- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a good article nomination that was successful. Please do not modify it.
Contents
Zebulon-B frigate[]
- Nominated by: 501st dogma(talk) 23:23, February 25, 2013 (UTC)
- Nomination comments: I ran into this on the Wook for the first time via the RC, and then proceeded to read about it the very same day in my book. Weird.
(3 ACs/2 Users/5 Total)[]
Support[]
- IFYLOFD (Floyd's crib) 02:27, March 7, 2013 (UTC)
- CC7567 (talk) 23:55, March 10, 2013 (UTC)
- I remember noticing this when I read the book.--Exiled Jedi (Greetings) 14:29, March 11, 2013 (UTC)
- Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 17:08, March 12, 2013 (UTC)
- Always loved the title of Kuat of Kuat. Cade Calrayn 17:13, March 12, 2013 (UTC)
Object[]
Floyd has one thing[]
"not wishing to see the shipyards be taken over by the Empire which they sold to," This doesn't really work grammatically.IFYLOFD (Floyd's crib) 02:14, March 5, 2013 (UTC)
Attack of the Clone[]
"after the result of the forthcoming Battle of Endor, a major confrontation between the two warring sides": this foreshadowing is a little confusing, as it isn't clear until the next paragraph that Endor hasn't happened yet. Could you tweak this slightly so that it's clearer? It might be better to just mention Endor and its aftermath after the fact (i.e. not at this specific place).- I'm finding that I'm still rather resiting the fact that the Battle of Endor gets mentioned before it happens—it makes it sound as though KDY was planning to "boost the ranks" as a direct result of anticipating the battle and its "result." Would you be able to write Endor out of this part and move it to the next paragraph? I think it would make more sense there. CC7567 (talk) 21:52, March 8, 2013 (UTC)
- KDY knew the battle was going to happen, as they saw Alliance and Imperial forces gathering near there. 501st dogma(talk) 01:16, March 10, 2013 (UTC)
- Would you be able to work that into the article more explicitly, then? I think it can be made a little clearer that KDY was anticipating the battle, just so that the reader isn't confused with the time jump. CC7567 (talk) 01:59, March 10, 2013 (UTC)
- How's that? 501st dogma(talk) 12:53, March 10, 2013 (UTC)
- Not to keep kicking the can down the road, but I think it can be worded a little better. Perhaps something like, "That year, KDY—anticipating a major confrontation at the moon of Endor between the Empire and the Rebel Alliance—increased production (or whatever the source says) of the frigates to boost the ranks of the Imperial Navy." And then, in the next paragraph, "However, as the Battle of Endor ensued…" That way, the "Battle of Endor" name itself wouldn't get mentioned until when or after it happens, within the chronology of the article. CC7567 (talk) 18:07, March 10, 2013 (UTC)
- How's that? 501st dogma(talk) 12:53, March 10, 2013 (UTC)
- Would you be able to work that into the article more explicitly, then? I think it can be made a little clearer that KDY was anticipating the battle, just so that the reader isn't confused with the time jump. CC7567 (talk) 01:59, March 10, 2013 (UTC)
- KDY knew the battle was going to happen, as they saw Alliance and Imperial forces gathering near there. 501st dogma(talk) 01:16, March 10, 2013 (UTC)
- I'm finding that I'm still rather resiting the fact that the Battle of Endor gets mentioned before it happens—it makes it sound as though KDY was planning to "boost the ranks" as a direct result of anticipating the battle and its "result." Would you be able to write Endor out of this part and move it to the next paragraph? I think it would make more sense there. CC7567 (talk) 21:52, March 8, 2013 (UTC)
"whom they sold to": this is slightly unclear. Do you mean that KDY was "sold to" the Empire (i.e. belonged to the Empire), or that they were selling "products" to the Empire? (Or both?) Also, the Empire isn't necessarily a person, so I don't believe "whom" should be used.Was KDY actually destroyed as a result of Kuat of Kuat's actions? It sounds like it wasn't, but it would be good to explicitly clarify that at the end of the History section.CC7567 (talk) 19:44, March 7, 2013 (UTC)
Toprawa[]
The "In or before 4 ABY" part in the infobox is a little too speculative for our purposes, assuming the source doesn't actually say that. Try just saying "c. early 4 ABY" instead.Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 03:34, March 12, 2013 (UTC)
Comments[]
Approved as a Good article by AgriCorps 17:18, March 12, 2013 (UTC)