- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Comprehensive article nomination that was successful. Please do not modify it.
Peerless
- Nominated by: Tommy-Macaroni (he/they) 18:10, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- Nomination comments:
- Date Archived: 01:53, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- Final word count: 249 words (0 introduction, 154 body, 95 behind the scenes)
- Word count at nomination time: 251 words (0 introduction, 155 body, 96 behind the scenes)
- WookieeProject (optional): WP:AMB, WP:CO
(3 ECs/1 Users/4 Total)
(Votes required: No additional votes required to pass, please consider reviewing another article.)
Support
- UberSoldat93
(talk) 19:43, 10 April 2024 (UTC) 
Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 22:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
ThrawnChiss7 Assembly Cupola 13:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)- —spookywillowwtalk 01:53, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Approved as a Comprehensive article by EduCorps 01:53, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Object
ThrawnChiss7
I know it's blurry, but I think the hangar on the underside is visible enough to be mentioned in the article. It's probably not clear enough for a solar ionization reactor though. ThrawnChiss7 Assembly Cupola 22:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC)- I erred on the side of caution since it is very blurry, but since you're happy with it I've added it.
Per Imperial Star Destroyer Cymoon 1 Refit, do you think it would be worth specifying that it specifically had ISD-72x shield generator domes? ThrawnChiss7 Assembly Cupola 22:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC)- Is that subject only confirmed to be on ISD Is? I imagine it is since it comes from the datafile of that subclass. If that's the case, I don't think that's appropriate, since we don't know which subclass the Peerless is.
- The mag's section is ISD I, but then it says "Imperial Star Destroyer technical specifications". I was also thinking of the clause in WP:N that says canon subjects can be assumed to be the same as their Legends counterpart, and in Legends, the bulbs on all ISDs where ISD-72xs. However, given the ambiguity, I'll strike this objection. ThrawnChiss7 Assembly Cupola 13:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- The mag's section is ISD I, but then it says "Imperial Star Destroyer technical specifications". I was also thinking of the clause in WP:N that says canon subjects can be assumed to be the same as their Legends counterpart, and in Legends, the bulbs on all ISDs where ISD-72xs. However, given the ambiguity, I'll strike this objection. ThrawnChiss7
- Is that subject only confirmed to be on ISD Is? I imagine it is since it comes from the datafile of that subclass. If that's the case, I don't think that's appropriate, since we don't know which subclass the Peerless is.
How do you feel about listing manufactured for individual ships based on class manufacturer? The Invincible and Imperial Star Destroyer Cymoon 1 Refit do, and I think that's similar to list the ship's length based on the ship class. ThrawnChiss7 Assembly Cupola 22:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC)- I had this on another nom; I don't like doing this since we have cases of supposed Kuat Products being made at Sienar, for example, or vice versa. The length is based on the visual appearance of the ship but we can't see where the ship was made, so they're not equivalent, if that makes sense. Tommy-Macaroni (he/they) 13:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- I think a wider discussion should be had for how much information should be assumed for ship articles, individual SA assume different amounts of info (Invincible, Defender, Adjudicator, Conqueror, Imperial Star Destroyer Cymoon 1 Refit) ThrawnChiss7 Assembly Cupola 13:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- I think a wider discussion should be had for how much information should be assumed for ship articles, individual SA assume different amounts of info (Invincible, Defender, Adjudicator, Conqueror, Imperial Star Destroyer Cymoon 1 Refit) ThrawnChiss7
- I had this on another nom; I don't like doing this since we have cases of supposed Kuat Products being made at Sienar, for example, or vice versa. The length is based on the visual appearance of the ship but we can't see where the ship was made, so they're not equivalent, if that makes sense. Tommy-Macaroni (he/they) 13:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Comments
Approved as a Comprehensive article by EduCorps 01:53, 13 April 2024 (UTC)