Wookieepedia:Featured article nominations/Assertor-class Star Dreadnought

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

Assertor-class Star Dreadnought

Nominated by: --Vitus Infinitus^Talk 20:06, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Nomination comments: Surpasses length to remain a Good Article
Date Archived: 08:52, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Final word count: 1085 words (164 introduction, 682 body, 239 behind the scenes)
WookieeProject (optional): WP:AMB WP:FFGAMES

(3 Inqs/4 Users/7 Total)

(Votes required: No additional votes required to pass, please consider reviewing another article.)

Support

OOM 224 (he/him) 11:43, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Loqiical (talk) 02:00, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Lewisr (talk) 01:44, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Erebus Chronus ^(Talk) 06:20, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Nicely done! —Tomotron^{Sith Council} 09:37, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
—spookywilloww^talk 03:34, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Master Fredcerique(talk) (he/him) 08:50, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Object

Loqiical

I suggest getting rid of links to quad turbolaser cannon, quad battleship ion cannon and quad laser cannon. The first link currently relates to the model of cannon found on Lucrehulks. I will be looking into TCing the other two as well as other vague cannon pages, since having four battleship ion cannons in a turret doesn't create a new cannon, it is just four of that cannon. Loqiical (talk) 05:16, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- Quad turbolaser cannon is not exclusive to Lucrehulks, that's only an example of one. I'm not sure how to get rid of these links, do I link quad heavy turbolaser batteries to simply turbolaser for example?. --Vitus Infinitus^Talk 01:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
  - Yes, I think that is clearer Loqiical (talk) 05:25, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
    - I've made the link changes in the infobox, not sure how that helps tbh. Let me know --Vitus Infinitus^Talk 19:21, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
      - I meant only linking "turbolaser" etc but it's ok Loqiical (talk) 09:38, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm also aiming to increase readability in infoboxes through this change: instead of "quad heavy turbolasers (40)" and then "twin heavy turbolasers (10)" a few lines down, I would like to see it condensed to "180 heavy turbolasers (40 × 4, 10 × 2)" Loqiical (talk) 05:16, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- I need to think about how to address this objection because I don't support grouping these weapons systems like that at all at this moment. --Vitus Infinitus^Talk 01:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
  - All g Loqiical (talk) 05:25, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
~~"Turret-mounted" probably doesn't require mentioning in the infobox as well Loqiical (talk) 05:16, 27 March 2023 (UTC)~~
- I'm sorry to give you a hard time with these objections, but the distinction between turret-mounted and not is big enough to warrant it in my opinion. I've been out of the nomination process for a while, can you make these changes yourself so that I can see what you mean with the armament section of the infobox? I feel like I'm not understanding how you want me to link and describe the armament. I'd really appreciate it. --Vitus Infinitus^Talk 01:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
  - Ok cool. Don't worry, none of this is codified so I'm just experimenting with new ways Loqiical (talk) 05:25, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
~~Hopefully we can fit one or two more images in the body Loqiical (talk) 05:16, 27 March 2023 (UTC)~~
- I've added two images which I think are relevant, let me know if these work! :) --Vitus Infinitus^Talk 01:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
  - I'm not sure how to use map pictures (maybe check with Imp) but I'm fine with both Loqiical (talk) 05:25, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

*Unfortunately I do not agree that Timelines says that this ship is a Star Destroyer. The page talks about Star Destroyers but it only calls this ship a battlecruiser. Loqiical (talk) 05:29, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

- Star Destroyer is a design family consisting of cruisers, battlecruisers and Star Dreadnoughts. The section in Timelines is exclusively speaking about the history of the Star Destroyer family of ships. --Vitus Infinitus^Talk 01:52, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
  - The page is talking about Star Destroyers in general but that is not to say that everything mentioned there is definitely a Star Destroyer. It even mentions ships from 200BBY but they are not necessarily Star Destroyers either. Loqiical (talk) 04:28, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
    - That's a canon reference to the Procurator-class Star Battlecruiser from Legends, a proto-Star Destroyer, and I do still stand by my point that they're all part of the Star Destroyer design family, but I'll remove it. --Vitus Infinitus^Talk 00:12, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

OOM

Nicely done, here's my copy-edit. Just one thing: there's no need to list "Assertor-class dreadnought" as an alternate name separately (intro, body, and Sources) since it's just a shortened version of the full name. OOM 224 (he/him) 19:46, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, removed --Vitus Infinitus^Talk 01:14, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Lew

~~Is it really that relevant to this article to note what ships may or may not have served in their battle groups?~~ Lewisr (talk) 18:26, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
- I think it provides reasonable context into their military service and how they operated. --Vitus Infinitus^Talk 02:04, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Erebus

I'm terribly sorry about restarting this, but I would like to revisit the whole Star Destroyer thing that Loqiical was talking about. That page in Timelines pertains to the evolution of the Star Destroyer in general, and includes that at a time, the Empire began experimenting with larger variants of SDs that were classified as battlecruisers. Why would the page include the Assertor and Bellator if not to say they're part of the Star Destroyer's evolution? My takeaway is that both ships are a battlecruiser-classed Star Destroyer. Erebus Chronus ^(Talk) 03:20, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
- That's my assertion as well but there would need to be a wider consensus. I don't want to go back and forth :P --Vitus Infinitus^Talk 03:30, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
  - I guess that's fair. Better to have the community's input. I also hope you intentionally used "assertion" there :P Erebus Chronus ^(Talk) 06:19, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Comments

Approved as a Featured article by Inquisitorius 08:50, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Here's an example of what the infobox could look like [1] Loqiical (talk) 05:54, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
- Tbh, I think that does look neat and concise but it's also a bit confusing, especially for new readers. --Vitus Infinitus^Talk 19:21, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
I trust that the article will be updated with the tiny amount of information in Timelines. Loqiical (talk) 03:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
I will note here that it's not entirely correct to say "The Assertor-class Star Dreadnought was a class..." but this can be dealt with later. Loqiical (talk) 02:00, 14 June 2023 (UTC)