Wookieepedia:Featured article nominations/Battle of Ession

< 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 Ession

(5 Inqs/2 Users/7 Total)

Support

  1. Inqvote Dedicated to Lord Hydronium. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 18:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Inqvote Greyman(Paratus) 15:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Goodwood Redstarbird (Alliance Intelligence) 21:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. Inqvote -- Darth Culator (Talk) 04:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. Inqvote Graestan(Talk) 22:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. Inqvote Green Tentacle (Talk) 00:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. More battle FA's. Toprawa and Ralltiir 00:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. From the Forest of Goodwood
    • This sentence: "The Battle of Ession was a conflict between the New Republic, particularly Wraith Squadron and the forces under the command of Warlord Zsinj." reads awkwardly, and not just from the missing comma.
    • As does this one: "It was intended by Zsinj as a trap, using the Pakkerd Light Transport facility on Ession as bait, in order to destroy several squadrons of New Republic fighters, including Rogue Squadron."
    • This one too: "While Zsinj intended for Ession to be a mission to deal with in fact a trap designed to destroy the Star Destroyer Implacable, commanded by Admiral Apwar Trigit."
    • The lead quote in the Prelude section needs fixing.
    • Over/under-linking: links to Night Caller, Zsinj, Apwar Trigit, and Implacable, plus a number of others, needed in the main body.
      • I'm not doing the whole extra link in the main body. If it's in the intro, I'm not re-linking it. Also, AWB took care of that stuff. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 04:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Please remove quote link to Hutt in the Surprise Attack section's lead quote.
      • That's not going to happen.</Master Chief> Look at the policy, from WP:MOS: "Redundant internal links should not be added to quotes because they serve little purpose beyond making the quotes appear cluttered and messy. Links should only be added to quotes if they contain a specific article's ONLY mention of a particular concept, but even then, it is better to integrate the internal link into the body of the article's text." This falls under that exception clause. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 02:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
        • The spirit of that clause would better be served, IMHO, if a link to Hutt was actually relevant to the context of the article. Unfortunately, that relevance eludes me at the moment.--Goodwood Redstarbird (For the Rebellion!) 06:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
          • The word "relevance" doesn't actually appear in above policy, strangely enough. Notice the part where it says: "Links should only be added to quotes if they contain a specific article's ONLY mention of a particular concept." There is no way to reasonably justify linking the word Hutt into the article another way- that's like linking kriff in the main body of an article when it's used as an expletive. Therefore, the link should stay. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 04:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
    • TIE Interceptor is linked twice in the Destruction section; in addition, a link to fighter group is desirable after 181st.
    • The BtS could possibly be expanded and sourced using Allston's blog. If that's not possible, I'll understand.
    • TIMMMMMBERRRRR!--Goodwood Redstarbird (For the Rebellion!) 23:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Put it all, bar the BTS, under one "History" section, please. Thefourdotelipsis 23:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. According to CUSWE it is also mentioned in the EGtC. Is that correct? --Eyrezer 06:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
    • That would be most curious, as EGtC was released three years before Wraith Squadron. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 04:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. The intro explains who thinks they're trapping who and why much clearer than the prelude section. Make it clearer there too. Green Tentacle (Talk) 19:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. Some help from T&R
    • "Using the captured CR90 corvette Night Caller, Wraith Squadron had been masquerading as Zsinj's agents while mounting a number of covert air and ground missions to destroy as numerous Zsinj-held assets." is incoherent. It seems like you're missing "as possible" at the end; and, if so, I would change "numerous" to "many" Toprawa and Ralltiir 23:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm not positive the Implacable is ever distinguished as an Imp-II Star Destroyer, despite the title of its article. I made mention of this on the Implacable's talk page, that I believe Wraith Squadron only identifies the ship as an Imp-class SD, unless I missed it somewhere at the beginning of the book. Impress me by finding confirmation of this. Toprawa and Ralltiir 00:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Ran a search through the whole Wraith Squadron book and couldn't find it. I've altered the article accordingly. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 00:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Approved by Inquisitorius 18:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

  • AFAIK, it's a single source nom, so no refs needed. Should that change, I'll gladly reference it. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 22:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  • AFAIK, no canonical illustrations exist. I would be happy to be disproved. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 22:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Just out of curiosity, are we referring to the CR90 Corvette as the "Corellian corvette" in the intro for the sake of anons? Toprawa and Ralltiir 23:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)