FANDOM


       
Good article
nominations
             
Premium-GoodIcon

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

READ THIS FIRST!

An article must…

  1. …be well-written and comprehensively detailed.
  2. …be unbiased, non-point of view.
  3. …have comprehensive Appearances and Sources lists.
  4. …be fully referenced, including all quotes and images. See Wookieepedia:Sourcing for more information.
  5. …follow the Manual of Style, Layout Guide, and all other policies on Wookieepedia.
  6. …following the review process, be stable, i.e., does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars. This does not apply to vandalism and protection or semi-protection as a result of vandalism.
  7. …not be tagged with any sort of improvement tags (i.e. more sources, expand, etc).
  8. …have a proper lead that gives a good summary of the topic if the length of the article supports it. This may not be appropriate on articles with limited content.
  9. …have no redlinks.
  10. …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.
  11. …ideally include a "Personality and traits" section on all character articles if information is available.
  12. …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.
  13. …include a "Behind the scenes" section for in-universe articles.
  14. …include a reasonable number of images of the highest quality to illustrate the article, as source availability permits.
  15. …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.
  16. …be properly titled in accordance with Wookieepedia's treatment of Canon and Legends articles; i.e., no nomination may have "/Canon" in the title.

How to nominate:

  1. First, select an article you feel is worthy of Good article status. Your nominated article must meet all sixteen 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, non-AgriCorps members 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.
  7. Users may not vote on their own articles.

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 10 days.


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 sixteen 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

Anna Francolini

  • Nominated by: spookycat27talk
  • Nomination comments: Wanted to try this out, wookieepedia isn't my home wiki, but I do like writing random biographies sometimes

(0 ACs/2 Users/2 Total)

Support

  1. QuiGonJinn Senate seal(Talk) 07:24, August 27, 2018 (UTC)
  2. Tommy Imperial Emblem Macaroni 15:29, September 7, 2018 (UTC)

Object

Tommy
  • Article currently violates GAN rule 7. Tommy Imperial Emblem Macaroni 20:10, June 23, 2018 (UTC)
    • Sorry it's fixed now, I'd forgotten to remove it.spookycat27talk 20:21, June 23, 2018 (UTC)
Imp
  • Hi, welcome to the GAN. Please see this. Imperators II(Talk) 20:26, June 23, 2018 (UTC)
    • Fixed (hopefully) and thank you^^ spookycat27talk 20:42, June 23, 2018 (UTC)
  • Please eliminate any use of double referencing, i.e., two references one after another, like [3][10]. Either attribute each sentence/part of sentence/word(s) to the precise, specific references that support each bit of info, or write out a manual reference note that explains where the information is derived from. Imperators II(Talk) 20:57, June 23, 2018 (UTC)
  • Please fill out as much parameters as possible and appropriate in each usage of {{Cite_web}}. Imperators II(Talk) 20:57, June 23, 2018 (UTC)
    • I added all that were available, but a few didn't have authors listed, so I'm hoping that will be okay spookycat27talk 22:05, June 23, 2018 (UTC)
  • Please change all usages of to '. Imperators II(Talk) 20:57, June 23, 2018 (UTC)
  • Also, I'd sure like to see the other works in the infobox organized like here. Imperators II(Talk) 20:58, June 23, 2018 (UTC)
Toprawa
  • All OOU articles require a Bibliography section if applicable. This serves the same purpose as the Sources section in IU articles. The Bibliography section will list all officially licensed material the actress is mentioned in. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 14:39, August 16, 2018 (UTC)
  • Much of the article body suffers from redundant wording, which makes it read like you're just mindlessly listing off bulletpoints. Notice how pretty much every sentence in the second and third subsections begin the exact same way. "In 2007, [she did this]." "In 2008, [she did this]." "In 2010, [she did this]." As a writer, it's your responsibility to find various methods to make a litany of otherwise boring information (which, frankly, is all this article is) seem, or at least read, interesting. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 16:03, September 7, 2018 (UTC)
    • Shifted things around, I'm hoping it helped.spookycat27talk 21:47, September 9, 2018 (UTC)
  • There's a significant difference between calling someone "British" or "English." People living in England will tell you that they consider themselves to be "English." The term "British" carries a separate connotation, which can refer to anyone within lands belonging to the United Kingdom and former holdings of the British Empire (read the Wikipedia articles on "English people" and "British people" if you haven't already). The point here is that if she's English, then call her that. The infobox and intro already don't agree on this in terms of pipelinking; the intro pipelinks to "United Kingdom" while the intro pipelinks to "England" -- not exactly the same thing. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 15:56, September 20, 2018 (UTC)
  • One of the pitfalls of writing OOU articles like this is, since we external-link to Wikipedia, you can virtually link to every term and subject under the sun, and frankly it becomes a big pain the you-know-where. In the intro, you link to certain things like actress but omit others like theatrical work and musicals. You should uniformly be checking every single noun to see if you can link to something on Wikipedia. Please go through the article and add Wikipedia links in where you can. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 16:00, September 20, 2018 (UTC)
  • The intro needs to be mentioning years for these things she performed in. It would be appropriate to provide years next to the name of the project in parentheses. See the Peter Cushing and Treat Williams articles' intros as examples. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 16:03, September 20, 2018 (UTC)
  • The article's formatting of its Citeweb instances is not good. I fixed the first one for you, which didn't even have the correct URL or publication date. I'm going to try and go through and fix all of them for you as the time and interest strikes me, because frankly I don't think you have the experience or know-how to do it yourself (another reason not to write OOU articles). This may take a while, so you're welcome to take a stab at them until I can get to it. Use my revision as your model. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 17:41, October 9, 2018 (UTC)
    • It also bears saying that when using the Citeweb template, you should be copying it from the template page, not from wherever it is you've found it. Because wherever you're getting it from has the parameters in the wrong order. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 18:42, October 9, 2018 (UTC)
    • Also, I will amend my objection here: You did have the correct URL and publication date for the first reference. It seems this website published two separate interviews with this actress under the same article name fifteen years apart, which I just realized. My mistake. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 19:04, October 9, 2018 (UTC)
  • I would really recommend using this image (source) for the infobox image, for a couple reasons. Firstly, color shots are preferable to grayscale shots when available. And secondly, the color image appears to be more recent. That grayscale shot is from at least 2015, while the color seems to be from 2017-2018.
  • The Bibliography needs to mention any officially licensed product that mentions the article subject's name. It would appear that she's mentioned in one of these Solo Topps card series. You will need figure out which one and add it to the Bib. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 19:21, October 9, 2018 (UTC)
  • As I objected to in the intro, the article should specify years for Rome, Johnathan Creek, and Down to Earth in the body. There should never be what we call intro-exclusive or infobox-exclusive information in articles. Anything mentioned in the intro or infobox needs to be mentioned in the article body as well.
  • Similarly, I'd like to see years for EastEnders, Pixelface, and Gun Shy.
  • Please also specify years in parentheses for the infobox performances like the Peter Cushing article does.
  • Redundant wording. Please revise: "Francoloni was cast in the original 2015 cast of..." Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 22:27, October 9, 2018 (UTC)
  • Can you explain what your rationale is for selecting certain roles of hers to mention in the Biography over others? Because in some instances it seems quite arbitrary, in that one role is mentioned while another isn't without any particular obvious difference in importance between the two. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 22:34, October 9, 2018 (UTC)
  • You need to be linking consistently in the Credits section. Why aren't Lie with Me and Company linked? Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 22:37, October 9, 2018 (UTC)
Fred strikes back
  • Be careful of overusing commas. I've removed some unnecessary uses.
    • Thanks, I've removed a few more that didn't seem necessary.spookycat27talk 20:21, August 19, 2018 (UTC)
  • Is there a reason we need to clarify that Toby, to whom she is married, is her husband? Isn't that a given? MasterFredCommerce Guild(Whatever) 20:08, August 19, 2018 (UTC)
  • Try subsectioning the biography, and keep in mind that images should be at the top of each section, just under the quote. MasterFredCommerce Guild(Whatever) 20:27, August 19, 2018 (UTC)
    • Done^^ I'm afraid there's no quote for the last one around, she hasn't done any interviews recently.spookycat27talk 00:51, August 20, 2018 (UTC)
QGJ
  • I would like to see the article put more focus on her Star Wars appearance, since right now it just sort-of glances over it, while it should ideally be the main crux of the article (this is a Star Wars wiki, after all). I understand that there is not much information to play with, but there are ways around it. The ones that come to mind are:
    • Try opening up the intro with her Star Wars role and then talk about the rest of her career.
    • Talk a little bit about the history of her character, like the fact that she was unnamed in the film and only received a name in sourcebooks.
    • Add a quote from Solo to the article.
  • Maybe you can think of something else, as well, to make it more Star Wars-centric, but at least consider those. QuiGonJinn Senate seal(Talk) 14:13, August 24, 2018 (UTC)
    • Solved the first and second suggestions, however, she hasn't done any interviews or anything on social media about Solo, so there aren't any quotes to pull.spookycat27talk 22:29, August 24, 2018 (UTC)
      • You can probably add one of her actual lines from the film for that section. Caption it as "Anna Francolini, as Falthina Sharest in Solo: A Star Wars Story" or a variation thereof. QuiGonJinn Senate seal(Talk) 11:13, August 25, 2018 (UTC)
  • On an unrelated note, do we know her husband's occupation? Seems weird to have zero context on him, as if we're all supposed to know this person. QuiGonJinn Senate seal(Talk) 14:13, August 24, 2018 (UTC)
    • Added that, but aside from a resume containing some of his work, there's not much about him on a personal level.spookycat27talk 22:29, August 24, 2018 (UTC)

Comments

EE-4 blaster rifle

(2 ACs/4 Users/6 Total)

Support

  1. Nice work. JangFett (Talk) 13:52, August 23, 2018 (UTC)
  2. <-Omicron(Leave a message at the BEEP!) 02:26, August 29, 2018 (UTC)
  3. QuiGonJinn Senate seal(Talk) 11:55, August 30, 2018 (UTC)
  4. Fan26 (Talk) 19:42, October 1, 2018 (UTC)
  5. ACvote Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 04:59, October 15, 2018 (UTC)
  6. ACvote Nice work. Imperators II(Talk) 23:56, October 17, 2018 (UTC)

Object

Grunny
  • The History section has a link to Bomb, which is effectively a redlink since the page is currently just a broken redirect to the Legends page. So, I'd say that probably needs to be properly created if you're linking to it. grunny@wookieepedia:~$ 15:38, August 21, 2018 (UTC)
Uncle Jangeth
  • "The EE-4 blaster rifle was a powerful type of blaster that was capable of discharging a red-colored, two-round spread burst fire with a medium range." This may seem nitpickey, but the placement of the word choices seem odd here. For me, the "two-round spread burst fire" and the "medium range" doesn't work. I would mention the red-colored medium range first before getting into the the burst of fire since that's pretty unique. What do you think?
    • I guess you're right, my English usually requires a copy-edit and rewording. How does it look now? TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 22:06, August 21, 2018 (UTC)
  • "[...]manufactured by BlasTech Industries." That's pretty important. I'd mention it earlier in the description.
    • Actually, there isn't any source that says the EE-4 was manufactured by BlasTech. Since its predecessor model is from BlasTech, I thought it was worth mentioning later in the description. Do you think it should nonetheless be mentioned earlier? Or does this placement make the reader think that the EE-4 was also from BlasTech? TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 21:32, August 21, 2018 (UTC)
      • No, I was under the impression that the EE-4 was manufactured by BlasTech. Seeing that you've corrected the issue, the mentioning of BlasTech acts as proper context for the EE-3 model, so I'd leave it be JangFett (Talk) 13:52, August 23, 2018 (UTC)
  • "While the EE-3 focused on precision and range, the EE-4 was more effective at close range and had a superior rate of fire with its shorter and stubby barrel. On the other hand, these alterations caused a reduction in the rifle's accuracy at range and cooling power in comparison to its predecessor." Is this from your point of view or did the source actually state this? I'm curious.
    • The quote in the Behind the scenes is pretty much everything we know about the rifle, it's just reworded. Also, the cooling power comparison comes from the weapon statistics in the game, and the EE-4's is the image in Bts. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 21:32, August 21, 2018 (UTC)
  • I'll give it another look later. JangFett (Talk) 19:09, August 21, 2018 (UTC)
QGJ
  • After losing the Imperials, Leia Organa was informed that his fellow rebel friend, Luke Skywalker, was abducted by the Hutt crime lord Grakkus on the moon Nar Shaddaa. You've already introduced both Organa and Skywalker previously. There's no need to address them by their full names here and the whole "fellow rebel friend" context seems out of place anyway.
  • In the same section, you should clarify that Nar Shaddaa and the "Smugglers' Moon" is the same thing. The two different names can be confusing for new readers.
    • Replaced it with "notorious moon" to not prolong the sentence. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 09:25, August 30, 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure that the last sentence of the Bts is necessary. A character can own multiple weapons at the same time. If there's a source that states "Sana Starros always uses the EE-4," then the discrepancy should be noted. Right now though, it doesn't seem notable enough for me. QuiGonJinn Senate seal(Talk) 06:58, August 30, 2018 (UTC)
Ecks Dee
  • I actually think you could expand the intro a bit, it's quite short compared to the body right now. Maybe a line about Starros' usage of the rifle would be appropriate. 1358 (Talk) 16:47, September 11, 2018 (UTC)
Ayrehead
  • You can definitely add a couple more images to the body. Ayrehead02 (talk) 18:06, September 15, 2018 (UTC)
  • Objection(s) overridden by AgriCorps 22:48, October 9, 2018 (UTC)
Fred strikes back
  • You use the word "stubby" to describe the barrel twice in the "Description" section. Could you use a synonym for one of them?
    • I'm not a native speaker, but I guess the word "stumpy" is a synonym for "stubby." TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 03:17, September 20, 2018 (UTC)
      • "Stumpy" is kind of a weird and informal word. Try and use something more professional and formal. MasterFredCommerce Guild(Whatever) 02:07, September 27, 2018 (UTC)
        • What about "chunky?" TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 03:14, September 27, 2018 (UTC)
          • I'd say "chunky" is still a very informal word, and it means more about width than length. Honestly, I wouldn't be opposed to just using "short." MasterFredCommerce Guild(Whatever) 23:06, October 1, 2018 (UTC)
            • Oh, thank you for saving me from the trouble. I have literally looked into three dictionaries. :) TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 19:23, October 2, 2018 (UTC)
  • The first sentence of the second paragraph of "Description" uses a semi-colon, which currently makes the sentence nonsensical, at least to me. That might not be the punctuation you are wanting there. A semi-colon should be in a sense connecting two sentences that contain related thoughts into one sentence. The content after the semi-colon cannot be separated into its own sentence in this case.
  • The word "amidst" requires that you specify what the grip was located in the middle of, usually being plural. I think maybe a rewording is necessary.
    • Oops, it shoud be fine now. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 03:17, September 20, 2018 (UTC)
      • I've changed it to "in the middle of." I just don't think "amidst" is the word we want there.
  • "Which" should be preceded by a comma. I've fixed it, but keep this in mind in the future.
  • I'll continue on through "History" and "Behind the scenes" once you've had a chance to look at these. :) MasterFredCommerce Guild(Whatever) 03:04, September 20, 2018 (UTC)
Toprawa
  • The SW.com archive link in the Sources list isn't working.
  • Reviewing note: "Whilst" is chiefly a British-English term; the American-English version, which you should be using in Wookieepedia articles, is "while"
  • Is it Starros' or Starros's, because you use both versions in consecutive sentences. Try checking what other sources use if the comics are no indication. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 20:38, October 14, 2018 (UTC)
    • I have just checked all comic books featuring Starros, the novel Last Shot, and made a Google search for StarWars.com, Marvel.com and ea.com, but found no use of Starros' or Starros's in any of them. I see that the article now only has Starros' after your edit, so I'll leave that as it is. By the way, during my Google search, I've found an EA article that explicitly makes the connection between the Marvel comics and Battlefront, so I've changed a reference in Bts, and added a minor info I'd missed earlier. Please take a look. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 01:56, October 15, 2018 (UTC)
      • Also, I've just noticed that you changed Unnamed planet, Monsua Nebula to Monsua Nebula planet in the infobox. I'm not sure if you read the comic or not, but the issue itself uses that identifier, "unnamed planet." I'm OK if you still think it would be better as it is, just wanted to give a heads up. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 02:08, October 15, 2018 (UTC)
        • Regarding the Starros possessive, one thing you could do is check the audiobook version of Last Shot and see how the narrator pronounces her last name; if the name ends in an S sound, Starros's would be appropriate, and if it ends in a Z sound, Starros' would be appropriate. This is "encouraged" by the Manual of Style. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 03:36, October 15, 2018 (UTC)
          • It sounds like an "S" to me, so I changed them to Starros's. Just to make sure, I've cut the pronunciation from Last Shot audiobook and uploaded it to Wookieepedia. Please take a look. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 04:56, October 15, 2018 (UTC)
        • Regarding the planet, you're welcome to change it to "unnamed" in this article. I would additionally suggest explicitly mentioning within that planet article that it was literally unnamed in-universe to clear up any confusion. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 03:36, October 15, 2018 (UTC)
Imp-2 blaster rifle
  • In BTS, do we really need ref [1] for Empire, Alliance, and New Republic? Does BFII not feature these playable factions? Imperators II(Talk) 20:30, October 17, 2018 (UTC)
    • Actually yes, the New Republic is not a playable faction in Battlefront II's multiplayer, the Battle of Jakku and other New Republic battles are campaign-only. Since the specialist troopers—and the overall trooper class system—are a multiplayer thing, you can't wield an EE-4 as a NR soldier in SWBF II. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 23:48, October 17, 2018 (UTC)
  • Also, I'm not seeing a need to reference the blaster's color to different sources in infobox (Star Wars 6) and body (BF). Imperators II(Talk) 20:37, October 17, 2018 (UTC)

Comments

C2-B5

(0 ACs/2 Users/2 Total)

Support

  1. Commander Code-8 Hello There! 05:50, September 27, 2018 (UTC)
  2. QuiGonJinn Senate seal(Talk) 06:19, September 28, 2018 (UTC)

Object

CC-8
  • The tense isn't really suitable in that first image caption, and a crew by definition is a group of people, so Jyn can't be described as being disguised as one. Commander Code-8 Hello There! 15:08, September 2, 2018 (UTC)
  • I think the Bts should describe this droid's role in Battlefront more clearly, just with something simple like how its abilities can all be used to help the player. Commander Code-8 Hello There! 05:39, September 25, 2018 (UTC)
Tommy
QGJ
  • The first two sentences of the characteristics section don't really flow too well. I think it's better to establish the droid's class and line, then describe its dimensions, then talk about sensor color and all the other stuff.
  • Have you checked Star Wars: Rogue One Graphic Novel Adaptation for a possible appearance?
  • I'd like the Bts to be restructured chronologically, so that his appearance in the film comes after his BF appearance.
  • Seeing as most droids in the Star Wars universe have a distinct masculine or feminine personality, and this one's unknown, I have added the category Category:Individuals of unspecified gender. I would like to hear your opinion on whether this category is warranted or not. If you think that it is, then it should be reflected somewhere in the article as well. QuiGonJinn Senate seal(Talk) 07:17, September 27, 2018 (UTC)
    • I had the same question when I was about to promote the article for GA, and looked for other status articles about droids of unspecified programming gender. None of them had the category, so I leave the decision to you. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 07:43, September 27, 2018 (UTC)
      • I'll leave it in for now. If other reviewers will ask you to remove it, I don't mind. I'm kinda iffy on the subject, myself, but I'm leaning towards including it, for now. QuiGonJinn Senate seal(Talk) 06:19, September 28, 2018 (UTC)
Imp
  • The last sentence of BTS would be a far better fit at the end of the first paragraph of BTS. Imperators II(Talk) 19:41, October 2, 2018 (UTC)
    • It originally was, but I had moved it after QuiGonJinn's objection that BTS be restructured chronologically. I've just reverted my edit. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 20:04, October 2, 2018 (UTC)
AV
  • According to the webpage for C2-B5's Sideshow Collectibles figure, this droid's plating has a "gunmetal base with matte black and silver accent panels". This seems more precise than what the article currently has: black, with gray accent panels".
    • Oh, I saw that more of an out-of-universe thing, but I can add them if you think otherwise. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 08:21, October 17, 2018 (UTC)
      • On second thought, you are right. It is added now. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 08:27, October 17, 2018 (UTC)
      • You'll need to update the infobox and intro with this info as well. - AV-6R7Crew Pit 19:56, October 17, 2018 (UTC)
        • How does that look? TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 01:57, October 18, 2018 (UTC)
          • I'm not sure wether the "unique" part was meant to be taken as an in-universe statement that not other droid has gunmetal plating, so I'd probalby drop that. Also, I think the intro looks a little cluttered with the physical description now, whereas before it was just "black-plated", so I'd maybe cut that too. - AV-6R7Crew Pit 05:47, October 18, 2018 (UTC)
  • Per Tope's objection here, I don't think it's necessary to include that C2-B5 was a second class droid outside of the infobox. Simply mentioning that it was an astromech droid should suffice. - AV-6R7Crew Pit 02:49, October 17, 2018 (UTC)

Comments


Battle of Khorm

(0 ACs/2 Users/2 Total)

Support

  1. Commander Code-8 Hello There! 05:54, September 27, 2018 (UTC)
  2. Nice work. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 08:51, October 17, 2018 (UTC)

Object

CC-8
  • Being blinded and losing a whole eye aren't the same thing, the intro and body should be consistent on that.
  • Not sure why Clone Commander is pipelinked in the history
  • he started using a cybernetic implant instead of his missing eye. Being pedantic here but the word "instead" makes it of sound like a choice rather than a replacement.
  • I think reference 4 needs to acknowledge the loss of Wolfe's eye as the reason we know that the battle took place between Felucia and Abregado. Commander Code-8 Hello There! 05:52, September 25, 2018 (UTC)
Tommy
  • Ref 1 makes a bit of a leap. Please explain that because Wolffe lost his eye in this battle, it must take place after when he had both eyes.
  • Is there no backup link for the defunct CN video?
    • Unfortunately, no. Those videos from CN are gone forever. QuiGonJinn Senate seal(Talk) 17:19, October 13, 2018 (UTC)
      • Hmm, I'm uneasy using something which essentially can't be sourced. Could an alternate source be used? Tommy Imperial Emblem Macaroni 10:53, October 14, 2018 (UTC)
  • If the point of the first BTS image is to show Wolffe's missing eye, could you find one of him in person, not in a hologram?
  • I'm not a big fan of the one sentence paragraphs in the BTS. Could you group some of them please?
  • Is it necessary to say "[Ultimate Star Wars] did not specify whether Khorm was a planet or another type of location."? That isn't really notable, as it should be clear it wasn't identified if the location's type isn't specified in the body.
  • The link for the CN site is currently in Russian (I think) :P Tommy Imperial Emblem Macaroni 18:04, October 12, 2018 (UTC)
    • For some reason, when you try to access CN.com, it automatically redirects you to a version of the website in your native language. I didn't even notice that it did that. Fixed. QuiGonJinn Senate seal(Talk) 17:19, October 13, 2018 (UTC)
  • Please state Star Wars: Force Collection is canon, just to make it clear. Tommy Imperial Emblem Macaroni 10:53, October 14, 2018 (UTC)
  • Does Gilroy have any quotes from the insider article that could be used? Tommy Imperial Emblem Macaroni 16:41, October 15, 2018 (UTC)
Toprawa
  • The reference note for the date is extremely long, convoluted, and practically impossible to understand by simply reading it. Please find a way to simplify that explanation so anyone reading the article can easily digest and comprehend what it's trying to say. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 16:17, October 17, 2018 (UTC)

Comments

The Clone Wars: Headgames

  • Nominated by: QuiGonJinn Senate seal(Talk) 05:33, September 14, 2018 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: I've done some tweaking to this and would like to give a shot at restoring this to GA status.

(0 ACs/0 Users/0 Total)

Support

Object

Comments

Carithlee

  • Nominated by: QuiGonJinn Senate seal(Talk) 11:29, September 16, 2018 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments:

(0 ACs/2 Users/2 Total)

Support

  1. JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 01:25, September 21, 2018 (UTC)
  2. AV-6R7Crew Pit 03:06, October 17, 2018 (UTC)

Object

JMAS
  • First paragraph of the Stunt flying section, it says, "After Antilles successfully defeated Isard, he and the rest of the real Rogue Squadron accepted to return to New Republic service..." This reads very awkwardly because it's not a grammatically correct sentence. "Accepted the offer to return..." or something similar would sound better and be a complete sentence. - JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 19:02, September 20, 2018 (UTC)

Comments

Tellanroaeg

  • Nominated by: Imperators II(Talk) 20:17, September 21, 2018 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: Once again, I can't even pronounce the stuff I'm writing up.

(1 ACs/2 Users/3 Total)

Support

  1. QuiGonJinn Senate seal(Talk) 10:13, September 24, 2018 (UTC)
  2. AV-6R7Crew Pit 22:02, October 13, 2018 (UTC)
  3. ACvote Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 18:58, October 17, 2018 (UTC)

Object

Toprawa
  • For the Tellanroaeg system reference in the infobox and body, I'd rather see you at least add to that reference note or use a double reference specifying the "based on corresponding data" thing.
  • I find reference 2 quite unnecessary in its application since it's being repeated verbatim in the BTS. You don't need to repeat the same thing twice. Just use one or both of Atlas and Warfare to source the sector. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 22:36, October 15, 2018 (UTC)

Comments

Unification Wars (Galactic Republic)

  • Nominated by: Jace Onasi (talk) 04:44, September 30, 2018 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: Hopefully this is the last time I need to nominate this...

(0 ACs/0 Users/0 Total)

Support

Object

Imperators Wars
  • Looking at the article again, I'd propose that instead of the Jedi image you use one depicting the Rakata or the Infinite Empire. That would be a better fit for the Prelude section, as well. Imperators II(Talk) 13:31, September 30, 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not so sure that the reasoning behind the mention of Xim's wars is sound. For that conflict, we have a hard end date, but we don't know a starting date for the Unification Wars, so the two theoretically may have overlapped. I recommend you look into this instead and see if it should/can be added to the "prev" field. Imperators II(Talk) 21:00, October 1, 2018 (UTC)
    • Corrected.--Jace Onasi (talk) 06:05, October 3, 2018 (UTC)
      • That's not exactly what I had in mind, given that the reasoning for mentioning the Rakatan Civil War in the current revision is not actually any different from that of Xim wars in the previous revision. That is to say, if we look purely at the dates, then again both of the events could theoretically have occurred simultaneously. In this case, I think you need to rely in the ref note on connecting in prose what you're sourcing to NEC in the Prelude section to what's sourced to CSWE in "The wars" section. Imperators II(Talk) 08:53, October 8, 2018 (UTC)
QGJ
  • Since you are linking to a disambiguation page anyway, I think {{Otheruses}} will look more tidy than {{Youmay}}
  • I realize that we usually don't provide context for the Galactic Republic, but I feel that in this case it is warranted to establish that the Republic was a form of galactic government. QuiGonJinn Senate seal(Talk) 07:03, October 8, 2018 (UTC)

Comments

  • I must once again apologise for stretching this out into so many nominations. Other commitments mean that I can't always tend to my nominations.--Jace Onasi (talk) 04:44, September 30, 2018 (UTC)
  • The image of the Jedi is still an issue, as it isn't time-period appropriate, especially since they wield lightsabers. I don't believe there are any suitable images of Jedi from the period, however. You can find the ones suggested in this nomination. If you think I should use one of those images, or any other image, bring that up in your objection.--Jace Onasi (talk) 04:44, September 30, 2018 (UTC)
  • Here's a link to the previous nomination.--Jace Onasi (talk) 04:44, September 30, 2018 (UTC)


TL-50 Heavy Repeater

(0 ACs/1 Users/1 Total)

Support

  1. QuiGonJinn Senate seal(Talk) 06:49, October 16, 2018 (UTC)

Object

QGJ
  • I'm confused by all the terminology used to refer to this rifle. The intro makes it seem as if the full name of the weapon's type is heavy repeating blaster rifle. However, this full name is not used elsewhere. The infobox and the body call it a blaster rifle and a heavy repeating blaster, while the categories list it as a concussion rifle, heavy repeating blaster and a repeating blaster rifle. I'd like to see some consistency here.
    • I mean it is a "heavy repeating blaster" and a "blaster rifle", so heavy repeating blaster rifle seemed like the simplest term to describe the weapon while avoiding any speculation. I've just made changes to the infobox and the article body to solve this confusion. And about the categories, since there is no category as heavy repeating blaster rifle, I had intended to put the categories of heavy repeating blaster and blaster rifle; but the latter had a repeating blaster rifle subcategory, so I used it instead. Also, no source uses the term concussion rifle, but I added that category simply because the TL-50 is a rifle capable of firing a concussion blast. I can remove that if you think that would be better. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 03:00, October 15, 2018 (UTC)
      • I understand your reasoning behind putting it into the concussion rifle category, but if you are going to do so, this needs to be reflected in the infobox and the term "concussion rifle" needs to be linked somewhere in the article. Also, we apparently do not have a canon version of the "concussion rifle" article, so this needs to be created as well to avoid having a redlink. QuiGonJinn Senate seal(Talk) 07:04, October 15, 2018 (UTC)
  • Since the blaster was used by Versio while she served the Empire, and we know the time period of her service, some dates can be established in the history section. QuiGonJinn Senate seal(Talk) 19:54, October 14, 2018 (UTC)
    • According to the novel Battlefront II: Inferno Squad, Iden was an Imperial soldier as early as the events of Rogue One, and became special forces shortly after Yavin, so during the Galactic Civil War seemed like enough for a start date. I've just made a minor edit to include her defection date. I'm not sure if it satisfies your objection, so please take a look. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 02:46, October 15, 2018 (UTC)
Tommy
  • "like all other weapons in the game.[1]" Careful, the not all the hero weapons were available to troopers.
    • Actually, all hero blaster model are available for troopers as well (I have just re-checked), only lightsabers aren't. Changed to word from "weapons" to "blasters." TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 14:42, October 16, 2018 (UTC)
  • Could you add the unlock criteria for the weapon for both games?
    • For the first Battlefront, it's "get 20 kills playing as an Empire soldier, get 75 heavy blaster kills, and win a round of Battle Station game mode from the Death Star DLC." For Battlefront II, it's simply "get 500 kills as heavy trooper." I didn't think they are worth mentioning in Bts, but I'll add them if you still think that would be better. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 14:42, October 16, 2018 (UTC)
  • "It appears as an unlockable modification in the sequel game. Along with the extended barrel, and the power cell to increase cooling power, the player can only equip two of the three mods at the same time in Star Wars Battlefront II.[2]" This is true, but only for the multiplayer segments. I don't think the weapon is modifiable in the single player, or at the very least, the secondary fire is default. Tommy Imperial Emblem Macaroni 06:59, October 16, 2018 (UTC)

Comments

K-16 Bryar Pistol

  • Nominated by: TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 02:51, October 14, 2018 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: Digging into Battlefront weapons lately.

(0 ACs/3 Users/3 Total)

Support

  1. Good job pumping these out so quickly. Fan26 (Talk) 21:06, October 14, 2018 (UTC)
  2. QuiGonJinn Senate seal(Talk) 14:01, October 16, 2018 (UTC)
  3. AV-6R7Crew Pit 02:12, October 17, 2018 (UTC)

Object

Fan26
  • Does File:K-16 Bryar stats.png really belong in an in-universe section of the article considering it's from the player weapon selection screen? I'm not sure myself-I've just noticed that most if not all of your prior weapon noms have those images in the BtS section. Fan26 (Talk) 15:03, October 14, 2018 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I guess you are right. I just wanted to keep it since there is not room for two images in Bts, but the concept art that shows the blaster from different angles is probably more important that the in-game stats. Changed the image. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 20:58, October 14, 2018 (UTC)
QGJ
  • I'm not sure what this means. Was the modified power unit some sort of secret feature that was unknown to the majority of the blaster's wielders? Did the makers of the weapon keep this feature secret on purpose? Concealed within the design of a fairly ordinary pistol, the K-16 possessed a modified power unit that could be discovered upon closer inspection by a suitable mercenary.
    • Deceptive by design, the K-16 Bryar Pistol appears at first to be a fairly ordinary blaster pistol. The right mercenary, however, will discover upon closer inspection a modified power unit capable of discharging the entire heat source in one powerful blast. This is the blaster's description in Battlefront, and it is pretty much everything we know, so it doesn't specify if it is intentional or not. I just tried to reword it for the article. Do you think the current sentence makes the reader think it is intentional, or the opposite? TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 07:42, October 15, 2018 (UTC)
      • Personally, when reading that sentence, I got off the vibe that the feature was intentionally hidden/undocumented by the manufacturer and only certain individuals found out about it. I'd recommend simplifying that sentence, removing the whole part about "the right mercenary discovering stuff." Just say that while the weapon appeared to be regular on the outside, it actually had a modified power unit. QuiGonJinn Senate seal(Talk) 06:58, October 16, 2018 (UTC)
  • Same as the TL-50. If the article is listed in the Concussive weapons category, this needs to be mentioned in the infobox and linked in the body. QuiGonJinn Senate seal(Talk) 07:14, October 15, 2018 (UTC)
    • Actually, no source uses the word "concussion" for this weapon's secondary fire, so I've removed the category to avoid any speculation. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 07:42, October 15, 2018 (UTC)

Comments