Wookieepedia:Featured article nominations/Battle of Coruscant (Clone Wars)

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

Battle of Coruscant (Clone Wars)

(5 Inqs/3 Users/8 Total)

Support

  1. As nominater. This was previously featured some time ago. Chack Jadson 20:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. Inqvote Gonk (Gonk!) 20:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
  3. Inqvote Greyman(Paratus) 22:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
  4. Unit 8311 16:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  5. Inqvote Thefourdotelipsis 04:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  6. Inqvote Green Tentacle (Talk) 13:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  7. Inqvote Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 14:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  8. Hobbes15(Tiger Headquarters) 03:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Object

  • Better source for this, please. Green Tentacle (Talk) 13:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • While we're at it the 12th reference doesn't have a name and, if it's from ICS, shouldn't that be under sources too? Green Tentacle (Talk) 13:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • From the desk of Atarumaster88
  • Needs more images, particularly at the bottom
  • Current images don't follow standard left-right-left-right layout
  • Perhaps it's a conflicting timeline thing, but how can Anakin and Obi-Wan be both on Nelvaan and Tythe at the same time? The two paragraphs that discuss the detail don't make it clear what's going on.
  • BTS still looks kind of thin as far as conflicting elements- the Nelvaan/Tythe thing needs to go there if it's another error, etc. I noticed a SW.com thread on the issue, so maybe that could be consulted.
  • Still did not see information from ROTS game (Invisible Hand) that was listed on Inq page.
  • Appearance list and reference list don't match up- what is Evil Eye/Evil Eyes and why is it listed incorrectly on the reference list if they are the same work?
  • As much as I hate to say this, is it policy to reference the infobox? Because that would need to be done if so.
  • No information from two non-canon sources is included.
    • Have a Super Terrific Friendly Un-frustrating Day. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 20:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Your objections have been fixed. Chack Jadson Talk 00:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
      • IMO, the infobox isn't completely sourced and nothing specific has been laid out in the BTS yet. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 13:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
      • The reason no info from the non-canon sources is included is that they don't really differ from the movie, to the best of my knowledge. You fly around, destroy ships, and kill Dooku. Nothing that's not already covered. Chack Jadson Talk 22:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Fair enough. I would personally prefer a bit of BTS on that, but that's me. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 16:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Remove bullets from BTS and I still say that if it's mentioned in ICS, that should be on the sources list. Green Tentacle (Talk) 09:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Unsourced BTS. Inqvote Thefourdotelipsis 00:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
    • What specifically needs to be sourced? I mean, how exactly can it sourced, seeing as how it says "in the novel", "in the cartoon", etc. Chack Jadson Talk 00:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Bah. You crazy young people and your different ways. Thefourdotelipsis 04:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Read about half of it:
    • Republic actions, paragraph 6 - needs a source.
    • Republic actions, last paragraph - needs a source.
    • The capture of Supreme Chancellor Palpatine, paragraph six - if the two refs are from the same source only one is needed.
    • Shouldn't there be some mention of Windu almost catching Grievous as his shuttle took off? Green Tentacle (Talk) 15:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Just a couple more things:
    • Continuing battle, paragraph 2 - "They then received word that a Republic was being attacked by a Separatist cruiser" seems to have a word missing.
    • Continuing battle, paragraph 4 - Is the communications error mentioned in the film or the book? If it's in the film, just ignore this, otherwise you might need to change the source.
    • Could we get the last few bits of the infobox sourced? Green Tentacle (Talk) 10:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Fixed. Chack Jadson Talk 13:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Sorry. Now it's all fixed. I misunderstood you, as odd as that may sound. Chack Jadson Talk 13:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Article name doesn't seem to be supported by official sources, see comment section below. --Craven 16:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Just a few little minor suggestions.
    • An overall rewrite of the third paragraph in Republic Actions. The sentence structure is ugly.
    • Mention the fact that the 501st were attempting to clear a path for the Jedi (Kenobi and Skywalker) to rescue the Chancellor (Or at least I think that's what it says in BFII).
    • Reword sentence 1 of the fourth paragraph of A failed Rescue.
    • "The clones took heavy casualties and Anakin found himself wanting to go back and help them, but Obi-Wan would not let him, as they had to stick to the mission." Reword this (Located in Skywalker and Kenobi's intervention).
    • In the second sentence of the third paragraph of Continuing Battle, try changing "summoned" to ordered.

That's basically it for me. Very good article, though. Good work. Hobbes15(Tiger Headquarters) 04:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Approved by Inquisitorius 14:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

What source calls this battle the second Battle of Coruscant? The official site just calls it Battle of Coruscant, the NEC doesn't have any in-universe name for this event, Google only finds Wookieepedia and fansites. --Craven 01:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I think it's based on the fact that there was a Battle of Coruscant before this one. As for IU name, I'm not sure if it's ever called the Second Battle. Chack Jadson Talk 04:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    • If that name is not used in any official source, then the article should either have a {{conjecture}} template, or it should be moved to another name like Battle of Coruscant (19 BBY). --Craven 16:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Adding a conjecture tag might be a good idea. Thoughts? Chack Jadson Talk 20:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
        • I suggested using that tag, but now I have doubts if it's a good idea. Even if we put this tag into the article, all other articles will still use "Second battle of" when describing things related to the battle and linking to it. I guess it would be the same problem like all those systems and stars with conjectural names (the articles have the conjecture tag, but they are still linked in the articles about planets, sectors ect. without any information that it's not an official name). --Craven 22:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
          • Yeah, I think it should be left as is. Nothing really we can do. Well, if you don't think it's necessary, could you please scratch your objection? Chack Jadson Talk 14:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
            • No, what I meant was that the conjecture tag seems not to be the best solution. The name would be used in other articles nonetheless and people will start believing that this name is canon. But to leave it as it is would be wrong too, IMO. If there's no official source that calls it "Second Battle of Coruscant", move the article to its canon name. And after reading Talk:First Battle of Coruscant (Clone Wars), it doesn't seem like that event was ever called the "First Battle of Coruscant" either. --Craven 14:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
              • See, that's a tricky thing. As the most complete Star Wars database, we include a lot of information that other sites or official reference books don't have. A lot of people, even those licensed by Lucasfilm, don't know about the first. However, the New Essential Chronology expands the first battle, making it more like a battle. I mean, common sense has got to supersede canon once in a while. But here's something: move the first battle to like raid or skirmish on Coruscat, and move this to just Battle of Coruscant (Clone Wars). Although I'm not fond of that idea. Chack Jadson Talk 14:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
                • I think Battle of Coruscant (19 BBY) seems to fit well enough. I personally don't see a problem with the original name, but if there's a problem, this certainly makes sense, even if it's not actually IU. Hobbes15(Tiger Headquarters) 01:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
                  • Meh. There's nothing wrong with the current name. Green Tentacle (Talk) 19:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
                    • Except that it's unofficial (fanon)? ;) --Craven 14:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Could we move the first to "Raid", remove the "Second" here and get a bot to change the links? I would prefer to leave it how it is though, because it really doesn't seem necessary, like Gt said. Either way, I would like to get this fixed soon, as this article is very close to FA status. Chack Jadson Talk 22:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Sorry for the delay, I had some trouble with my internet connection. I didn't want to interrupt the whole nomination process.
    • I read the sources that mention the New Droid Army event (except the Fact Files, don't know which issue talks about it) and neither the game, NEC nor the official site refer to it with an in-universe name (like "Battle of.."). But The Dark Forces Saga, Part 1 calls it the "Coruscant Insurrection" - with capital letters, so I guess that's kind of an official name. So I suggest moving the NDA event to Coruscant Insurrection and this article to Battle of Coruscant (Clone Wars) or Battle of Coruscant (19 BBY) --Craven 14:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Good idea. If no one obejcts within a day, I'll move it. Chack Jadson Talk 15:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
        • How is it now? Chack Jadson Talk 00:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
          • Looks good to me :) --Craven 04:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)