March 1, 2015 (UTC)
  • It seems your BTS quote is unsourced. 501st dogma(talk) 03:19, March 4, 2015 (UTC)
    • Coding problem-- happened when I transferred the material from the top. Fixed. ProfessorTofty (talk) 03:27, March 4, 2015 (UTC)
Manoof
  • The last few brackets of the infobox need to be on the same line as the last attribute. I've changed it here but keep in mind for future Manoof (talk) 09:59, March 13, 2015 (UTC)
  • The second sentence of the intro gives the impression that Skelly is the only resident. Maybe change it from "It was the residence of Skelly, a demolitions..." to something like "One of the residents, Skelly, was a demolitions..." Manoof (talk) 09:59, March 13, 2015 (UTC)
  • "When Skelly attacked Count Vidian trying to draw attention to mining activity Skelly felt could lead to Cynda's destruction..." needs rewording or event splitting that entire sentence into two. You'll notice I cut out the efficiency expert part in the dashes, from my understanding (and I admit I may be wrong) this is like an interjection in the sentence, which continues as normal after. Splitting it might be a better option just for readability. Manoof (talk) 09:59, March 13, 2015 (UTC)
  • The attribution for the quote seems strange, in that Skelly references himself in his own thoughts? Manoof (talk) 09:59, March 13, 2015 (UTC)
    • I changed it to something more general. Better? ProfessorTofty (talk) 10:10, March 15, 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not 100% on this, but it might be worth mentioning Rebels was released in 2014 as well. Manoof (talk) 09:59, March 13, 2015 (UTC)
  • You mention A New Dawn was released in hard cover. The focus on this sentence is on the fact it is hardcover. You could combine that with the previous sentence, something like "Miller, which was published on September 2, 2014 in hardcover." This takes the focus off hardcover and puts it back on the date. Otherwise I'd recommend including a release date for the paperback edition. Manoof (talk) 09:59, March 13, 2015 (UTC)
    • Took your first suggestion and combined it. ProfessorTofty (talk) 10:10, March 15, 2015 (UTC)

Comments

Wookiee dual missile turret

  • Nominated by: Manoof (talk) 02:02, January 28, 2015 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: from CA, double checked against policies

(1 ACs/1 Users/2 Total)

Support

  1. 501st dogma(talk) 01:41, February 4, 2015 (UTC)
  2. ACvote IFYLOFD (Talk) 02:22, February 15, 2015 (UTC)

Object

501st
  • The part about the turret being used in the Clone Wars does not belong in the description. That's history stuff. Likewise with the Trandoshan and Separatist stuff.
    • Moved Manoof (talk) 10:10, January 30, 2015 (UTC)
      • After the move, you're sourcing the entirety of the first sentence to 5, which is incorrect.
        • There was another ref in there
  • It would probably be good to clarify that Kashyyyk was the homeworld of the Wookiees.
  • Infobox: I don't believe the protection field needs to have the Trandoshan and CIS part, as the turret would work against any aerial attack. Just aerial assaults will suffice.
  • GAR, and the Special operations brigade needs to be mentioned in the body, as you have it in the infobox. 501st dogma(talk) 19:50, January 29, 2015 (UTC)
    • Done Manoof (talk) 10:10, January 30, 2015 (UTC)
      • You're sourcing the Special Operations Brigade to 2 in the body, while it's sourced to 3 in the infobox. 501st dogma(talk) 19:40, January 31, 2015 (UTC)
        • Looks like I forgot the referencing when I rewrote that section. Done Manoof (talk) 08:56, February 1, 2015 (UTC)
          • Now you're sourcing GAR and Delta to 3, which isn't appropriate as the note for 3 pertains only to the Special Operations Brigade. 501st dogma(talk) 17:28, February 1, 2015 (UTC)
            • I see what I did there :/ Should be fixed now... Manoof (talk) 05:52, February 2, 2015 (UTC)
Floyd
  • Missing punctuation in the intro quote.
    • Fixed.
  • Are we sure that we can say it's even indirectly mentioned in Order 66? It seems like it just replaces it entirely—that's not an indirect mention, that's a continuity incongruity. IFYLOFD (Talk) 02:32, February 13, 2015 (UTC)
    • Given the differences in physical description as well as the method of fire (turbolaser vs missiles), I'm happy to change it. Not sure if all mention of the book should go, or if a short sentence should be left in the BTS section. I've removed it as an appearance and reworded the BTS in case it stays. Manoof (talk) 10:44, February 14, 2015 (UTC)
Cav
  • I don't think you need the multiple affiliations in the infobox at all; if the weapons were only co-opted by Delta Squad during their deployment, then the weapons aren't really affiliated with them. They only really borrowed what was on hand. I would reduce it to simply "Wookiees."
    • Removed Delta squad's branch in affiliation, and mention of the GAR and SOB. I've kept the republic as an affiliation, since the wookiees were affiliated with the republic. Is that ok? Manoof (talk) 01:08, March 17, 2015 (UTC)
  • "Wookiee turret crafters" appears to be a distinct occupation/group. An article is possibly needed for them. - Sir Cavalier of OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 12:54, March 16, 2015 (UTC)
    • Possibly an occupation, though I think that would be speculation. The manufacturer in the guide is listed as "Individually produced by Wookiee turret crafters", while the manufacturers of the bowcaster and wookiee homing rocket are both listed as "Individually manufactured by Wookiee crafters". The wookiee quad turret is listed with "Mass produced by Wookiee crafters". Only the description of the bowcaster mentions a manufacturer—"Wookiee crafters individually manufacture each Bowcaster, and no two bowcasters are exactly alike. However, ammunition clips are all uniform and interchangeable between different bowcasters." As such I don't think an article is needed, since the terms seem to be too vague to have any worthwhile meaning. Up to you though. Manoof (talk) 01:08, March 17, 2015 (UTC)

Comments

Expeditionary Library

  • Nominated by: 501st dogma(talk) 17:18, February 16, 2015 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: Your typical library branch

(1 ACs/1 Users/2 Total)

Support

  1. ACvote Sir Cavalier of OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 12:49, March 16, 2015 (UTC)
  2. Manoof (talk) 06:36, March 20, 2015 (UTC)

Object

  • You have 2 references for the created attribute, but in the History section you only reference the year to the second of those. Is there a reason for this that I'm unaware of? Manoof (talk) 10:23, March 13, 2015 (UTC)
    • That's because the infobox date needs both the date ref and the source ref to say that it was created prior to so and so. History just needs a date ref to source a date.
      • Ah ok, I just thought double references should be combined into one, but that makes sense. Manoof (talk) 06:36, March 20, 2015 (UTC)
  • Should "Galactic Alliance–Imperial Remnant" instead be "Galactic Alliance/Imperial Remnant", or maybe "a combined Galactic Alliance–Imperial Remnant"? Manoof (talk) 10:23, March 13, 2015 (UTC)
    • It should work as it is.
  • "space wise" and "divvied up" seem very unencyclopedic, maybe change the wording in these sentences? Manoof (talk) 10:23, March 13, 2015 (UTC)
    • "space wise" is perfectly fine, and it seems that Cav has changed "divvied up" to "partitioned" so we don't have to worry about that anymore.
  • You seem to be missing something in the last sentence of the description's first paragraph. Manoof (talk) 10:23, March 13, 2015 (UTC)
    • It was a "was", and Cav fixed it.
  • Should "all storied in book form" be "all stored"? Manoof (talk) 10:23, March 13, 2015 (UTC)
    • Yes, remedied.
  • Double checked your links, I noticed you linked to Chiss twice in the description. Manoof (talk) 10:23, March 13, 2015 (UTC)
    • A single repeated link does not necessarily mean that there is linking issues throughout. If you notice single one in the future, it's better to just fix it in a copyedit.
      • Good point, I'll keep that in mind in future. Manoof (talk) 06:36, March 20, 2015 (UTC)
  • The first sentence of the History is massive, maybe split it up somewhere? Manoof (talk) 10:23, March 13, 2015 (UTC)
    • Eh, it should have been good as it was because of the semi-colon, but Cav cut it in half already so we can leave it like that.
  • If "millions, possibly billions" is someone's belief/opinion maybe clarify that, offhand it otherwise seems like speculation. Manoof (talk) 10:23, March 13, 2015 (UTC)
    • That's straight from the source. It's unclear there too. Thanks for the review. 501st dogma(talk) 03:03, March 18, 2015 (UTC)
      • No worries, for some reason I read it in Luke's voice, from Jedi Outcast, which is probably why I thought maybe someone said that in the book :P Manoof (talk) 06:36, March 20, 2015 (UTC)

Comments

Unidentified Imperial controller (Avenger)

  • Nominated by: Hanzo Hasashi (talk) 01:30, February 25, 2015 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: 101st quality article nomination.

(1 ACs/1 Users/2 Total)

Support

  1. 501st dogma(talk) 17:00, March 1, 2015 (UTC)
  2. ACvote IFYLOFD (Talk) 04:47, March 4, 2015 (UTC)

Object

Comments


Marketta-class shuttle

  • Nominated by: 501st dogma(talk) 02:27, March 7, 2015 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: Zoom Zoom

(1 ACs/1 Users/2 Total)

Support

  1. <-Omicron(Leave a message at the BEEP!) 03:40, March 7, 2015 (UTC)
  2. ACvote Sir Cavalier of OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 12:40, March 16, 2015 (UTC)

Object

Comments

Attack on Imperial interrogator droids

(1 ACs/0 Users/1 Total)

Support

  1. ACvote Sir Cavalier of OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 23:38, March 23, 2015 (UTC)

Object

Cav
  • Why is "Mandalorian" not linked in reference to Sabine? Mandalorian/Canon is a redlink, sure, but that's no reason to avoid linking. Unless the NuCanon Mandalorian is at a different name. - Sir Cavalier of OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 13:29, March 16, 2015 (UTC)
    • It was decided early in our documentation of the new canon not to have a page called Mandalorian/Canon (you can see that it's protected from being created). The reason is that, in canon, Mandalorian is much different than Legends. The word is simply a demonym in canon. There would be nothing unique about Mandalorian/Canon compared to Mandalore/Canon. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 14:36, March 16, 2015 (UTC)

Comments

ABP-980 bio-light panel

  • Nominated by: Ayrehead02 (talk) 11:01, March 14, 2015 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: CA that got to long.

(1 ACs/0 Users/1 Total)

Support

  1. ACvote Sir Cavalier of OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 12:37, March 16, 2015 (UTC)

Object

Exiled Jedi
  • "The panels were frequently available in large cities and spaceports." This cannot all be sourced to page 28. The information about interpreting the availability codes is not found on this page.
  • Context for Galladinium Galactic Exports.
  • The introduction could use an expansion.--Exiled Jedi Oldrepublic crest (Greetings) 18:31, March 22, 2015 (UTC)
  • The image is of low quality and should be replaced.--Exiled Jedi Oldrepublic crest (Greetings) 20:35, March 22, 2015 (UTC)

Comments

Hiding Cube SCT-1000

  • Nominated by: Ayrehead02 (talk) 11:04, March 14, 2015 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: CA that got to long.

(1 ACs/0 Users/1 Total)

Support

  1. ACvote Sir Cavalier of OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 12:34, March 16, 2015 (UTC)

Object

  • "Elsewhere the cubes were rare and difficult to acquire." This cannot all be sourced to page 28. The information about interpreting the availability codes is not found on this page. The part about them being rare and difficult to acquire is not specified to only be elsewhere either. It could easily be hard to obtain from Galladinium as well.
  • The introduction could use an expansion.
  • The image is of low-quality and should be replaced.--Exiled Jedi Oldrepublic crest (Greetings) 20:34, March 22, 2015 (UTC)

Comments

Feskitt Bobb

(0 ACs/1 Users/1 Total)

Support

  1. 501st dogma(talk) 23:49, March 23, 2015 (UTC)

Object

FESKITTLES

Comments

InstaMist generator

  • Nominated by: Ayrehead02 (talk) 15:31, March 18, 2015 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: Another CA moving up in the world

(1 ACs/0 Users/1 Total)

Support

  1. ACvote grunny@wookieepedia:~$ 16:11, March 21, 2015 (UTC)

Object

Exiled Jedi
  • "The item was frequently available in large cities and spaceports." This cannot all be sourced to page 33. The information about interpreting the availability codes is not found on this page.
  • Context for Galladinium Galactic Exports.
  • The introduction could use an expansion.
  • The image is of low quality and should be replaced.--Exiled Jedi Oldrepublic crest (Greetings) 22:16, March 22, 2015 (UTC)

Comments

Porg

  • Nominated by: Clonehunter(Report your W.M.D.) 16:39, March 20, 2015 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: Been awhile since a GAnom. This is Porg, another poster child for Families Rallying Against Katarn. See comments.

(0 ACs/0 Users/0 Total)

Support

Object

Comments

Most of the quotes come from the Dark Forces: Rebel Agent audio drama, which means that the punctuation is all guesswork, based on a character's pausing and voice inflections. Also, I've added The Essential Reader's Companion as a source under a suggestion I had from Unidentified Gran (Rimmer's Rest cantina), which mentions that 8t88 had hired bounty hunters. This article is roughly 10 or so words under Featured Article eligibility, so if it goes over it will have to be moved, most likely. --Clonehunter(Report your W.M.D.) 16:39, March 20, 2015 (UTC)


8-13

(0 ACs/0 Users/0 Total)

Support

Object

Comments

88-R Nightscreamer

  • Nominated by: Manoof (talk) 06:48, March 23, 2015 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments:CA that cleans up good

(0 ACs/0 Users/0 Total)

Support

Object

Comments

In other languages

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki