Wikia

Wookieepedia

Wookieepedia:Good article nominations

Redirected from WP:GAN

125,426pages 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 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, 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/4 Users/6 Total)

Support

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

Object

Brandon

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

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)

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.

(0 ACs/7 Users/7 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)

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)
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)

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)


Hurati

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

(0 ACs/3 Users/3 Total)

Support

  1. Trip391 (talk) 17:36, October 28, 2015 (UTC)
  2. Good job! Imperators II(Talk) 10:54, January 6, 2016 (UTC)
  3. I like this guy. --Jinzler (talk) 21:27, January 11, 2016 (UTC)

Object

Toprawa
  • Hello. Since I believe this is your first GA nomination, I find it's best to take things a little slower to help you learn the routine of nominating articles and how a status article should be structured. I first want to make sure that you're aware that this article needs to be comprehensive. If there's any bit of information pertaining to this character that you've skipped over or maybe summarized a bit too much, make sure you're writing in comprehensive detail.
  • Articles may not have any infobox-exclusive information. Meaning that if there is information being presented in the infobox, it needs to be detailed somewhere in the article body, not counting the intro. Right now, I'm seeing the 22 BBY date mentioned in the infobox and nowhere else. Once you handle these objections, I'll proceed with my review. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 20:16, September 2, 2015 (UTC)
    • I added the date into the first paragraph. There is nothing I skipped over, but is there anything that you think may be in too much detail and should be shortened/removed? –Alexander 23:11, September 2, 2015 (UTC)
      • I will be able to tell you that once I finish my review, which I'm going to do section by section. I've corrected the P/T quote, so make sure you watch out for quote accuracy in the future. You'd be amazed how often people get that wrong. It's just a matter of transcribing it verbatim from the original source. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 21:09, September 3, 2015 (UTC)
  • A few Biography preliminaries:
    • It's customary for Biography sections in character articles to introduce the character in a formal way similar to how the intro does it. The key to remember here is that the Biography is totally independent from the intro, meaning that just because you introduce some detail in the intro, you shouldn't rely on that to tell your story for you in the Biography. Case in point, the Bio never really introduces the fact that Hurati is an Umbaran. That detail is just sort of mentioned in passing at the end of the first Bio paragraph. Your Bio doesn't need to, and in fact shouldn't, be worded identical to the intro, but there should be some sort of introduction for the character.
    • One thing I'm really liking from an eye test of the article is the paragraph sizes. They're perfect. A lot of people struggle with writing massive walls of text while forgetting that this is the Internet and people like to read smaller paragraphs, not to mention they're better aesthetically, so very nice job there. Once an article starts to get to four paragraphs, I usually recommend seeing if you can subsection the Biography at all. Doing so would also allow you to use more quotes if they are available. See what you can do there. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 20:25, September 10, 2015 (UTC)
      • I've added the fact that he is an Umbaran into the first sentence of the first paragraph, and I split the biography into a couple of subsections. But unfortunately I no longer am in possession of the book, so I cannot look for more quotes at the moment. I'll get the book again, which will take a few days, and then I'll comment here again to let you know that I found another quote. –Alexander 00:44, September 18, 2015 (UTC)
      • I've added a quote to the section section. –Alexander 01:01, September 24, 2015 (UTC)
      • I'm just wondering if you could take a look at the modifications, since its been more than a month. –Alexander 20:22, November 22, 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm concerned over what I'm perceiving as a fairly serious lack of detail in the article. Writing an article comprehensively doesn't mean giving a generalized synopsis or summary of a character's actions; it means comprehensively detailing all of his actions. When you asked in your previous comment whether I felt there was any part of the article going into too much detail, I think you need to consider the exact opposite. It's far better to go into too much detail and then work on trimming it down from there than it is to not be detailed enough. I've never read this book, so I'm not familiar with the material, and I'm relying totally on what I can scan through in a downloaded text version of the novel. But just from seeing how extensively Hurati appears throughout this story, it really seems like the four little paragraphs you're giving this character is woefully inadequate. To put it another way, the length of this article doesn't seem to pass the eye test. Again, I can only skim through this story and pull out tidbits, but these are just a few examples of things I'm seeing that aren't in this article, or are maybe glossed over too generally: a) Hokan considers Hurati to be a "good man." This is textbook material for the Personality and traits section. b) "Hurati didn't strike him as an officer that would waste his time." More textbook P/T material. c) There's a scene where Hurati and Hokan enter a farmhouse and find dead civilians, whom Hurati initially thinks the Republic killed. d) Hurati is using a comlink. Is he using any other equipment? Any type of technology he uses should be detailed in an "Equipment" section. Please check the Layout Guide for more information on this. e) I see you've got in the P/T the bit about Hurati's military posture, but that sentence also talks about how Hokan never saw him sneaking a drink or scratching himself. Additionally, you've got the bit about him being loyal, but there's more about him being eager to obey. f) The story mentions an excavator bomb in relation to Hurati. Why isn't this in the article? Give me more detail! Give me all the details! I think the best thing for you to do with this article is go back to the very beginning of the Biography, open the novel back up, and go through every place where Hurati appears and expand on details. Go to another level of detail in your writing. If Hurati sees droids, tell me what kinds of droids. If Hurati is traveling somewhere, tell me how he's traveling there; on a speeder, for example? It wouldn't surprise me at all if you doubled the length of the Biography. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 18:25, January 14, 2016 (UTC)
    • The majority of Hurati's appearances in the novel are him speaking with/getting orders from Hokan, so there isn't very much in regards to biography that I could add. I could, I suppose, try to add some more information on the individual conversations he had with Hokan, however, I already gave general summaries on them, and below another reviewer told me to do that rather than go into too much detail in the conversations to avoid it sounding like 'Hokan said this, Hurati said that'. I did emphasize that Hokan views Hurati to be a good man on several occasions, such as the quote at the top of the page, talking about the fact that he asked Hurati to look after Cuvin, promoted him after Cuvin's desertion, and then talked more about it in the personality section. I could add more on the subject in the personality section, however. Secondly, I can go through the novel again to see if there are any other details I can add to the biography that I haven't before, and I'll let you know here when I get finish with that. –Alexander 00:17, January 15, 2016 (UTC)
      • It's ok to go into detail on their conversations, but yes, you should avoid the "Hokan said this, Hurati said that" play-by-play. But it falls to you as the writer to come up with some creative methods for keeping your prose fresh while avoiding falling into that trap. As for the P/T content, never rely on quotes to do your writing for you. If there's something to say, then make sure you include it in the article. In this case, calling him a "good man" is rather specific praise from Hokan. That's something you should definitely make explicit note of rather than hinting at it with other details. This may be a good opportunity to tell you that it's ok to refrain from mentioning specific personality traits in the Biography as long as you're mentioning it in the P/T, which is really the more appropriate place for them. It's even ok to skip certain events or exchanges in the Bio as long as you're still including them in the P/T; this is ideal in some cases to avoid repetition between the two sections. Ok, I'll wait for your revisions. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 01:14, January 15, 2016 (UTC)
        • Just an update: I'm still working on it, but the copies of the book at my library are checked out, so I have to wait to get them again. –Alexander 01:32, January 27, 2016 (UTC)
Trip
  • The Complete Star Wars Encyclopedia mentions that Ghez Hokan escaped his facility with his chief lieutenant, and took Uthan's remaining research team hostage, so I added it as a source. It also refers to Ghez Hokan as a former Mandalorian, as he had enjoyed his work in the Death Squad too much, which the article should address as well.
  • I've fixed a couple redirects, but the article could use a lot more links. Remember, something can be linked to once in the infobox, once in the intro, once as a caption, and once in the general body, including personality and traits and behind the scenes.
  • The second sentence in the body states that the CIS was protecting Lik Ankkit, the local Neimoidian boss. Can you describe what he is the boss of, the Separatist scientists or is he a crime lord? Trip391 (talk) 04:44, October 22, 2015 (UTC)
    • I added more links, and made the line with Ankkit more specific. But what do you mean by Death Squad? Death Watch? –Alexander 16:29, October 24, 2015 (UTC)
      • TCSWE says Hokan was a former Mandalorian who was asked to leave because he enjoyed his work in the Death Squad too much. The article for Hard Contact links "Death Squad" to Death Watch, but Hokan should be referred to as a former Mandalorian throughout the article, not as a Mandalorian. Trip391 (talk) 09:37, October 27, 2015 (UTC)
        • Oh, alright. I added former to it. –Alexander 13:59, October 28, 2015 (UTC)
Imperators II
  • Per WP:MOS, "a subject should be linked once upon its first mention in the article's infobox, once upon its first mention in the article's intro, and once upon its first mention in the article's main body." — In the very first Biography sentence, I'm seeing "species" and "Ghez Hokan" that should be linked to. Please correct that and check for other such instances, as well. Imperators II(Talk) 02:28, January 1, 2016 (UTC)
    • Done. –Alexander 00:32, January 3, 2016 (UTC)
  • Make sure that all the information that you present in the intro is also present in the article's body, for instance, the bit about the Verpine shatter gun is currently only in the info.
    • I added the Verpine shatter gun info to the body. I also added information on the Jedi Padawan, who was mentioned in the intro. Everything else appears to be in the body as well. –Alexander 00:37, January 4, 2016 (UTC)
      • In the intro, you mention a "hundred battle droids". That should be added to the body, as well.
        • Done. –Alexander 05:01, January 6, 2016 (UTC)
  • Provide some context on RC-1136 both in intro and the body.
    • I mentioned that he was clone who became separated from the rest of Omega Squad, and that he ran into a Jedi Padawan later on, before reuniting with the squad. –Alexander 00:37, January 4, 2016 (UTC)
      • Context for RC-1136 still needed in intro. Imperators II(Talk) 01:12, January 4, 2016 (UTC)
        • Done. –Alexander 05:01, January 6, 2016 (UTC)
  • Please see what you can do about simplifying and streamlining this bit: "The two Umbaran lieutenants searched the site. Hurati located the remains of several droids positioned in a formation by the commandos, which they left as a sign to one of their own who became separated from them that they had been there. Hokan saw it as an attempt by the commandos to taunt them." The second sentence is particularly confusing.
    • I rewrote this part of the paragraph. –Alexander 00:37, January 4, 2016 (UTC)
  • The whole second paragraph of the "Separatist officer" subsection needs some careful rewording to avoid potential confusion. For example, "He explained it to Cuvin when the lieutenant did not understand their actions." — who explained it to Cuvin? Remember, when personal pronouns alone can be unclear and confusing, you can always also refer to individuals by their species or rank, or both, for example, the Umbaran lieutenant.
    • I rewrote the last couple of sentences of the paragraph. –Alexander 00:37, January 4, 2016 (UTC)
  • In the Personality & traits section, the fragment "to which the former Mandalorian responded by telling him that they had handcarts they could use" is unnecessary, since it does not provide any info on Hurati's personality.
    • I removed that part. –Alexander 00:37, January 4, 2016 (UTC)
  • I believe that no harm could come from identifying the team of clone commandos as the Omega Squad here and there throughout the article. Imperators II(Talk) 01:30, January 3, 2016 (UTC)
    • I added Omega Squad at several points throughout the article. –Alexander 00:37, January 4, 2016 (UTC)
Jinzler
  • In the introduction it is stated Hurati nearly killed clone commando RC-3222 after shooting him from behind with a Verpine shatter gun, but later died himself when RC-1136, another Omega Squad commando, turned around and shot him in the head. I feel that this would read better if some context was given to the circumstances under which Hurati nearly killed RC-3222, for example by stating that this took place during an attack by the commandos on the Separatist nanovirus facility (if this is the case?) or something similar.
    • I added when it took place. –Alexander 21:13, January 10, 2016 (UTC)
  • The Umbaran asked his superior how the local farmers would be able to transport their crops to the town of Teklet for shipping, to which the former Mandalorian mercenary responded by telling him that they possessed handcarts. This sentence is a bit play-by-play, ie the sentence feels like it is saying that "Hokan said this, then Hokan said that." This should be streamlined down a bit to just summarise the key details of their discussion, eg to say something along the lines of that Hokan ordered Hurati to delcare a curfew on repulsorlifts depsite concerns that Hurati had about the problems that this would have for farmers transporting their crops
    • I rephrased this sentence. –Alexander 21:13, January 10, 2016 (UTC)
  • The pair were able to catch up with Omega Squad and the Jedi would it be possible to provide some indication how long after escaping the facility (eg shortly afterward?) Hurati and Hokan caught up with the clones and where this encounter took place, to add some extra context.
    • I added that it took place not long after their attack on the facility. –Alexander 21:13, January 10, 2016 (UTC)
  • It would be beneficial to add a final sentence to the last paragraph of the "Biography" section to provide some detail in brief about what happened in the aftermath of Hurati's death, eg the clones then defeats Hokan or were victorious in their mission or something.
    • I added a couple of sentences on what happened afterwards. –Alexander 21:13, January 10, 2016 (UTC)
  • He also took note of the fact that Hurati always stood with a military posture, even when not being under scrutiny. This sentence is not very objective, ie it is stating details re Hurati's personality from Hokan's perspective. It would be more impartial to state that Hurati always stood with a militart posture even when not under scrutiny and that this caught the attention of Hokan during Hurati's deployment on Qiilura.
    • I rephrased this sentence. –Alexander 21:13, January 10, 2016 (UTC)
  • In the "Behind the scenes" section you could also add an additional sentence to state that he was later mentioned in The Complete Star Wars Enclopedia--Jinzler (talk) 22:27, January 8, 2016 (UTC)
    • I added that bit of information originally, but it seems someone removed it. At any rate, I added it again to that section. –Alexander 21:13, January 10, 2016 (UTC)

Comments

Yarael Poof

  • Nominated by: AV-6R7Crew Pit 02:46, October 13, 2015 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: The first entry in my canon Quermian trilogy of nominations.

(0 ACs/4 Users/4 Total)

Support

  1. Great to see someone working on these Canon articles! --Clonehunter(Report your W.M.D.) 02:39, October 16, 2015 (UTC)
  2. Ayrehead02 (talk) 18:15, October 26, 2015 (UTC)
  3. Cevan IMPpress (talk) 00:05, October 30, 2015 (UTC)
  4. VDO talk 03:11, January 15, 2016 (UTC)

Object

Clones
  • While I'm not sure how necessary it is, but is there an artist credit for the piece of concept art in the BtS? If so, I imagine it could either go into the BtS or work as a part of the image's caption. --Clonehunter(Report your W.M.D.) 22:20, October 13, 2015 (UTC)
    • I wasn't able to find it on Poof's original Databank entry, so I suspect it's from a previous version that isn't archived. - AV-6R7Crew Pit 23:32, October 13, 2015 (UTC)
      • Ah, I see. In that case, it may not be amiss to just include the fact that the piece identified Poof simply as "Alien Jedi." --Clonehunter(Report your W.M.D.) 05:15, October 14, 2015 (UTC)
        • I actually managed to find this piece of concept art in the earliest archived version of the entry. I added the information you wanted to the caption. - AV-6R7Crew Pit 13:23, October 14, 2015 (UTC)
Ayrehead
  • Since you mention that Trebor is a Vurk in the intro can you include it in the body as well? Ayrehead02 (talk) 10:42, October 23, 2015 (UTC)
  • The last sentence of the second paragraph in the body seems a bit messy. Could you reword it or split the sentence? Ayrehead02 (talk) 10:42, October 23, 2015 (UTC)
  • In the BTS can you include the legends source that originally named the character? I'm assuming it was the Episode I visual guide. Ayrehead02 (talk) 10:42, October 23, 2015 (UTC)
    • His name is actually given in the credits of TPM. I've added this information to the Bts section. - AV-6R7Crew Pit 14:30, October 26, 2015 (UTC)
Cav
  • Although they believed him to be the Chosen One - who is they exactly? The entire council, or just Jinn? I thought the Council had their doubts.
  • Wouldn't the first line of the PT be more at home in the PA section, merging it with the existing sentence there to create a small paragraph rather than a single line section? - Sir Cavalier of OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 17:25, January 8, 2016 (UTC)
    • Done. - AV-6R7Crew Pit 03:08, January 15, 2016 (UTC)
      • I moved the entire first line of the PT to the PA section and moved it around a little since it seems to flow better there. Tell me what you think. - Sir Cavalier of OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 22:07, January 27, 2016 (UTC)
        • I did a little adjusting, but I like it. - AV-6R7Crew Pit 22:33, January 27, 2016 (UTC)

Comments

Quermian

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

(1 ACs/3 Users/4 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)

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

(0 ACs/4 Users/4 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)

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)

Comments

Assault on an Imperial outpost

(2 ACs/5 Users/7 Total)

Support

  1. Ayrehead02 (talk) 14:36, October 23, 2015 (UTC)
  2. Cwedin(talk) 15:43, October 23, 2015 (UTC)
  3. Cevan IMPpress (talk) 04:32, October 30, 2015 (UTC)
  4. Nivlacanator(talk) 17:38, November 9, 2015 (UTC)
  5. <-Omicron(Leave a message at the BEEP!) 02:15, December 18, 2015 (UTC)
  6. ACvote IFYLOFD (Talk) 05:37, December 23, 2015 (UTC)
  7. Inqvote Supreme Emperor (talk) 05:17, February 9, 2016 (UTC)

Object

Cwedin
  • This is a bit nitpicky, but the BTS section should include info from The Truce at Bakura, as it begins "the day after the Emperor's death." Cwedin(talk) 15:21, October 23, 2015 (UTC)
  • Actually no, Truce is Legends, this is Canon. <-Omicron(Leave a message at the BEEP!) 15:24, October 23, 2015 (UTC)
    • Indeed. While there are times when including info from Legends is relevant in canon page BTS sections, this seems more like trivia than actual relevant information. It would be more fitting for the Shattered Empire page. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 15:27, October 23, 2015 (UTC)
Cevan
  • There should probably be a link to the Death Star's shield generator in the prelude; currently there's only a link a generic shield generator. Also, "Journey to" in the behind the scenes should not be italicized (it should read: "Journey to Star Wars: The Force Awakens"). The spoiler tag at the top of the page can be removed as well; over a month has passed since the comic's release. Cevan (talk) 21:18, October 29, 2015 (UTC)
    • Fixed. In the future, these types of objections are ones you can just fix yourself. Simple enough to do! - Brandon Rhea(talk) 03:06, October 30, 2015 (UTC)
Cav
  • There's some funny infobox issues going on here - the commander field spans both columns, as does the casualty field. It appears the blank fields are being overwritten. Also, the bulletpoints are not aligning properly in the Alliance strength column. - Sir Cavalier of OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 00:03, January 9, 2016 (UTC)
    • You'll have to talk to Cade about that. It was part of the updates he and CzechOut worked on for portability conversion. It's not something I can rectify as part of a nomination process. The most I could do is add clarifying context like "(Rebels)" after Han Solo, for instance. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 00:15, January 9, 2016 (UTC)
      • If that's the case, then the infobox issue needs to be brought to his attention for rectification - the nomination realistically cannot pass with a wonky infobox. - Sir Cavalier of OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 22:12, January 27, 2016 (UTC)
        • It has been - multiple times. The ball is in his court and the administration's court. I would like it resolved sooner rather than later too, especially if it's going to hold up my nominations for reasons completely outside of my control. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 22:23, January 27, 2016 (UTC)
          • I have a temporary solution for this issue that should remedy your objection. See here. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 19:20, February 1, 2016 (UTC)
            • Cade fixed the infobox issues so this objection can be resolved. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 17:06, February 6, 2016 (UTC)
Ecks Dee
  • Ewoks are mentioned as combatants in the infobox, but there's nothing about them participating in the actual assault in the body.
  • The Strength section of the rebels seems unnecessarily complicated. As its commanding officer, Solo is still part of the Pathfinders, and Chewbacca is implied to be a member of it as well, not separate (as the infobox presents it). You could probably have Pathfinders as the top-level bullet and then sub-level bullets for named participants.
    • Fair. Since Han was never explicitly labeled as a Pathfinder, I didn't want to add it but yeah. Makes sense in retrospect. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 22:36, January 27, 2016 (UTC)
  • In the intro, a battalion of Imperials is mentioned. In the body, a quote refers to a company. However, there is no mention of either these in the prose. Please clarify.
  • As a general note, linking was somewhat lacking. Please be more careful in the future. 1358 (Talk) 14:54, January 24, 2016 (UTC)
  • "The group emerged victorious and brought with them Imperial intelligence stating that the Empire still had plans after the Battle of Endor. Contrary to what the Rebellion had hoped, and although the Empire was in chaos following their shattering defeat on Endor, the intelligence meant that the Galactic Civil War was not yet over." I feel like the intro focuses quite a lot on the aftermath. I think you should dedicate a sentence to the fighting itself and then discuss the acquired intel in a final sentence instead of spreading it out over two sentences.
  • Considering virtually nobody referred to Sidious with his Darth name during the time of the GCW, I think it would be appropriate to use another name for him, such as simply the Emperor.
    • Done, but with the caveat that while people may not have referred to Sidious with his Darth name, Darth Sidious is his name. Emperor Palpatine, Sheev Palpatine, Palpatine—those may be his birth names/public names, but they're simply public fronts while Darth Sidious is his true name in canon. So whether people refer to him that way in-universe or not, it's still appropriate for use in GCW era articles. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 17:05, February 6, 2016 (UTC)
  • Is there an article for the type of vessel used as transport? If yes, can it be linked? If no, does it warrant an article?
    • Pretty sure this was a new type of transport and it's only been used in this one issue. I don't know whether that warrants an article or not. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 17:05, February 6, 2016 (UTC)
  • "They remained in the base for some time" Why? I think you could mention the intel gathering here instead of waiting with that until the next paragraph.
  • Can a quote be added in The aftermath? Maybe Solo's line about the war not being over yet. 1358 (Talk) 00:37, January 30, 2016 (UTC)
SE
  • Can you give some clarification regarding when the assault took place? Infobox says 4 years after Yavin, so even a small mention of that would do. Supreme Emperor (talk) 04:59, February 9, 2016 (UTC)

Comments

Raid at the Wretch of Tayron

(0 ACs/5 Users/5 Total)

Support

  1. Ayrehead02 (talk) 03:11, October 31, 2015 (UTC)
  2. Cwedin(talk) 06:24, October 31, 2015 (UTC)
  3. Nivlacanator(talk) 00:29, November 4, 2015 (UTC)
  4. I'm a big fan of Shattered Empire; kind of wish it was an ongoing series. Trayus(Academy) 00:58, January 9, 2016 (UTC)
  5. <-Omicron(Leave a message at the BEEP!) 04:06, January 24, 2016 (UTC)

Object

  • Does the first line of the first quote not need a question mark? Or is that how it's written in the comic? Ayrehead02 (talk) 02:53, October 31, 2015 (UTC)
Cav
  • Similar to Assault on an Imperial outpost above, the infobox is suffering from stretched fields and strange bullet misalignments. - Sir Cavalier of OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 00:08, January 9, 2016 (UTC)
    • You'll have to talk to Cade about that. It was part of the updates he and CzechOut worked on for portability conversion. It's not something I can rectify as part of a nomination process. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 00:15, January 9, 2016 (UTC)
Trayus
  • In Before the Awakening, Poe recalls his father telling him stories about a raid on an ISB base in the Outer Rim with General Solo wherein he and his squadmates took out an AT-ST that crashed into the wall and allowed them easy entrance (pg. 134). I think the context makes it pretty clear this is the referenced instance. Darth Trayus(Trayus Academy) 00:23, January 9, 2016 (UTC)
    • Good catch. I've added it to the appearances. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 00:24, January 9, 2016 (UTC)
      • Do you think the info about the downed AT-ST being the exact cause of the breach is worth specifying? From the book: "...no one had known how to get inside until, completely by accident, they had taken down an AT-ST that then crashed into the base and allowed them easy access." Trayus(Academy) 00:32, January 9, 2016 (UTC)

Comments

Cwedin
  • In Shattered Empire, Part II, Leia mentions the New Republic, and in the opening crawl for Part III, Rebel Aliance and New Republic are used synonymously. You may want to add something about how the Alliance is in a transitional phase, possibly in the prelude section. Cwedin(talk) 23:18, October 30, 2015 (UTC)
    • The state of the New Republic at this time is ambiguous in the comic, so I don't see how it's relevant to a raid conducted by a Rebel Alliance group. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 03:06, October 31, 2015 (UTC)
      • What I'm saying is that Pathfinders are mutually an Alliance and Republic unit, but I understand your point. Cwedin(talk) 06:24, October 31, 2015 (UTC)


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.

(0 ACs/3 Users/3 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)

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)

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]"?
  • 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)

Comments

Barons Hed tavern

(0 ACs/1 Users/1 Total)

Support

  1. 501st dogma(talk) 23:44, December 18, 2015 (UTC)

Object

501st
  • The part about it being built prior to 5 ABY should be in the history. 501st dogma(talk) 01:13, December 7, 2015 (UTC)
    • I figured that "It had been built by" meant the same as "prior to or during"? Reworded it a little then. --Clonehunter(Report your W.M.D.) 07:36, December 7, 2015 (UTC)
      • I mean that time related things such as construction date should be in the history, not the description. Here you should move the date it was constructed by to the history, as that is the proper place. 501st dogma(talk) 23:10, December 13, 2015 (UTC)
Toprawa
  • Recommendation: Move the article instead to "Barons Hed cantina." There's no rule requiring the use of "Unidentified" in conjectural page titles for non-character articles. Anytime we can avoid "Unidentified," the better. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 05:46, January 25, 2016 (UTC)
    • Actually, the strategy guide calls this place a tavern on page 153. "Barons Hed tavern" would be more appropriate. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 05:54, January 25, 2016 (UTC)
      • Okay, I didn't know that's how buildings were handled. However, may require a tutorial on moving these pages and the associated nomination pages without getting errors. --Clonehunter(Report your W.M.D.) 07:26, January 25, 2016 (UTC)
        • Or maybe I got it. I don't currently have access to the guide at the moment, so I'll have to clarify this myself if you want me to as to whether or not it's mentioned as "the Barons Hed tavern" or "a Barons Hed tavern," as to whether or not this is the bar's name or just a general descriptor. --Clonehunter(Report your W.M.D.) 07:35, January 25, 2016 (UTC)
          • Considering "Barons Hed tavern" is still conjectural, I would still word it as "A tavern existed in Barons Hed, etc." Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 18:38, January 25, 2016 (UTC)
            • Yah, looking at the book I see what you mean, now. Thanks, and it should look better now. --Clonehunter(Report your W.M.D.) 19:00, January 25, 2016 (UTC)
  • The article is effectively devoid of categories, not counting the automatic maintenance categories. Please add all necessary ones. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 05:56, January 25, 2016 (UTC)
    • Wow, I had not noticed that. Very sorry, I think only these two apply, based on other cantina/tavern articles? --Clonehunter(Report your W.M.D.) 07:35, January 25, 2016 (UTC)
  • If I recall from perusing through the strategy guide, it says that there was another structure or establishment on the floor above the tavern. I can't remember exactly, but you should check and add anything it says to the Description. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 23:44, January 25, 2016 (UTC)
    • I do not believe that the apartments are directly above it, but rather they are in another chunk of the building close behind it. The overall layout was a bit confusing, and as such I'll have to load up the game when I get back to that computer to see how it's built.--Clonehunter(Report your W.M.D.) 18:14, January 28, 2016 (UTC)
      • Ok, since you made an edit to the article per this objection, I want to clarify if you're finished or not. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 20:00, January 28, 2016 (UTC)
        • No. I want to look in-game, first. --Clonehunter(Report your W.M.D.) 01:32, January 30, 2016 (UTC)
          • So, I believe that should do it as far as text goes. However, I'm going to change the image from the current one (Taken from under an archway) to a screenshot taken from across the lagoon, which shows more of the building and the whole complex. --Clonehunter(Report your W.M.D.) 20:01, February 4, 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.

(0 ACs/0 Users/0 Total)

Support

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)
  • 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.
  • 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?
  • 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.
  • 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)

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)


TZ-33

  • Nominated by: Ayrehead02 (talk) 22:45, December 7, 2015 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: A TCW nom inspired by CC7567's comments on the CT.

(0 ACs/3 Users/3 Total)

Support

  1. Check comments below. Clonehunter(Report your W.M.D.) 02:50, January 4, 2016 (UTC)
  2. Cevan IMPpress (talk) 01:45, January 25, 2016 (UTC)
  3. AV-6R7Crew Pit 02:27, February 1, 2016 (UTC)

Object

  • Could any information be added to the Characteristics sections about the tactical skills that all T-series possessed? - AV-6R7Crew Pit 01:58, January 25, 2016 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure it's really necessary to be honest, I've looked through the databank entries and Ultimate Star Wars for any worthwhile information of that sort about the droids in general, but nothing really stood out to me as worth putting in. Given how easily he's defeated it might even feel a little odd. Was there a specific sentence you had in mind? Ayrehead02 (talk) 02:19, February 1, 2016 (UTC)
      • No, your reasoning for not including the info is sound. - AV-6R7Crew Pit 02:27, February 1, 2016 (UTC)

Comments

  • A quick look at Wookieepedia:Sourcing indicates that "While single-source referencing may seem redundant, the referencing of such articles makes concentrated fact-checking easier, such as sourcing information by specific page." So I guess check that BtS section again, and I suppose it'd be a good idea to look through your other articles, too. --Clonehunter(Report your W.M.D.) 02:50, January 4, 2016 (UTC)
    • I asked on the IRC and apparently if the source is named in the sentence it counts as prose attribution and so doesn't need referencing. Ayrehead02 (talk) 03:04, January 4, 2016 (UTC)
      • Really? Huh, I did not know that. I wasn't even aware there was an Attribution FAQ. Very well then, and nevermind! --Clonehunter(Report your W.M.D.) 23:46, January 4, 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/3 Users/3 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)

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

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)


Casus Sandral

  • Nominated by: nayayen★talk 14:55, January 17, 2016 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: I'm not dead! This guy is though. I haven't done this in years, so please treat this more like a first time nominator...

(0 ACs/1 Users/1 Total)

Support

  1. VDO talk 16:47, January 17, 2016 (UTC)

Object

  • VDO: Per your request, some apparent "so fix it" issues will be noted so that the changes can be made by you:
    1. Pipe links should be removed from all quotes.
    2. The "Behind the scenes" section should also be completely sourced. (looks like it needs to be sourced to KotOR)
      • It's self-sourcing with the direct attribution in the text, but doesn't hurt to add I guess. nayayen★talk 16:31, January 17, 2016 (UTC)
    • This last line is not an objection, just wanted to let you know I've gone through and made some small changes to things that stuck out to me. If you disagree with them feel free to revert, I felt they flowed better and didn't seem to run-on this way. VDO talk 15:56, January 17, 2016 (UTC)
      • Those changes are all good, thanks for the review! nayayen★talk 16:31, January 17, 2016 (UTC)
        • Sweet. VDO talk 16:47, January 17, 2016 (UTC)
Toprawa
  • Infobox objections: The character's hair, eye, and skin color should all be detailed in the infobox if possible. This information should then additionally be detailed in a Personality and traits section.
    • I can do, although while we have nothing to indicate his appearance wasn't like the generic corpse, I'm hesitant to state it as if it was. Would wording it as "his corpse had grey hair etc" be inappropriate?
      • That seems overly circumspect, especially since, as you say, there's nothing suggesting his appearance would change for any reason. You would be fine just stating his appearance as normal. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 18:39, February 2, 2016 (UTC)
        • I thought that'd be the case, but wanted to double check. Added to infobox and new P&T section. nayayen★talk 20:20, February 5, 2016 (UTC)
  • The article misspells "archaeological" in the main quote. Is this your error or the game's? Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 01:02, January 27, 2016 (UTC)
    • From the game; they use both spellings throughout. nayayen★talk 22:59, January 27, 2016 (UTC)
      • In that case, you should mark it as a misspelling in the original text by placing [sic] in the quote after the misspelled word. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 18:39, February 2, 2016 (UTC)

Comments

RN-18

  • Nominated by: Cwedin(talk) 10:01, February 2, 2016 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments:

(1 ACs/2 Users/3 Total)

Support

  1. AV-6R7Crew Pit 06:16, February 5, 2016 (UTC)
  2. ACvote Nice job. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 06:27, February 5, 2016 (UTC)
  3. Cevan IMPpress (talk) 20:26, February 7, 2016 (UTC)

Object

Comments

  1. WookieeProject Data Seekers - Cwedin(talk) 06:27, February 5, 2016 (UTC)


Siege of Mandalore

(0 ACs/2 Users/2 Total)

Support

  1. --Alientraveller (talk) 02:49, February 6, 2016 (UTC)
  2. I think it's highly unlikely that this story will never be told, but without anything on the horizon, I don't have any concerns about GAN Rule 5. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 03:03, February 6, 2016 (UTC)

Object

Comments

  • Currently, this is the only article that we have regarding material from the many unfinished TCW episodes, since it's the only subject to be mentioned by an IU source. For clarification purposes, the article's IU sections only contain info that's confirmed in-universe, whereas info that's come from OOU sources but is unconfirmed IU-wise (such as the involvement of Bo-Katan and Maul, as well as the fact that the event would have more or less been concurrent with ROTS) is regulated to the Bts section. CC7567 (talk) 02:29, February 6, 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm anticipating some concerns regarding whether the article is able to meet GAN Rule 5 (not changing significantly day to day). Lucasfilm has stated that it does not intend to release (or adapt) any more TCW material, so unless that changes, the article will remain as is. The only major additions would come when Rebels follows up on Maul or Mandalore, but the latter, at least, isn't confirmed to be in the near future. CC7567 (talk) 02:29, February 6, 2016 (UTC)
  • Could we have a pic of Rex and Ahsoka closer to how they would've looked? I understand that's unlikely but I look at that photo and laugh thinking of tiny S1 Ahsoka on Mandalore. --Alientraveller (talk) 02:49, February 6, 2016 (UTC)
    • Replaced it with one from Season Three. I'd personally have preferred one from Season Four or afterward, but there simply aren't any good shots with just the two of them. CC7567 (talk) 03:37, February 6, 2016 (UTC)



In other languages

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki