Wookieepedia:Comprehensive article nominations/Nintuk (second nomination)

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a comprehensive article nomination that was successful. Please do not modify it.

Nintuk (second nomination)

• Nominated by: Manoof (talk) 02:19, April 17, 2016 (UTC)
• Nomination comments:CA that was demoted by the EC due to these issues. I believe I have corrected them all.

(2 ECs/3 Users/5 Total)

Support

1. Cwedin^(talk) 07:24, April 17, 2016 (UTC)
2. Imperators II^(Talk) 21:13, April 22, 2016 (UTC)
3. Supreme Emperor (talk) 03:09, April 23, 2016 (UTC)
4. AV-6R7^{Crew Pit} 03:42, April 23, 2016 (UTC)
5. Ayrehead02 (talk) 11:50, May 1, 2016 (UTC)

Object

Cwedin

• The infobox should have the "type=Criminal" field.
  • Wow, don't know how that got through so long! Added. Manoof (talk) 06:34, April 17, 2016 (UTC)
• Looks good otherwise! - Cwedin^(talk) 05:08, April 17, 2016 (UTC)

Imperators II

• You should add the info about the publishing eras in the BTS instead of that reference note.
  • I went ahead and just cut the last sentence in that ref note - it was unrelated to the IU dating and unnecessary. Whether to add the info about publishing eras to the BTS is up to you. Imperators II^(Talk) 21:13, April 22, 2016 (UTC)
• Also, I believe the dating of Palpatine's reign should be in the article body instead of the ref note. Imperators II^(Talk) 08:40, April 17, 2016 (UTC)
  • I followed the lead/precedent set by the 88-R Nightscreamer article, which had a similar issue (unknown chronological placement which could be narrowed to a year range). The result is what was settled upon after debate and back-and-forthing with other editors. I'm willing to make the changes though if you insist. Manoof (talk) 08:51, April 17, 2016 (UTC)
    • After some consultation with other editors, I now believe it's fine if you want to leave it as is. Imperators II^(Talk) 21:13, April 22, 2016 (UTC)
    • Alright, thanks for the look over! Manoof (talk) 04:15, April 24, 2016 (UTC)

Ayrehead

• The first issue from the EC hasn't really been addressed as the article still doesn't state that the Emperor put the bounty on her. Since saying the Emperor himself placed the bounty seems a little odd I might just stick to the sources wording and add "A bounty of 75,000 credits was then issued by proclamation of the Emperor for either her capture", although it's up to you. Ayrehead02 (talk) 09:30, May 1, 2016 (UTC)
  • Hmmm, thought I covered that. Fixed per your suggestion. Manoof (talk) 11:28, May 1, 2016 (UTC)

Comments