FANDOM


       
Good article
nominations
             
GoodIcon

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

READ THIS FIRST!

An article must…

  1. …be well-written and 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.

How to vote:

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


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


Good article nominations

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

View recent changes for this page and its subpages

EG-9

  • Nominated by: Imperial Information Office AV-6R7Crew Pit 21:21, August 29, 2017 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: I found writing this article quite enjoyable.

(2 ACs/0 Users/2 Total)

Support

  1. ACvote This was a bit hard to wrap my head around - it's like there's two completely unrelated droids. I guess that's what happens when you recycle art. Imperators II(Talk) 22:36, August 30, 2017 (UTC)
  2. ACvote MasterFredCommerce Guild(Whatever) 04:07, September 18, 2017 (UTC)

Object

Ah, that cool droid
  • I'm not really convinced that EG-9's name being similar to a completely unrelated droid line constitutes a conflict of sources.
    • Your right, of course. I've removed it from the Bts and relegated it to a (glorious!) see also section instead. - Imperial Information Office AV-6R7Crew Pit 22:45, August 29, 2017 (UTC)
      • I agree, knowing this from prior experience, that those See also sections can be pretty invisible. Imperators II(Talk) 11:02, August 30, 2017 (UTC)
  • Databank backup link!
  • Amazon backup link! Imperators II(Talk) 21:55, August 29, 2017 (UTC)
    • Replaced with SW.com article that reveals the international release date was four days before the NA release, with backup link of course. - Imperial Information Office AV-6R7Crew Pit 22:45, August 29, 2017 (UTC)
  • In order to make the intro longer than one sentence, please add a bit to it stating EG-9 was repairing a moisture vaporator in 32 BBY.
  • I want to see some date format consistency in the BTS. Full date for first source, year for the rest; or full format for all; or years for all.
    • Done, barring the film itself. I found differing dates for the Screenplay, so I used the Caro Bay/Barnes and Noble one. - Imperial Information Office AV-6R7Crew Pit 22:17, August 30, 2017 (UTC)
  • Wow, can all those specific ship names really be sourced to Illustrated Screenplay?
  • The last paragraph of BTS is really confusing. "used an image of EG-9 to depict an unidentified droid" — so EG-9 was actually assigned the orange-and-silver appearance before he was made into a Mos Espa droid by the Visual Dictionary? "This droid was later identified as EG-9 in Star Wars: The Phantom Menace: The Expanded Visual Dictionary, making EG-9 canon within the Legends continuity." — this combined with the rest of the paragraph makes me think the Sources list might be missing some helpful {{1stID}}, {{1stp}}, or {{C}} tags. Imperators II(Talk) 11:02, August 30, 2017 (UTC)
    • EG-9 was depicted as being this droid in the "Trash Talking Droids" animatic and the Hyperspace concept art, which seems to only be available in low quality online these days. Strictly speaking, the current tags are accurate. The Screenplay, which we list as a source, also pictured him (or at least a storyboard of him), while Podracimg Tales' was his first IU appearance outside of his deleted scene. I've rewritten the last sentence a bit. - Imperial Information Office AV-6R7Crew Pit 14:10, August 30, 2017 (UTC)
      • I never knew that Hyperspace piece of concept art existed. It's so cool. Imperators II(Talk) 22:36, August 30, 2017 (UTC)
Fred strikes back
  • "fifth degree labor droid" sounds like there are five degrees of labor droids. I'm not sure how to reword that to make it clearer that the degrees apply to droids in general, but I do think it could be easily misunderstood in its current form. MasterFredCommerce Guild(Whatever) 08:33, September 5, 2017 (UTC)
Toprawa
  • Some formatting issues. Firstly, I'd like to see the BTS subsectioned, particularly to partition off the cut content. It looks like the thing to do would be to put the first and third paragraphs in one subsection and the cut content in another.
  • Podracing Tales should use whichever SW.com template is appropriate.
    • I can't seem to find a functioning online backup of the comics, or do you mean something else? - Imperial Information Office AV-6R7Crew Pit 22:33, September 26, 2017 (UTC)
      • The Podracing Tales article says that comic was originally published on SW.com, which means there should be a URL for it and therefore a template (either Hyperspace or the SW.com template) to use with it. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 19:00, September 28, 2017 (UTC)\
        • The thing is, I can find that link. Only those for the individual chapters. - Imperial Information Office AV-6R7Crew Pit 14:27, October 2, 2017 (UTC)
  • The size of the article just isn't big enough to support a body image. It doesn't look good forced in like that between two sections. I'd recommend just removing the body image. And for that matter, rearranging the BTS per the previous objection might allow you move that concept art image out of the Appearances/Sources, which is never ideal, and into the BTS. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 19:50, September 20, 2017 (UTC)

Comments

Unification Wars (Galactic Republic)

  • Nominated by: Jace Onasi (talk) 05:22, September 29, 2017 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: My second nomination of this article.

(1 ACs/1 Users/2 Total)

Support

  1. ACvote Nice! Imperators II(Talk) 08:06, October 16, 2017 (UTC)
  2. Ayrehead02 (talk) 10:11, October 22, 2017 (UTC)

Object

Unification Imperators
  • The referencing in the article's body still needs some work:
    • First sentence of Prelude: "Millennia[3]" — this ref says nothing about when the Infinite Empire reigned. If The New Essential Chronology provides the dates of the Infinite Empire's reign and the Republic's foundation, or even if it just says the Rakata ruled millennia before the Republic was founded, use that instead. Otherwise, add a (sourced) hard date for the Infinite Empire's reign to the ref.
      • I'm gonna go ahead and assume this has been addressed (for future reference, I recommend you leave a short note under each objection saying whether it's been fixed or what). "before the Unification Wars" — right now, this is being referenced to The New Essential Chronology, which is incorrect per the article itself, which indicates the book didn't mention the Wars. What I recommend you do here is source the whole "millennia before the Unification Wars" part to a new ref which explains when the Infinite Empire was around and how that relates to the date established in the 25,053 BBY ref.
        • The NEC establishes the date of the Republic's founding to c. 25,000 BBY and the Infinite Empire's rise to c. 30,000, so you would be correct there. I assume this is sufficient to establish that the Infinite Empire's reign occurred 'millennia' before the Wars?--Jace Onasi (talk) 08:25, October 15, 2017 (UTC)
          • The problem described in my previous comment is still present, i.e., you're sourcing "before the Unification Wars" to NEC, which doesn't mention the Unification Wars. I suggest you follow my suggestion of writing a new date ref for that part. Imperators II(Talk) 10:15, October 15, 2017 (UTC)
            • Is the reference that I've created sufficient?--Jace Onasi (talk) 02:28, October 16, 2017 (UTC)
    • "the Jedi joined[2] shortly following the war,[3][7]" — this also needs to be more explicitly referenced. The Galactic Timeline video entry only gives the date in the BTC/ATC system, which needs to be translated to the BBY/ABY system for clarity. And this should be done in a single ref note combining the two ref notes (3 and 7) currently there.
      • I've translated the BTC date, and arrived at 24,953 BBY. This would appear to run contrary to the other dates on the wiki, which state that 25,000 BBY was the date that the Jedi joined the Republic. I also note that apparently the article for the year was deleted at one point. Am I missing something, or is it fine to go ahead and create the article?--Jace Onasi (talk) 10:38, October 2, 2017 (UTC)
        • I don't see anything in either the Codex entry cited on the 25,000 BBY page or in The New Essential Chronology that would contradict the date from swtor.com, so I'd say go ahead and create it, just make sure it's properly referenced, of course. Also please don't forget to fully link and format the new reference on this article.
          • I've copy-pasted properly formatted the reference on this page.--Jace Onasi (talk) 08:25, October 15, 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't really see a need for sourcing the previous and following conflict to different sources in the infobox and in the "Major galactic conflict" navbox; I think it would be better to go with what you have in navbox for both mentions. Imperators II(Talk) 12:15, September 29, 2017 (UTC)
    • I've combined the sources for the infobox and navbox, though I see little point in changing the Xim Wars reference. The History of Xim and the Tion Cluster provides the date for The Devouring, though not the Xim Wars. To change it would be providing two separate sources in the infobox.--Jace Onasi (talk) 08:23, October 2, 2017 (UTC)

Comments

  • I've addressed all the objections from the previous nomination, which can be found here--Jace Onasi (talk) 05:22, September 29, 2017 (UTC)
  • About the image, I replaced the SWTOR one with one from The Jedi Path. The new image is more time-period ambiguous, without the uniformed Imperial troops. I scoured the wiki for an image of Jedi without lightsabers, and the only one I found was the one pictured below. I'm not sure it's appropriate, since it also features the Legions of Lettow. There were other images of Je'daii with swords, though they are not the same group as the modern Jedi Order.--Jace Onasi (talk) 05:22, September 29, 2017 (UTC)
    • The current image is also not ideal, since it not only depicts cordless lightsabers, which were adopted by the Jedi c. 4800 BBY, but is also an in-universe image from The Jedi Path: A Manual for Students of the Force, which was published in the last millennium of the Republic's existence. The First Great Schism image is only slightly more appropriate than, for example, this one. The best fit I've found so far is this guy, but I'll understand if you're reluctant to put his image on the article. :D I guess more opinions are needed on this issue. Imperators II(Talk) 11:37, September 29, 2017 (UTC)


R2-D7

  • Nominated by: Imperial Information Office AV-6R7Crew Pit 19:59, September 30, 2017 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: Original nomination can be found here.

(1 ACs/2 Users/3 Total)

Support

  1. <-Omicron(Leave a message at the BEEP!) 02:47, October 13, 2017 (UTC)
  2. ACvote Imperators II(Talk) 16:09, October 19, 2017 (UTC)
  3. Ayrehead02 (talk) 10:22, October 22, 2017 (UTC)

Object

Imp2-D7
  • OK, now let's see some sectioning. Imperators II(Talk) 22:06, October 8, 2017 (UTC)
  • Please expand the intro. You can probably add something from both the Bio and Characteristics.
  • Pablo Hidalgo is going to need some context.
  • I feel like the last sentence of the BTS should be reworded. What may or may not be explained by what should be left up to the reader, you should just state who said what. Also, I think the last paragraph of BTS is more important than the second one and therefore the two should be switched (the second paragraph actually feels somewhat connected to the last paragraph, maybe you can link the two in your wording). Imperators II(Talk) 18:35, October 13, 2017 (UTC)
    • How does this look? - Imperial Information Office AV-6R7Crew Pit 05:30, October 19, 2017 (UTC)
      • Actually, I'm no longer convinced the second paragraph of the BTS is really necessary at all. I don't really see where in the referenced source does it say that "R2-D7" is a designation of an R2-series astromech droid, and, given Hidalgo's Insider comment, I don't think we should be assuming that droids with "R2" in their names are necessarily R2-series. Imperators II(Talk) 08:18, October 19, 2017 (UTC)
        • Removed, but we're now back beneath the CA word limit. - Imperial Information Office AV-6R7Crew Pit 16:01, October 19, 2017 (UTC)

Comments

Millius Prime

  • Nominated by: Imperial Information Office AV-6R7Crew Pit 20:03, September 30, 2017 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: Original nomination can be found here.

(1 ACs/0 Users/1 Total)

Support

  1. ACvote Imperators II(Talk) 22:24, October 18, 2017 (UTC)

Object

Millius II
  • Please create a category for the Moons of Iego. Imperators II(Talk) 20:35, October 9, 2017 (UTC)
  • As an unfortunate side effect of the Layout Guide stipulating that the History section go before the Inhabitants, you need to add a bit of context for Angels in the History section.
  • Can you implement {{TCWCite}} in Sources? Imperators II(Talk) 21:03, October 9, 2017 (UTC)
    • In the release for S1, each indivdual episode had its own featurette. We'll need to add a field to the featurette template so we can add links to said episodes. - Imperial Information Office AV-6R7Crew Pit 18:34, October 12, 2017 (UTC)
      • In this instance, I believe adding |featurette=[[Mystery of a Thousand Moons]] would work just fine, no? Imperators II(Talk) 09:02, October 15, 2017 (UTC)

Comments

  • Yo, check out how cool the original Episode Guide backup link works now! Imperators II(Talk) 20:35, October 9, 2017 (UTC)


Ianane III

  • Nominated by: Imperators II(Talk) 21:58, October 8, 2017 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: This is a tribute to Ayrehead02, really. Also: a sand-covered planet with such a bright surface that it's mistaken for a star? What is this, a Tatooine reference?

(2 ACs/2 Users/4 Total)

Support

  1. I graciously accept your impressive tribute. Ayrehead02 (talk) 12:31, October 15, 2017 (UTC)
  2. <-Omicron(Leave a message at the BEEP!) 02:38, October 19, 2017 (UTC)
  3. ACvote Ianane, but not inane. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 19:09, October 20, 2017 (UTC)
  4. ACvote Exiled Jedi (talk) 18:08, October 21, 2017 (UTC)

Object

Comments

Last meal

(0 ACs/0 Users/0 Total)

Support

Object

Comments

  • This is a ridiculous article creation and clearly in violation of Wookieepedia is not a dictionary, as it possesses no "otherworldly quality" whatsoever, nor does it match the "unique incongruity" clause. I am therefore nominating it for deletion. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 19:35, October 13, 2017 (UTC)
    • I fervently disagree and have provided my argument on the trash compactor entry. ProfessorTofty (talk) 19:50, October 13, 2017 (UTC)
      • After further discussion on the deletion page, I am deciding to withdraw this nomination, since it seems clear that the article isn't going to be staying. That said, it could serve you well sometimes to be a little more diplomatic, Toprawa. Regardless of how you may have felt about it being "ridiculous," I think it's obvious that at the time I had my reasons for believing the article had merit and not simply a dictionary article. ProfessorTofty (talk) 16:22, October 14, 2017 (UTC)


Ront Brynloo

  • Nominated by: Ayrehead02 (talk) 07:31, October 18, 2017 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: Some bounty hunter scum, as requested by Imperators II.

(0 ACs/0 Users/0 Total)

Support

Object

Comments

Kampe

(0 ACs/0 Users/0 Total)

Support

Object

Comments

Ad blocker interference detected!


Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.