Wookieepedia:Featured article nominations/Battle of Felucia (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.

Contents

  • 1 Battle of Felucia (Clone Wars)
    • 1.1 (4 Inqs/2 Users/6 Total)
      • 1.1.1 Support
      • 1.1.2 Object
        • 1.1.2.1 Felucia
      • 1.1.3 Comments

Battle of Felucia (Clone Wars)

  • Nominated by: CC7567 (talk) 21:01, October 6, 2012 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: I love Felucia. A companion to the first one.

(4 Inqs/2 Users/6 Total)

Support

  1. Plagueis327 (talk) 21:17, October 6, 2012 (UTC)
  2. Inqvote Menkooroo (talk) 00:51, November 12, 2012 (UTC)
  3. Inqvote IFYLOFD (Floyd's crib) 21:28, November 29, 2012 (UTC)
  4. Inqvote Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 22:26, December 13, 2012 (UTC)
  5. TCW seems so much better when you write about it. Cade Calrayn GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit 04:33, December 28, 2012 (UTC)
  6. Inqvote JangFett (Talk) 05:11, January 31, 2013 (UTC)

Object

Felucia
  • A couple of small ones: Koon is referred to as a Jedi General in the infobox but not the article proper. Can you make it not infobox-exclusive?
    • Fixed.
  • Neither Delta-7B Aethersprite-class light interceptor nor Jedi Order are linked outside of the infobox; can you find a place for them? Solid work. Menkooroo (talk) 06:25, November 11, 2012 (UTC)
    • I've mentioned the Jedi Order, but I don't see the necessity of mentioning the Delta-7B twice just to "link" it; as I understand it, the non-exclusivity of infobox material only refers to information, not linking articles per say. It's already referred to by name in the body, and I feel that mentioning it twice would make it sound superfluous. Thanks for the review. CC7567 (talk) 18:49, November 11, 2012 (UTC)
      • No additional mention necessary; just some creative pipelinking. A-ha! Menkooroo (talk) 00:51, November 12, 2012 (UTC)
        • I don't want to seem like I'm being overly stubborn, but I've always disagreed with that kind of pipe-linking. I don't have a problem with others using it, but I personally find it improper and unwieldy, as it comes across as linking for the pure sake of linking—plus, I tend not to include possessive pronouns in links, so I want to make sure that it's consistent. Even though I'm probably making a big stink over nothing, I'd appreciate it if you humor me in this case. Thanks. CC7567 (talk) 00:59, November 12, 2012 (UTC)

Comments

Approved as a Featured article by Inquisitorius 05:11, January 31, 2013 (UTC)

  • 1,336 words. CC7567 (talk) 21:01, October 6, 2012 (UTC)