Wookieepedia:Comprehensive article nominations/Drexl-class starfighter

< Wookieepedia:Comprehensive article nominations
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a comprehensive article nomination that was unsuccessful. Please do not modify it.

Drexl-class starfighter

  • Nominated by:Omicron 17:18, September 20, 2010 (UTC):
  • Nomination comments:Interesting article about a previously unknown starship

(0 ECs/0 Users/0 Total)

Support

Omicron 17:18, September 20, 2010 (UTC) (Self-vote)

Object

  1. Soresu: A few basics
    • Remember to capitalize in the infobox.
    • Some spacing problems in the infobox.
    • Check for linking.
      • This remains to a large degree. For example, in the infobox, the manufacturer should be SoroSuub Corporation, starfighter should be linked, credits has been unnecessarily linked twice, kg could be linked, and days could be linked to Galactic Standard Calendar. Please go through the entire article to fix these sorts of things up.
    • Quite a lot of infobox stuff that has no mention in the body.
      • Not fixed. The description should contain info on the crew, consumables, etc. You might even be able to push the word count over 250.
    • There are a number of other problems I'll put up once these are addressed. SoresuMakashi(Everything I tell you is the truth) 02:01, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
      • Ok, I've tried to address your objections, let me know what else needs to be done.<-Omicron 14:31, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
  2. Makashi
    • Linking problems remain. I put some stuff on your talk page.
      • Fixed what you suggested.
    • It was named for the predatory bird native to the moon of Dxun. Can this be confirmed? If not, it should be in the bts.
    • Its use by customs agencies should be in History, not Characteristics.
      • moved
    • Why no mention of SoroSuub in the body?
      • state in History that SoroSuub engineers revisited their design, not sure what else to mention.
    • Introduction could be expanded a bit.
      • not sure what more I could add, the source is only 3 paragraphs.
        • rewrote intro to include more information.<-Omicron 01:32, October 6, 2010 (UTC)
    • It appears that the difference It appears that? Wookieepedia deals with facts, and only facts.
    • Retcon is defined as "changing" previous canon. This has not been done, I think. There was simply an depiction contradiction in canon, and The Unknown Regions stepped in, stating that the Drexl was a prototype.
      • rewrote BTS to remove speculation
        • Much better, but what you've said is that "There was a visual discrepancy between two sources. A third source stepped in and said that a prototype existed". This itself doesn't solve the discrepancy, unless the image was retconned to a Drexl. If there was, then it should be stated. If there was no retcon to say that the Gamer issue was a Drexl, then it should say something like "Regions addressed this by depicting a starfighter similar in appearance to the Gamer image and naming it the Drexl, without specifically retconning the old image." SoresuMakashi(Everything I tell you is the truth) 02:25, September 29, 2010 (UTC)
          • ok rewrote the BTS some, trying to rephrase the similar appearance. Let me know what you think.<-Omicron 21:45, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
    • Remember to italisize class names and sources.
      • done
    • Specify which Gamer issue you're talking about.
      • done
    • Watch your spacing. I'm seeing two, three, and even four spaces between sentences. SoresuMakashi(Everything I tell you is a lie) 05:03, September 26, 2010 (UTC)
  3. Jujiggum
    • Intro needs to be expanded. There is plenty of info from the main body that you could summarize in the intro.
      • again, not sure what else could be added to the intro. It's an introduction, I don't think it should be full of facts or more than one sentence.<-Omicron 21:45, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
        • There is a ton of applicable info that you could appropriately summarize. At least what it was primarily used for (short-range combat/planetary defense), the fact that it was armed with a laser cannon and missile launcher, and what it was named for could all be touched on briefly. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 00:17, October 6, 2010 (UTC)
          • rewrote intro to include more information.<-Omicron 01:32, October 6, 2010 (UTC)
            • You could still add some more: at a minimum what it was named for and its primary purpose, and it would probably be best to also mention that it was originally shelved. If you're worried about the intro becoming too long in comparison to the body, please note my objection below that notes that you still have information in the infobox that isn't present in the body, so the article body still needs to be expanded, too. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 14:47, October 6, 2010 (UTC)
              • I don't know what is missing. Every fact from the infobox is in the article. Manufacturer,cost, armament, class, crew, usage, etc.<-15:21, October 6, 2010 (UTC)
                • You are missing its military-only availability. Also, if you believe you have fixed an objection (such as the one in question below) please note as such beneath the objection itself, so that I know to check for it. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 15:45, October 6, 2010 (UTC)
                  • added to Characteristics section.<-Omicron 15:52, October 6, 2010 (UTC)
    • In the intro and in the first mention in the body you just call it the "Drexl-class," neglecting to mention "starfighter" in the name. Was "starfighter" part of the actual name, or was it just known as "Drexl-class?" If "starfighter" was actually part of the name, then this needs to also be bolded in the intro and should be added to at least the first mention in the main body.
      • I believe starfighter is just what it is, not part of the proper name. Source calls is Drexl-class, Drexl-class starfighter and Drexl-class fighter, so I am assuming the Name is Drexl-class.<-Omicron 19:12, October 6, 2010 (UTC)
        • No, you should use the fullest name that the source calls it: the "Drexl-class starfighter." The other two sound like just short "nicknames" for it, if you will. Please adjust the article accordingly. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 22:41, October 8, 2010 (UTC)
          • fixed.<-Omicron 22:44, October 11, 2010 (UTC)
    • Please fill in the eras template if an era is known; and if it isn't known, then remove the template from the article.
      • added.<-Omicron 21:45, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
    • By "2-person" do you mean 2 Humans or 2 beings in general?
      • doesn't say, I am assuming that when it says 2 person crew, they are specifying 2 medium-sized humanoids unless otherwise stated(IE: in the case of the Rogue-class Porax-38 starfighter.<-Omicron 21:45, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
    • "It cost 165,000 credits new." Which "it?" The consumables, the cargo, or the ship? (Yes, I know you mean the ship, but this is worded so that it is grammatically referring to the cargo or the consumables)
      • fixed.<-Omicron 21:45, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
    • "It was armed…" Please don't start a new paragraph with "It;" be more specific on the first mention of something in the paragraph so that the reader knows for certain what you're talking about.
      • fixed.<-Omicron 21:45, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
    • "As the developers moved to new ideas, the design was shelved." Which design was shelved? Drexl or Preybird?
      • rewrote a bit to make this more clear.<-Omicron 21:45, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
        • This is still a little confusing as to which one was shelved. The "initial design" could still refer to either one. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 00:17, October 6, 2010 (UTC)
          • reworded to be a bit more clear.<-Omicron 01:41, October 6, 2010 (UTC)
            • This remains. The intial design for which starfighter? You still have not clarified this at all. All you have to do is say "…the original design for the Preybird/Drexl-class starfighter&hellip" instead of just "…original design for the starfighter…" I would fix this myself but I'm unfamiliar with the source material so I'm not sure which one it actually is. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 14:47, October 6, 2010 (UTC)
              • ok rewrote this section. <-Omicron 15:38, October 6, 2010 (UTC)
    • No punctuation in images unless the caption is a complete sentence.
      • fixed.<-Omicron 21:45, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
    • "Star Wars Gamer 4 had an image in the article…" Could you specify what the image was of sooner?
    • "It was identified as a Preybird-class starfighter, but did not look like other images of the Preybird-class from The Last Command Sourcebook." Do you mean to suggest that it looked more like a Drexl than a Preybird? If so, then please specify this.
    • "The Unknown Regions sourcebook addressed this fact…" Is this perhaps a retcon?
      • I'm currently checking that with him. As far as I know, I don't think it qualifies as a retcon, because no previous canon was changed, although it does seem to imply that the image was, in fact, a Drexl. SoresuMakashi(Everything I tell you is a lie) 14:39, October 1, 2010 (UTC)
    • Also, there is information missing in the article that is present in the infobox.
    • Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 13:59, October 1, 2010 (UTC)

Comments

  1. Ok I've rewrote the article a bit to address some concerns. Please let me know if there are any other suggestions/objections. Thanks. <-Omicron 17:45, September 25, 2010 (UTC)
  2. Note: This article is currently above 250 words, and the intro has room for expansion. Once my objections and Jug's are fixed up, you should request for removal and take it to GAN. SoresuMakashi(Everything I tell you is the truth) 00:36, October 6, 2010 (UTC)