Wookieepedia:Comprehensive article nominations/Royal Crusader

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

Royal Crusader

Nominated by: MasterFred^(Whatever) 15:17, February 1, 2012 (UTC)
Nomination comments: Part of a series of Star Wars: Galactic Battlegrounds articles I'm doing for WP:VG.

(1 ECs/3 Users/4 Total)

Support

graestan^(talk) 20:56, February 1, 2012 (UTC)

Nice work on this WP:VG article.—Cal Jedi ^{(Personal Comm Channel)} 03:37, February 2, 2012 (UTC)
Crusaders ho! Corellian Premier^{All along the watchtower} 02:24, February 4, 2012 (UTC)
Good work satisfying 8 objectors.--501st Dogma^(Comlink) 23:10, February 12, 2012 (UTC)
NaruHina ^Talk 17:20, February 13, 2012 (UTC)

Object

~~I don't understand the statement, "They do not appear in the game's campaign." Perhaps you could be more explicit. graestan^(talk) 18:40, February 1, 2012 (UTC)~~
- Better? MasterFred^(Whatever) 20:24, February 1, 2012 (UTC)
Are you certain the mention of their usefulness against mech units doesn't belong in the BtS with other game mechanics info? Does the game itself mention that? Also, use of the term "mech" is a bit colloquial, and I am not sure how to link it. Mechanized infantry? graestan^(talk) 18:40, February 1, 2012 (UTC)
- Well, the Prima Guide states that. I figured it could go into the body since it's a special unit, and therefore it's not just for gameplay reasons that the unit is good against mechs. As for the linking, idk. This is my first unit article, so I'm in the dark. MasterFred^(Whatever) 20:22, February 1, 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review! :) MasterFred^(Whatever) 20:24, February 1, 2012 (UTC)
  - I changed it to "mechanized" but I still think the wording of the last two sentences sound more like game guide than canon encyclopedia entry. Play with them a bit, make them into a story. graestan^(talk) 20:32, February 1, 2012 (UTC)
    - I reworded some. It's hard to make the statistics sound less "gamey" without going POV. 9_9 lol Lemme know if that's good. :) MasterFred^(Whatever) 20:39, February 1, 2012 (UTC)
      - I hope my final tweak is kosher. graestan^(talk) 20:56, February 1, 2012 (UTC)
The Premier
~~I was wrong, they do appear in the campaign. 7 of them defend Harte Secur during the 2nd TF mission. This needs included.~~ Corellian Premier^{All along the watchtower} 01:13, February 3, 2012 (UTC)
- Haha, no, I was wrong, because I checked. XD I didn't think to check the TF campaign. Stupid me. 9_9 lol Anyway, added. MasterFred^(Whatever) 14:42, February 3, 2012 (UTC)
  - We would need to remove (Multiplayer only) then from at least GB in the appearances. Corellian Premier^{All along the watchtower} 16:10, February 3, 2012 (UTC)
    - Ah yes. Fixed. MasterFred^(Whatever) 16:23, February 3, 2012 (UTC)
~~They are identified as "Royal Crusaders" in the game databank. Would a move be in order?~~ Corellian Premier^{All along the watchtower} 01:13, February 3, 2012 (UTC)
- The game guide calls them "royal crusaders" multiple times. Which should we go with? MasterFred^(Whatever) 14:42, February 3, 2012 (UTC)
  - True, but wouldn't the game's databank trump the guide? Corellian Premier^{All along the watchtower} 17:05, February 3, 2012 (UTC)
    - I guess so. It's been moved. MasterFred^(Whatever) 19:16, February 3, 2012 (UTC)
Exiled Jedi
- ~~Please mention who was invading Naboo in the body of the article.~~
  - Mentioned.
- ~~Please say who was victorious at Harte Secur.~~
  - Good?
    - I think that you could use to reword that last sentence to make it flow better.--Exiled Jedi (Greetings) 21:40, February 10, 2012 (UTC)
      - How about now? MasterFred^(Whatever) 16:24, February 14, 2012 (UTC)
- ~~I'm not sure if you should mention this, but the Elite Royal Crusaders had shield generators protecting them.~~
  - Meh, I guess so. Mentioned.
- Are you sure that you should have their game statistics in the BTS? The statistics for every unit in the game can be changed by different upgrades. I also did not think that we included the actual game statistics in articles. Any thoughts on this?--Exiled Jedi (Greetings) 19:32, February 5, 2012 (UTC)
  - Cal said yes, but that's two who have said no. I've removed them.
    - Meh. Haven't done articles from GB type games before. Sorry for the confusion.—Cal Jedi ^{(Personal Comm Channel)} 01:30, February 8, 2012 (UTC)
- It looks like you will have to section the article since the word count is now over 200 words.--Exiled Jedi (Greetings) 03:27, February 18, 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review! MasterFred^(Whatever) 19:36, February 7, 2012 (UTC)
Rubedo
- Don't list out statistics that way. They should be prosified (no numbers) and you should write out what they represent, i.e. "Royal Crusaders were stonger than other melee units in the game" or some such. Whatever Armor and DuraArmor mean, that might be something for the body. NaruHina ^Talk 20:39, February 5, 2012 (UTC)
  - There's not really a way to word it. I have no idea what "DuraArmor" and "Armor" represent IU. I think it's merely game mechanics.
    - Especially since the upgraded unit has shields. If they were significantly higher than one, I would say find a way to include it, but I'm guessing that's just base and unimportant. NaruHina ^Talk 00:05, February 9, 2012 (UTC)
- ~~Further, "The unit is weak against Jedi and aircraft and is strong against turrets, assault mechs, and troopers" should be prosified in an IU way and put in the body.~~ NaruHina ^Talk 20:41, February 5, 2012 (UTC)
  - Better?
- Thanks for the review! MasterFred^(Whatever) 19:36, February 7, 2012 (UTC)
- ~~Context on Trade Federation and Harte Secur. I thought the latter was a person.~~ NaruHina ^Talk 00:05, February 9, 2012 (UTC)
  - Better? MasterFred^(Whatever) 19:26, February 9, 2012 (UTC)
501st
- ~~You say "Seven Crusaders were used during the invasion of Naboo by the Trade Federation". This kind of sounds like the crusaders were used by the Trade Federation.~~
- ~~Also, you describe the trade federation as a "galactic trade company". Try to use a different word then trade.~~
- --501st Dogma^(Comlink) 21:22, February 10, 2012 (UTC)

Comments

This is my first video game unit article, so should all the game statistics for the unit be included in the Bts, such as Attack points, etc.? MasterFred^(Whatever) 20:28, February 1, 2012 (UTC)
- That probably would be a good idea for comprehensiveness.—Cal Jedi ^{(Personal Comm Channel)} 03:37, February 2, 2012 (UTC)
  - Added. MasterFred^(Whatever) 16:28, February 2, 2012 (UTC)
This thing is totally hijacked by the later objections, so I have to withdraw support and re-review once they are satisfied. At the very least I will say that game mechanics of such specificity do not belong on a canon wiki. This was one of the earliest debated issues on this site. graestan^(talk) 05:53, February 6, 2012 (UTC)
Hey Fred, I saw that you added the NEC as a source. Are the Crusaders mentioned in there? Corellian Premier^{All along the watchtower} 03:31, February 8, 2012 (UTC)
- No. I was actually gonna ask about that. Is it only if it is mentioned, or if any information in the article was gleaned from the source? MasterFred^(Whatever) 03:59, February 8, 2012 (UTC)
  - There isn't any mention of them or Harte Secur whatsoever. I just use the NEC to source things like this because Galactic Battlegrounds doesn't say "32 BBY." So the NEC can be removed from the source list. Corellian Premier^{All along the watchtower} 04:09, February 8, 2012 (UTC)
    - Ah, just a misunderstanding on how the section worked on my part. Foxed. MasterFred^(Whatever) 04:16, February 8, 2012 (UTC)
According to my count, the article is now over 200 words. You'll need to section the article, and chances are, this will end up being too big for CAN. I'll leave my support on the article until you section it, and I review it again, provided it stays below 250 words.—Cal Jedi ^{(Personal Comm Channel)} 02:41, February 18, 2012 (UTC)