- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Comprehensive article nomination that was successful. Please do not modify it.
Venator I-class Star Destroyer
- Nominated by: Loqiical (talk) 03:39, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- Nomination comments:
- WookieeProject (optional): Wookieepedia:WookieeProject Fantasy Flight Games
(2 ECs/3 Users/5 Total)
(Votes required: No additional votes required to pass, please consider reviewing another article.)
Support
- JMAS
Hey, it's me! 12:28, 24 March 2022 (UTC) - Erebus Chronus (Talk) 16:12, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- --Vitus InfinitusTalk 15:15, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Manoof (he/him/his) (talk) 03:01, 27 March 2022 (UTC)- Commander Code-8 Hello There! 04:21, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Object
JMAS
The part about the purple lighting is subjective at best and really should be removed from that sentence.- JMAS
Hey, it's me! 05:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Proof of portside turbolaser
To say there is a medium dual turbolaser cannons on the starboard side somewhat implies there isn't one on the port side, when there is one on both port and starboard.- JMAS Hey, it's me! 05:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- I can't see the one on the port side. Loqiical (talk) 05:55, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- You can't make this claim on an illustration. They aren't going to design a ship and put a turbolaser on once side and not the other, it just not logical. But if you zoom the image to about 600%, it's dark and not as detailed (because the artist didn't need to make it as detailed) but there is absolutely a dual turbolaser there too. - JMAS Hey, it's me! 06:25, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'll have to wait for someone else's opinion because I asked this question before and the answer was that symmetry can't be assumed. Loqiical (talk) 07:33, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- To me it still seems to be the bit behind the cannons and the cannons themselves are obscured due to the perspective angle. But we wait for EC opinion. Loqiical (talk) 03:24, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- Resolved. Loqiical (talk) 06:07, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- You can't make this claim on an illustration. They aren't going to design a ship and put a turbolaser on once side and not the other, it just not logical. But if you zoom the image to about 600%, it's dark and not as detailed (because the artist didn't need to make it as detailed) but there is absolutely a dual turbolaser there too. - JMAS
- I can't see the one on the port side. Loqiical (talk) 05:55, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
"At one point during the Clone Wars against the Confederacy of Independent Systems, a Venator I of the Open Circle Fleet was present near Valor, a space station orbiting the planet Carida of the Colonies' Carida system." A couple things on this sentence. First, I believe proper grammar would be to italicize Venator I, as it is still the proper name of the ship class. Second, this reads somewhat awkward to me. I'm not sure if it should be broken into two sentences, or perhaps just something like"...planet Carida, located in the Carida system which was part of the Colonies region of the galaxy."- JMAS Hey, it's me! 05:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Technically, everything from Star Wars: Armada released after November 16, 2020 was done so by Atomic Mass Games per this announcement.- JMAS Hey, it's me! 05:17, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- Is Atomic Mass Games mentioned on the card? Loqiical (talk) 05:55, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- No. Because all the promotional, pre-release preview images of the card were made while Armada was still under the FFG banner. And it was probably sent to the printer already as well. I highly doubt they would have reprinted the cards, particularly since FFG and Atomic Mass Games are all under the Asmodee parent company. But by the time the product officially was released, it was by Atomic Mass Games. - JMAS Hey, it's me! 06:25, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- No. Because all the promotional, pre-release preview images of the card were made while Armada was still under the FFG banner. And it was probably sent to the printer already as well. I highly doubt they would have reprinted the cards, particularly since FFG and Atomic Mass Games are all under the Asmodee parent company. But by the time the product officially was released, it was by Atomic Mass Games. - JMAS
- Is Atomic Mass Games mentioned on the card? Loqiical (talk) 05:55, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Vitus
Article should be split into at least two paragraphs.Per JMAS, I also agree that there's a dual turbolaser there. I would need EC members to weigh in, but it's reasonable to deduce that a symmetrical ship, at least on the exterior, is symmetrical, and thus the features that it has on one side can be reasonably expected on the other.--Vitus InfinitusTalk 00:37, 23 March 2022 (UTC)- Pardon my interjection, but the symmetrical thing was discussed on the Discord. Per an EC member as well as Venator II-class Star Destroyer and Patriot Fist, if only one side is seen to have something, we shouldn't assume it's symmetrical. Erebus Chronus (Talk) 00:45, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, Erebus. I don't agree with that, but alas. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 05:26, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- One problem with this. The zoomed-in and section-enhanced image I posted above shows that it is symentrical and located on both sides. You can see the turbolaser turrent and the two turbolaser cannon (darker colored) protruding from it. - JMAS Hey, it's me! 21:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- Resolved. Loqiical (talk) 06:08, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- Pardon my interjection, but the symmetrical thing was discussed on the Discord. Per an EC member as well as Venator II-class Star Destroyer and Patriot Fist, if only one side is seen to have something, we shouldn't assume it's symmetrical. Erebus Chronus (Talk) 00:45, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Erebus
BTS should be updated per Venator II-class Star Destroyer.Erebus Chronus (Talk) 05:35, 23 March 2022 (UTC)- Does the article still need to talk about Atomic Mass Games? Loqiical (talk) 09:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yes. Erebus Chronus (Talk) 21:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- I took care of that, since it was a minor fix. - JMAS Hey, it's me! 21:54, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- Is there a source for the release date of the pack? Loqiical (talk) 06:08, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- I can't find any official release date on AMG, Asmodee or FFG's sites. However, Amazon lists the publication date as July 16, 2021. Now, Amazon also lists FFG as the publisher, but since Asmodee's own website lists AMG as the publisher, that trumps a third party seller. But if the third party (Amazon) is the only place that lists a publication date, then I think that's the date that should be listed, right? - JMAS Hey, it's me! 12:41, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- That makes sense. From where did we get the May 28 date anyway? Loqiical (talk) 05:32, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- Armada wiki, which we cite release years to all the time. Erebus Chronus (Talk) 23:42, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- That makes sense. From where did we get the May 28 date anyway? Loqiical (talk) 05:32, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- I can't find any official release date on AMG, Asmodee or FFG's sites. However, Amazon lists the publication date as July 16, 2021. Now, Amazon also lists FFG as the publisher, but since Asmodee's own website lists AMG as the publisher, that trumps a third party seller. But if the third party (Amazon) is the only place that lists a publication date, then I think that's the date that should be listed, right? - JMAS
- Is there a source for the release date of the pack? Loqiical (talk) 06:08, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- I took care of that, since it was a minor fix. - JMAS
- Yes. Erebus Chronus (Talk) 21:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- Does the article still need to talk about Atomic Mass Games? Loqiical (talk) 09:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Comments
Approved as a Comprehensive article by EduCorps 04:21, 27 March 2022 (UTC)