Wikia

Wookieepedia

Wookieepedia:Good article nominations

Talk116
117,255pages on
this wiki

Redirected from WP:GAN

       
Good article
nominations
             
GoodIcon

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

READ THIS FIRST!

An article must…

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

How to nominate:

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

How to vote:

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


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


Good article nominations

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

View recent changes for this page and its subpages

Voorpee

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

(1 ACs/1 Users/2 Total)

Support

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

Object

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

Comments

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


Escape from Darth Vader

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

(0 ACs/3 Users/3 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)

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)

Comments

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


Larcoh

  • Nominated by: --20:48, December 30, 2014 (UTC)Tetsu Aero (talk)
  • Nomination comments: I've gone through it several times, and it seems to comply with most regulations. It's a shame there isn't so many references that can be used. I am unsure about the mentioning of clothing though, some good articles had it, some didn't. This is my first article that i have completed on Wookieepedia, so we'll see. :) --Tetsu Aero (talk) 20:52, December 30, 2014 (UTC)

(0 ACs/1 Users/1 Total)

Support

  1. Great work on your first nomination. :) 501st dogma(talk) 13:09, February 10, 2015 (UTC)

Object

501st
  • First of all, good work on writing your first nom. :) Since it's your first time, there will generally be more objections than normal before it gets passed, but if you stick with it, you should have it passed just fine. I'm going to object to some general things before I go back and do a thorough read through.
  • For referencing, each paragraph needs to be referenced, meaning it at least has to have a reference number at the end of it. Currently, you are only referencing the last paragraph of the biography (the P&T and BTS are fine as is)
    • Fixed--Tetsu Aero (talk) 00:09, January 2, 2015 (UTC)
      • Bio looks good, but you're missing a ref in the P&T, first sentence. Also, I forget to mention this before, but the infobox has to be sourced as well.
  • The bio of the text should include that he is a male. Currently, that's missing. Bio should also mention right off the bat that he was a professor, as it currently takes a while for this fact to come out.
  • "He was also one of the few Selkath that lived outside of their home world, Manaan after most of their species has been forced underwater in the bombings of the planet." This P&T sentence seems more appropriate for the Bio, as one of the first sentences.
    • You have a point there, so i integrated it into the bio--Tetsu Aero (talk) 00:09, January 2, 2015 (UTC)
  • Your infobox will have to be reloaded. Basically, just use Standard preloads to reload the Character infobox, and refill in all the info. This is because infoboxes change over time, and yours is missing some of the latest parameters.
    • Hopefully i used a preload that was up to date now--Tetsu Aero (talk) 00:09, January 2, 2015 (UTC)
  • The Bio should contain some timeframe, like the intro does currently. A general rule of thumb is that all info in the intro or infobox should also be able to be found somewhere in the main body (bio, P&T, etc), expect for specific Eras as they are not-in universe.
    • I Inserted it into the text, though i wonder if it matters if it is at the start or middle where it is mentioned?--Tetsu Aero (talk) 00:09, January 2, 2015 (UTC)
      • Looks good, but you might want to add context on the Cold War. Just saying it was fought between the Empire and the Republic like you do in the intro should be enough.
  • Somethings need context in articles. For example, Tatooine needs context here, so just saying it was a planet will do. The Tusken Raiders could also be clarified as a species.
  • On the topic of Tusken Raiders, you switch between using Tusken Raiders and Sand People to describe them. Either keep with one, or clarify when you first mention them that they were also referred to as the Sand People.
    • Fixed--Tetsu Aero (talk) 00:09, January 2, 2015 (UTC)
      • Looks good, but it turns out you use Sand People to describe the Tuskens in the first paragraph, while you only say that the Sand People are the Tuskens in the second. Make sure you clarfiy that the Sand People are the Tuskens before you use Sand People. 501st dogma(talk) 15:04, January 2, 2015 (UTC)
        • Missed that one, fixed now :) --Tetsu Aero (talk) 13:24, January 4, 2015 (UTC)
  • I'll look it over again once these are complete. When you think you've finished an objection, just add a note under it here on the nom page. 501st dogma(talk) 15:14, January 1, 2015 (UTC)
  • Also, since it seems that Larcoh has dialogue, the article should have quotes in the intro, bio, and if possible P&T. 501st dogma(talk) 16:00, January 1, 2015 (UTC)
  • The intro could use some beefying up. Mention of how he and the traveler dealt with the Tusken Raiders should be in the intro, as it is important.
    • I did some beefing up, but i don't think it turned out well.--Tetsu Aero (talk) 10:23, January 5, 2015 (UTC)
      • Check it out now - tweaked it a bit for you. 501st dogma(talk) 19:29, January 5, 2015 (UTC)
  • As it looks that his eyes are black, mention should be made in the P&T, and in the eye field in the infobox.
  • "...which was not seen very often among the Selkath outside Manaan." Is this specifically stated in TOR? If it's not, and it's only from observations in game, I would remove it, as that is speculatory.
  • Just curious, but is Larcoh affiliated with the Republic at all? The Outpost is a Republic one after all. If you think so, the Galactic Republic should be added to the affiliation field in the infobox.
    • Nothing states that he is affiliated with them, the way he addresses the settlers indicates he isn't.--Tetsu Aero (talk) 10:23, January 5, 2015 (UTC)
  • Currently, the link you give for the TOR setting goes to the newer version of the page which doesn't provide the info on Manaan. Devastation of Manaan's first reference is the one you should replace the setting reference with, as it provides a link back to the old version of the page that talked about Manaan. 501st dogma(talk) 17:00, January 4, 2015 (UTC)
  • Once again, just clarifying, but does any source say that he was from Manaan? Also, in the first sentence, you can't source the part about Professor Larcoh being a Selkath to ref 1 as ref 1 doesn't mention Larcoh. Instead, it should be reffed to 2.
    • There's no source that says he is from Manaan, so it's an assumption based on the bombings and the fact that so far we haven't seen any Selkath colonies outside of Manaan. And fixed the ref. --Tetsu Aero (talk) 15:27, January 9, 2015 (UTC)
      • If that's the case, I don't believe we can say for sure that he was from Manaan, even though it is likely, so you should probably remove Manaan as his homeworld. On the other hand, you can keep in the fact that he was one of the only Selkath away from Manaan.
      • Okay, fixed --Tetsu Aero (talk) 18:19, January 10, 2015 (UTC)
        • There are actually quite a few Selkath in TOR outside of Manaan; also, you've still got the Manaan homeworld stuff in the biography. Cade StupidRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 18:47, January 10, 2015 (UTC)
          • In that case Tetus, you probably should remove the tidbit about him being one of the few Selkath away from Manaan from the Bio. 501st dogma(talk) 16:50, January 11, 2015 (UTC)
            • I fixed the bio, though about there being many Selkath outside of Manaan in ToR is not true, as the Selkath in ToR outside of Manaan are less than ten. Unless there's a source i have missed that speaks of colonies.--Tetsu Aero (talk) 11:12, January 14, 2015 (UTC)
              • With a few Selkath outside Manaan, I guess it could be kept. 501st dogma(talk) 15:37, January 14, 2015 (UTC)
  • When you say "the professor" when talking about Larcoh, it should be capitalized (the Professor). It's just the way ranks/titles work.
    • Fixed--Tetsu Aero (talk) 15:27, January 9, 2015 (UTC)
      • I'm still seeing some "the professor"s in the body.
        • This still needs to be done. Seems that you did not see this one. 501st dogma(talk) 15:37, January 14, 2015 (UTC)
          • Sorry, i didn't see this one. I fixed it now :)
  • "Although the settlers would not appreciate it, Larcoh's research would go through a "boom"." What exactly are you trying to say here? It's a little vague at the moment.
    • Ha ha, he used that word to describe a boom in his research development. But fixed it.--Tetsu Aero (talk) 15:27, January 9, 2015 (UTC)
      • I've reworded it to sound a bit more professional. :P
        • I don't think i've heard that term, "make headway" before, sounds weird, ha ha--Tetsu Aero (talk) 18:19, January 10, 2015 (UTC)
  • It would be good to mention that the raiders frequently attacked the outpost earlier in the article (when you first talk about Outpost Largona), before you mention Larcoh's solution to the problem in the second paragraph.
  • It seems like the tribe of Tuskens he was studying and the camp that the Republic traveler went to could use articles for themselves. Please link to them and create the articles (They can just be stubs). 501st dogma(talk) 19:53, January 5, 2015 (UTC)
    • I don't know, the tribe wasn't mentioned by name or anything to give substance to it. And i don't agree with making an article for the camp, since the Tusken are nomads and move around a lot. So i moved some sentence around to reflect this in the Larcoh article. --Tetsu Aero (talk) 15:27, January 9, 2015 (UTC)
      • I guess you don't have to make an article for the tribe. As for the camp, the way it is right now makes it seems like it needs an article. If you talk about the camp that the traveler had to go to as a "temporary encampment", then I don't think it would necessitate an article. 501st dogma(talk) 16:48, January 9, 2015 (UTC)
      • I did that in the first paragraph, so i don't think it needs to be clarified again in the 2nd?--Tetsu Aero (talk) 18:19, January 10, 2015 (UTC)
        • Eh, guess it's good as is. 501st dogma(talk) 16:50, January 11, 2015 (UTC)
  • The body should say that the traveler was from the Republic.
  • Does the game actually have a model for the object the Tuskens used? If so, it deserves an article.
    • Yes, but it's not unique, there are hundreds of them, randomly placed. So i would say not to its own article.--Tetsu Aero (talk) 23:25, February 6, 2015 (UTC)
  • The intro still has Larcoh from Manaan, and that should be remedied. 501st dogma(talk) 01:02, January 31, 2015 (UTC)
  • One last thing: what reward did the traveler get? 501st dogma(talk) 16:14, February 8, 2015 (UTC)
    • You get to choose between several enhancements, a box, or a commendation. I was unsure how to work that into the next so i just went with "reward".--Tetsu Aero (talk) 11:42, February 10, 2015 (UTC)
      • Ah, thought it was just cash or something. 501st dogma(talk) 13:09, February 10, 2015 (UTC)
Manoof
  • Looks great! I made a small rewording (nothing of great significance), I hope you don't mind :) Just one point, do the two citizens mentioned in the first quote have names at all? If they do, you could make character stubs and add them into the bio somewhere.
  • Also with the quotes, does he say this in basic or is it "translated" from Selkath? If they are translated, the template would have to be changed to quotetrans. Manoof (talk) 08:17, February 21, 2015 (UTC)

Comments

The Tale of the Aiwha Pod (short story)

  • Nominated by: Manoof (talk) 01:36, January 4, 2015 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments:approx. 800 words

(0 ACs/2 Users/2 Total)

Support

  1. JorrelWiki-shrinkableFraajic 05:33, January 13, 2015 (UTC)
  2. —MJ— Holocomm 08:19, January 16, 2015 (UTC)

Object

📌
  • Is there an IU page for this short story? If not, there should be. The Tale of the Aiwha Pod (in-universe) is a redlink, so I don't think it is. See also: The New Essential Chronology and The New Essential Chronology (in-universe).
    • I kind of understand what you mean, as it requires a youmay tag, is there anything else I would have to do within the article itself and is the youmay tag alright? Manoof (talk) 09:30, January 11, 2015 (UTC)
      • I added two links in the intro and main body, but otherwise I'm sure that's adequate.
        • If the in-universe tale is actually called "The Tale of the Aiwha Pod" then the OOU short story should be at (short story) and the IU story at the main name. Cade StupidRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 16:20, January 11, 2015 (UTC)
          • I based my suggestion on The New Essential Chronology example, which is what I assume Manoof based the naming on. Is TNEC's placement due to simplicity in linking, or is there an actual standard for preference of which gets the parentheticals? I didn't see anything in WP:NP that would suggest notability has anything to do with it, and even if so, IU takes precedence over OOU in almost every case. JorrelWiki-shrinkableFraajic 03:24, January 12, 2015 (UTC)
            • I moved the page, but something weird is going on and I'm not sure how to fix it: Page title is displaying as "The Tale of the Aiwha Pod (short story) (short story)"... Manoof (talk) 01:42, January 13, 2015 (UTC)
              • Fixed. —MJ— Training Room 08:08, January 14, 2015 (UTC)
                • Thanks MJ! I see what you did there, yay learning! Manoof (talk) 09:14, January 14, 2015 (UTC)
  • An opening quote should be added.
  • Likewise, at least one image of an aiwha should be added to the body.
    • I would disagree on the basis that as an OOU article, I don't think it would warrant a photo from another source. But the IU page would, does that make sense? Manoof (talk) 09:30, January 11, 2015 (UTC)
      • Good point, and I agree. Stricken.
  • I think killing a god-beast is an adequate source of notability, and I'd argue that the pod, though unnamed, is notable enough for an article. If added, the pod would need a mention in the "Main characters" section. JorrelWiki-shrinkableFraajic 07:59, January 11, 2015 (UTC)
    • I thought of that, and specifically of the aiwha that killed the beast itself. I wasn't sure on the notability of them though, and felt that if they were to go to a TC they would probably be deleted. I'll add them in and whip up some quick articles for them. I assume the pod be an organisation though, much like delta squad? Manoof (talk) 09:30, January 11, 2015 (UTC)
      • I agree with the "killing blow aiwha" getting the article. Still, they have a vital place in the story, and if it came to a TC I'd vote to keep. As for the organization, I would assume so. Knowledge Bank, another collective-as-a-single-entity article, may fit as well. Don't forget to put them in the "Main characters" section, too. JorrelWiki-shrinkableFraajic 09:45, January 11, 2015 (UTC)
        • Forgot, fixed now Manoof (talk) 01:42, January 13, 2015 (UTC)
The Jedi Council can't sleep
  • "The story consists of a translation by Ryan Kaufman from the Kaminoan language to Basic, and is the tale of a Kaminoan deity Protas, the "god-beast" of the seas of Kamino.": This sentence seems a bit odd to me. I would suggest flipping the two clauses around, saying something like "The story is the tale of whatchamacallit as translated by some guy whom we just made into an IU character." :P (Side note: I'm mildly surprised that "whatchamacallit" is apparently in Firefox's built-in spell-check dictionary.)
    • Trying to say too much in one sentence. Changed as suggested and shortened. Manoof (talk) 09:14, January 14, 2015 (UTC)
  • Exactly how did the one aiwha sacrifice himself? You say that he clamped onto the throat, but there is no mention of how that constitutes a sacrifice. In other words, how did he actually die?
    • Clarified in the plot summary, did you want it in the intro as well? Manoof (talk) 09:14, January 14, 2015 (UTC)
      • As the article stands, it would be too much detail for the intro. The plot summary clarification is sufficient. —MJ— Holocomm 08:19, January 16, 2015 (UTC)
  • Per the LG, "For very short works, a Main Characters section is not necessary." I would argue that this is precisely such a case. The extremely short subsections lead to a very choppy feel, and it has multiple layers of redundancy both within the section and with the plot summary. Consider deleting this section entirely.
    • Oh good, I felt the same way but missed that not necessary part. Section removed. Manoof (talk) 09:14, January 14, 2015 (UTC)
  • Just to check, are you sure that there is absolutely nothing available for Continuity or Legacy sections?
    • I can't think of anything of significance that could possibly be added to either section. Except it's a story featuring aiwha? Manoof (talk) 09:14, January 14, 2015 (UTC)
      • If that's all you can come up with, then it's better to just skip it. —MJ— Holocomm 08:19, January 16, 2015 (UTC)
  • Will this story help me sleep, or is it too good for that? :P —MJ— Holocomm 08:07, January 14, 2015 (UTC)
    • It's one page, so too short to help sorry! ^^ Manoof (talk) 09:14, January 14, 2015 (UTC)

Comments

  • I should mention that I have no idea how to reference a sentence like "it is unique as it is the only Star Wars tale featuring a character with a name that is exactly the same as a real person — Ryan Kaufman. This was incidental due to the opening sentence, which presented the tale as a translation into Basic by Ryan, to credit him specifically for the short story. "... Manoof (talk) 01:06, January 7, 2015 (UTC)
    • Not sure you need a reference, but you could always use the short story itself. JorrelWiki-shrinkableFraajic 07:59, January 11, 2015 (UTC)
      • I thought of that, but it doesn't really show that in ALL the star wars stories he's the only one. If that makes sense... Manoof (talk) 01:42, January 13, 2015 (UTC)


DH-23 blaster pistol

  • Nominated by: Ayrehead02 (talk) 20:14, January 4, 2015 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: Looking at some of my figures I thought I recognised this weapon.

(0 ACs/0 Users/0 Total)

Support

Object

  • Why did you change the infobox references from the The Clone Wars Campaign Guide which was published in 2009 to the older Arms & Equipment Guide which was published in 2002? As a result, you also removed the capacity (100 shots) and the stun setting capability that was listed in The Clone Wars Campaign Guide.--Richterbelmont10 R2 sig(come in R2!) 19:15, January 5, 2015 (UTC)
    • I removed the saga edition range because it was just the generic base blaster range assumed for all blaster pistols, whereas the Arms and Equipment Guide gives a range value specific to this weapon. As they differ I used the specific value instead of the generic one. The stun setting is mentioned in the body, but I didn't think it should be mentioned in the capacity section as that concerns ammo specifically. I've re-added the 100 capacity with a reference saying its the generic assumed for all blaster pistols in Saga Edition. Ayrehead02 (talk) 01:01, January 6, 2015 (UTC)
      • Actually I just noticed that the Clone Wars Campaign Guide was missing the ammo listing for this weapon; that information was released in the book's official errata. I went ahead and made the appropriate change to the article, I hope you don't mind.
Yes I see how the Arms and Equipment Guide might seem to give a more accurate range. I've been using the Saga Edition ranges because then I can list an "Optimum" range along with a "Maximum" range, which is how ranged weapons are usually listed in the The New Essential Guide to Weapons and Technology. Although this is certainly not a requirement, just personal preference. I use the "Point-blank" range from Saga as the "Optimum" range and the maximum range as "Maximum." But perhaps your way is better. I will ponder on this more.
As for the stun setting, I'll leave that up to you.--Richterbelmont10 R2 sig(come in R2!) 05:07, January 6, 2015 (UTC)
No problem, thanks for fixing it! I'll leave the range and stun information as it is for now and see what others think. Ayrehead02 (talk) 12:45, January 6, 2015 (UTC)
📖
  • The intro could stand to be fleshed out a bit. Time period, expanded mention of blaster's features and drawbacks, and perhaps a bit more elaboration on BlasTech's reasons for making a newer model could all be in there.
  • You could probably mention some of the characters in the history section as using the weapon.
  • The different lines that the figure with the DH-23 need to go in the Sources section. JorrelWiki-shrinkableFraajic 07:12, January 11, 2015 (UTC)
    • For the last two objections, I didn't include the figures in the body or sources due to the fact I wasn't sure I could definitely say that they have DH-23s. While their guns look almost identical to them, as it's never confirmed I didn't want to make assumptions. I also wasn't sure on the canonical status of weapons with figures, as they don't seem to be included in many other articles, for example Myo doesn't even mention his figure at all. Ayrehead02 (talk) 12:08, January 11, 2015 (UTC)
      • I think it's safe to say it passes the duck test, and we've been far more lenient on artistic discrepancies in the past (hello Dark Empire), but I understand your reasoning. I'll ask around to see what others think about the depiction. As for figure detail, Myo should probably have the appropriate information added (I'm not sure what line he's in, though), in the interest of completion. This, of course, hinging on how we end up treating the unnamed appearances in figure lines. JorrelWiki-shrinkableFraajic 10:04, January 12, 2015 (UTC)
  • The new blog post shows a movie prop of the DH-23, so I'll need to update the article accordingly and work out where exactly in the movies it appears. I'll do this asap and try and keep the page in a nominatable state, although it will probably depend on where it appears. Ayrehead02 (talk) 17:15, February 25, 2015 (UTC)

Comments

Senator Sneakaway

  • Nominated by: 501st dogma(talk) 00:56, January 12, 2015 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: The Senator Decamp mentioned in the bio quote could be either of the Senators, as it was a nickname the Phindian just made up for one of them--unfortunately, we don't know which of them she's referring to.

(1 ACs/2 Users/3 Total)

Support

  1. Ayrehead02 (talk) 10:26, January 15, 2015 (UTC)
  2. ACvote IFYLOFD (Talk) 03:51, January 26, 2015 (UTC)
  3. Manoof (talk) 05:56, February 10, 2015 (UTC)

Object

Ayrehead
  • I think a picture of the Battle of Coruscant might be more relevant than the Phindian picture, since it isn't clear at the moment that the Phindian pictured isn't the captain. Ayrehead02 (talk) 15:07, January 12, 2015 (UTC)
    • I've tweaked the description of the image. It should be clear now that the Phindian pictured isn't the captain.
  • Is the Alamania a Republic ship? If so you should say that when you mention it. Ayrehead02 (talk) 15:07, January 12, 2015 (UTC)
    • Clarified.
  • Should the last sentence of the first paragraph of the bio be split? It seems a bit odd at the moment. Ayrehead02 (talk) 15:07, January 12, 2015 (UTC)
    • What do you mean split? If you're referring to the semi colon, it should be fine as it is, as the semi colon sentence relates to the one before it. 501st dogma(talk) 15:24, January 12, 2015 (UTC)
Manoof
  • Second sentence of the bio still looks a bit odd. Maybe combine the first part with the previous sentence, something like "...a male Human was serving as a Senator in the New Republic's Senate when the invaders overran the New Republic capital planet of Coruscant. Seeking to escape the Vong, the Senator and other members of the Senate commandeered the New Republic warship Alamania, leaving some of the Senator's friends to perish on Coruscant during the battle."
    • I've axed the semi-colon, happy? :P
      • Lol ok
  • Maybe split the first sentence of the PT, the two events happened in separate years, but having them in the same sentence gives the impression they happened maybe days apart.
    • Eh, I use "later," so it should be good. Also, it's not the first time I mention those events, so the audience should know that the pair of events don't happen one after another.
      • For some reason I read it now and it's ok...
  • Is there any indication of his reaction after the confrontation, when the captain let him loose? Manoof (talk) 02:33, February 10, 2015 (UTC)
    • Nope, they just scurry away. I've added that they left hurriedly though. Thanks for the review. 501st dogma(talk) 03:05, February 10, 2015 (UTC)
      • Boom! Manoof (talk) 05:56, February 10, 2015 (UTC)

Comments

Sith Chalice

(1 ACs/4 Users/5 Total)

Support

  1. Good to see you back with more noms. Hanzo Hasashi (talk) 23:41, January 12, 2015 (UTC)
  2. 501st dogma(talk) 22:46, January 13, 2015 (UTC)
  3. Ayrehead02 (talk) 10:17, January 15, 2015 (UTC)
  4. Looks good! Manoof (talk) 08:42, February 21, 2015 (UTC)
  5. ACvote Winterz (talk) 14:35, February 21, 2015 (UTC)

Object

Exiled Jedi
  • The release dates in the BTS need to be sourced to something besides the sources themselves.
    • Well, how exactly would I achieve that? Even the articles pertaining to those sources do that. --LelalMekha (talk) 09:49, February 10, 2015 (UTC)
      • Unless the sources have that exact date included in them, they need to be backed up by an outside source. Most sources generally have the year in them, but no additional dating information.--Exiled Jedi Oldrepublic crest (Greetings) 14:55, February 10, 2015 (UTC)
  • Is there a reason why you have two different references for the ROTS visual dictionary?
    • No. It's a mistake that has been fixed. --LelalMekha (talk) 09:49, February 10, 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm just making sure, but does any of the sources explicitly call it a vase?--Exiled Jedi Oldrepublic crest (Greetings) 05:09, February 10, 2015 (UTC)
    • It doesn't. But a chalice is a vase. --LelalMekha (talk) 09:49, February 10, 2015 (UTC)
      • I thought a chalice in real life was more of a cup or goblet. As it is the Star Wars universe, I'm not sure we should call it anything that the source doesn't call it.--Exiled Jedi Oldrepublic crest (Greetings) 14:55, February 10, 2015 (UTC)
        • My mistake here. It appears that, in French, "vase" can designate any cup-shaped container, but my research indicates you can't do that in English. (I sometimes mix the two languages). Fixed. --LelalMekha (talk) 15:53, February 10, 2015 (UTC)
  • From what I can tell, Korribanian incense seems like it should have an article. I am going to request an article for it, per the new GAN redlink rules which do not allow redlinks in good articles.
  • I know this sounds picky, but unless you have a source stating that the Chalice was created for Episode III, you shouldn't state that in the article. There's always the off-chance that they created the Chalice for an earlier movie and didn't use it until Episode III.
  • I noticed that you linked to both Wolhanian and Wolhanian expedition. I'm pretty sure these are the same thing, but I don't really know which title is more appropriate for the article.--Exiled Jedi Oldrepublic crest (Greetings) 00:15, February 25, 2015 (UTC)
    • I didn't even notice I had linked to two different articles. Indeed, there shouldn't be two of them. Since the source uses "Wolhanian expedition," I'll go with that one. Fixed. --LelalMekha (talk) 16:23, February 27, 2015 (UTC)

Comments

  • I've corrected the Sources order, and the chalice is actually named "SITH CHALICE" in a caption in the Visual Dictionary, so it's the first mention (and the Complete VD also has that caption so no {{Po}}). Cade StupidRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 22:35, January 12, 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks. But shouldn't I rather switch the Visual Dictionary from "1stm" to "1stID?" --Lelal Mekha Old Republic military symbol (Audience Room) 22:40, January 12, 2015 (UTC)
      • Nope, because the Visual Dictionary came out before the movie. Turns out that most things in TPM and ROTS were first mentioned in the Visual Dictionaries, Cross-Sections, or Locations; our articles jut don't reflect this at the moment. Cade StupidRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 23:04, January 12, 2015 (UTC)


17

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

(0 ACs/1 Users/1 Total)

Support

  1. 501st dogma(talk) 02:53, January 23, 2015 (UTC)

Object

501st
  • " 17 and 35 then joined two other clone troopers in defending a barricade from Confederate B1 battle droids." You're lacking mention of how Boss was with them here. I know you later say Boss was with them, but make sure you do it right away. 501st dogma(talk) 14:06, January 17, 2015 (UTC)
    • How's that? Manoof (talk) 09:03, January 18, 2015 (UTC)

Comments

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


Three-Five

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

(1 ACs/1 Users/2 Total)

Support

  1. ACvote IFYLOFD (Talk) 01:55, January 29, 2015 (UTC)
  2. 501st dogma(talk) 13:14, February 25, 2015 (UTC)

Object

Floyd
  • "and outwardly cheered RC-1138 when he approached." If the main quote is his only line, I'd say this is a bit misleading. He doesn't seem to be actually cheering, he's sort of just remarking on their rumored skill. IFYLOFD (Talk) 03:39, January 17, 2015 (UTC)
    • The outwardly cheering is reference to his throwing his first up in the air and waving it, physically cheering. Not sure how to phrase that though to clarify... Manoof (talk) 08:56, January 18, 2015 (UTC)
      • OK then, that's fine. Sorry I forgot about this. IFYLOFD (Talk) 01:55, January 29, 2015 (UTC)
501st
  • In the intro, you have the droids getting pushed back to a gun emplacement, while the body has it as a bunker. Which is correct? 501st dogma(talk) 17:41, February 24, 2015 (UTC)
    • Advisor describes it as a gun emplacement, and it looks like a bunker. Changed to gun emplacement to be safe. Manoof (talk) 07:28, February 25, 2015 (UTC)

Comments

Olovin

  • Nominated by: 501st dogma(talk) 22:20, January 13, 2015 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: A one mention-ship that managed to snag itself an entry in TCSWE

(1 ACs/3 Users/4 Total)

Support

  1. Ayrehead02 (talk) 10:14, January 15, 2015 (UTC)
  2. ACvote IFYLOFD (Talk) 01:13, January 16, 2015 (UTC)
  3. <-Omicron(Leave a message at the BEEP!) 03:33, February 18, 2015 (UTC)
  4. Manoof (talk) 08:47, February 21, 2015 (UTC)

Object

Comments

Rikal Stargunner

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

(0 ACs/1 Users/1 Total)

Support

  1. The RPG template probably only needs to be on the last part of the bio involving the players, but I'll leave it up to you. Ayrehead02 (talk) 10:54, January 29, 2015 (UTC)

Object

Ayrehead
  • A RPG template is needed in the body as its assumed the players accept the job. Ayrehead02 (talk) 10:10, January 15, 2015 (UTC)
    • Actually, I don't think this is necessary. The adventure only has them doing the job, and doesn't really give them a choice. The only things that could be changed by player choice are what they know about some of the npcs involved (not Rikal or Ungassan). The only choice they can really make about Rikal and Ungassan is about their fates after the fight in Juaka Canyon, and I refer to that in the Bts.
      • In an RPG though players can do anything, they could immediately kill Stargunner upon seeing him for the first time. I've had players do it in sessions I've run. In general as soon as players are introduced in the body I think an the RPG template is needed. Ayrehead02 (talk) 20:33, January 15, 2015 (UTC)
        • I've added it, though I still don't really think it applies here
  • He can have a personality and traits section and an equipment section based on his roleplaying stats. Ayrehead02 (talk) 10:10, January 15, 2015 (UTC)
    • Snow Job doesn't give Rikal any stats, but referred to him as a general elite trooper (soldier 4). Is the information in the Star Wars Roleplaying Game Revised Core Rulebook applicable for Rikal?
      • If it says use the stats from that book then I would think so. Ayrehead02 (talk) 20:33, January 15, 2015 (UTC)
        • Added his equipment per Revised Core Rulebook Trip391 (talk) 03:55, January 29, 2015 (UTC)
  • The intro should include a little more detail about the fight. Ayrehead02 (talk) 10:10, January 15, 2015 (UTC)

Comments

Barefoot Squadron

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

(1 ACs/4 Users/5 Total)

Support

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

Object

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

Comments

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


Vizam/Canon

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

(0 ACs/1 Users/1 Total)

Support

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

Object

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

Comments

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


Crispus Commons

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


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


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

(0 ACs/0 Users/0 Total)

Support

Object

501st
  • "Later, Skelly revisited there to meet with Hera Syndulla..." Is "there" the apartment, or the shelter, as you go on to say that Syndulla notices what he has in the shelter.
    • Edited, and also corrected to clarify that it was actually Hera who had tracked him there, a detail I'm afraid I missed before. ProfessorTofty (talk) 23:30, February 25, 2015 (UTC)
  • Last sentence of the Description is more appropriate in the History, ideally before you say that Skelly cleans the mold out.
    • I'm not sure what you mean. The final two sentences of the Description tie into each other, and I don't see how the bit about Dooku relates to Skelly and cleaning out the mold. ProfessorTofty (talk) 23:30, February 25, 2015 (UTC)
      • That sentence is purely history stuff, so it should go in the history, not the description. You'll have to reword if of course though, to make it fit.
        • Moved and reworded, I think it should work now. ProfessorTofty (talk) 04:01, February 28, 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not really seeing the necessity of having the last sentence of the BTS, as Skelly's living in the Commons is already covered by the body. Kill it please.
  • You have a back to back referencing to [1] in the Description. Please kill the first one, as you only need a single there.
    • Okay, that's done. ProfessorTofty (talk) 23:30, February 25, 2015 (UTC)
      • Good, but I'm seeing a back-back ref to 3 in the BtS now (I might have just missed it before).
  • According to our quote policies, you cannot use the current lead quote as a quote, as it is the character thinking something, and not actually saying it. 501st dogma(talk) 20:53, February 22, 2015 (UTC)
    • Ouch. That kinda stings, as I like that quote. Alright, though, done, and moved to the end of the quote in Behind the scenes, though I may go back to the audiobook and record the entire thing so it can be a sound file again. Is a quote needed at the beginning, then? Because I really can't find anything else that anyone specifically says about the apartments. ProfessorTofty (talk) 23:30, February 25, 2015 (UTC)
      • If nothing fits, then don't put in a quote. It's like that sometimes with articles, and you end up not having any appropriate quotes. 501st dogma(talk) 17:14, February 26, 2015 (UTC)
  • There should be some connection made between Dooku and Grievous and the Seperatists in the History.
    • Explained that Grievous was the Separatist military commander and Dooku the political leader. ProfessorTofty (talk) 03:44, March 2, 2015 (UTC)
  • The intro is a tad short in comparison to the rest of the article. It could use at least one additional sentence.
    • Added a sentence describing the various features of Crispus Commons. ProfessorTofty (talk) 03:44, March 2, 2015 (UTC)
  • Since you're sourcing most of the BtS, you should source that last part of the last sentence. 501st dogma(talk) 13:56, March 1, 2015 (UTC)

Comments

Wookiee dual missile turret

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

(1 ACs/1 Users/2 Total)

Support

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

Object

501st
  • The part about the turret being used in the Clone Wars does not belong in the description. That's history stuff. Likewise with the Trandoshan and Separatist stuff.
    • Moved Manoof (talk) 10:10, January 30, 2015 (UTC)
      • After the move, you're sourcing the entirety of the first sentence to 5, which is incorrect.
        • There was another ref in there
  • It would probably be good to clarify that Kashyyyk was the homeworld of the Wookiees.
  • Infobox: I don't believe the protection field needs to have the Trandoshan and CIS part, as the turret would work against any aerial attack. Just aerial assaults will suffice.
  • GAR, and the Special operations brigade needs to be mentioned in the body, as you have it in the infobox. 501st dogma(talk) 19:50, January 29, 2015 (UTC)
    • Done Manoof (talk) 10:10, January 30, 2015 (UTC)
      • You're sourcing the Special Operations Brigade to 2 in the body, while it's sourced to 3 in the infobox. 501st dogma(talk) 19:40, January 31, 2015 (UTC)
        • Looks like I forgot the referencing when I rewrote that section. Done Manoof (talk) 08:56, February 1, 2015 (UTC)
          • Now you're sourcing GAR and Delta to 3, which isn't appropriate as the note for 3 pertains only to the Special Operations Brigade. 501st dogma(talk) 17:28, February 1, 2015 (UTC)
            • I see what I did there :/ Should be fixed now... Manoof (talk) 05:52, February 2, 2015 (UTC)
Floyd
  • Missing punctuation in the intro quote.
    • Fixed.
  • Are we sure that we can say it's even indirectly mentioned in Order 66? It seems like it just replaces it entirely—that's not an indirect mention, that's a continuity incongruity. IFYLOFD (Talk) 02:32, February 13, 2015 (UTC)
    • Given the differences in physical description as well as the method of fire (turbolaser vs missiles), I'm happy to change it. Not sure if all mention of the book should go, or if a short sentence should be left in the BTS section. I've removed it as an appearance and reworded the BTS in case it stays. Manoof (talk) 10:44, February 14, 2015 (UTC)

Comments

Ched Varga

  • Nominated by: Green Tentacle (Talk) 22:23, February 3, 2015 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: "May he rest well with the Force."

(1 ACs/3 Users/4 Total)

Support

  1. 501st dogma(talk) 01:12, February 17, 2015 (UTC)
  2. --Eyrezer (talk) 15:36, February 17, 2015 (UTC)
  3. Hanzo Hasashi (talk) 15:36, February 17, 2015 (UTC)
  4. ACvote IFYLOFD (Talk) 00:53, February 18, 2015 (UTC)

Object

501st
  • Article for the Rebel salvage yards?
    • The salvage yards are the proving grounds, which is already linked. Green Tentacle (Talk) 20:10, February 16, 2015 (UTC)
      • The pilot proving grounds article seems more general, and doesn't point to a specific spot like the salvage yards. 501st dogma(talk) 20:15, February 16, 2015 (UTC)
  • Also, shouldn't the death field of the infobox have a place of death, since we seem to have that? 501st dogma(talk) 18:25, February 16, 2015 (UTC)

Comments

Expeditionary Library

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

(0 ACs/0 Users/0 Total)

Support

Object

Comments

Panna cake

  • Nominated by: Ayrehead02 (talk) 15:21, February 17, 2015 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: CAnom that got to long

(0 ACs/1 Users/1 Total)

Support

  1. Manoof (talk) 08:48, February 21, 2015 (UTC)

Object

Comments

Unidentified Imperial controller (Avenger)

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

(0 ACs/1 Users/1 Total)

Support

  1. 501st dogma(talk) 17:00, March 1, 2015 (UTC)

Object

Comments



In other languages

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki