Wookieepedia:Featured article nominations/Darksaber

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

Darksaber

• Nominated by: QuiGonJinn ^(Talk) 10:14, August 28, 2011 (UTC)
• Nomination comments: Ideally, this should have been a part of a scrap metal-themed barn-burner.

(5 Inqs/0 Users/5 Total)

Support

1. Great job. Menkooroo 11:47, October 9, 2011 (UTC)
2. CC7567 ^(talk) 21:46, November 7, 2011 (UTC)
3. Now sitting on three redlinks. --Eyrezer 11:08, November 13, 2011 (UTC)
4. Well done.—Tommy 9281 Wednesday, December 14, 2011, 00:04 UTC
5. I love me some Darksaber. IFYLOFD ^{(Floyd's crib)} 01:07, December 14, 2011 (UTC)

Object

What a weird book

• The way that the first sentence of the body is worded makes it seem like "a superweapon conceived by Durga the Hutt and designed by the engineer Bevel Lemelisk" is the definition of "battlestation." Can you reword?
  • Addressed.
• The weapon's (theoretical) ability to destroy a planet doesn't come up until the "History" section, but it seems like key info for "Description." "Description" currently mentions that there's a superlaser, but it doesn't say just what that superlaser could do. How about it?
  • Addressed.
• Should the docking bays, and maybe the superlaser itself, be listed under "Sectors/areas" of the infobox? I'm unfamiliar with this kind of infobox, so I'm more curious than objecting.
  • I don't think that's necessary, since the docking bays are already listed in the "docking bays" field, and the superlaser in the "armament" field.
• The computer cores seem important enough to warrant a mention in "Description," too.
  • Added.
• Just want to confirm that "doomed to fail from the start" comes from the sources and isn't, uh... original, if accurate, research. :) Wording like "Even worse" and "without doubt" kinda of give off OR/POV vibes, too.
  • All fixed.
• Are the opening sentences of the "Durga" section, about his birthmark and ridicule, really all that relevant to an article on the Darksaber? It doesn't come back into play at the end of the section, like Lemelisk's many executions do, and seems a bit extraneous. Can it be pared down at all?
  • With that information, I wanted to explore Durga's motivations to achieve power. I've pared it down a bit now. Tell me if you want me to cut it more.
• as the disastrous construction slowly went, --- went where?
  • Addressed.
• Good stuff! What a nutty book. Menkooroo 15:43, September 30, 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review. QuiGonJinn ^(Talk) 11:26, October 9, 2011 (UTC)

Attack of the Clone

• Rather minor, but can we get some context on Qwi Xux in that quote caption, since that's the only place she's mentioned?
  • Addressed.
• "There were at least two docking bays, a construction access bay and Lemelisk's personal launching bay." The punctuation is a little unclear here as to how the sentence should be read. When you say this, are the "at least two docking bays" referring to the construction access bay and Lemelisk's personal one? If so, please choose more appropriate punctuation like an em dash or a colon. (Please also go through the changes I made to make sure that the article remains factually correct; I added several Oxford commas in some places, but please correct them for me if they incorrectly changed the meaning of the sentences.)
  • Addressed, and no, you haven't changed the meaning of any sentences.
• Good work. CC7567 ^(talk) 06:01, November 1, 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks. QuiGonJinn ^(Talk) 12:22, November 7, 2011 (UTC)

#1

• "Durga then put together Orko SkyMine Asteroid Processing Corporation, a sham corporation whose official purpose was the exploitation of the Hoth asteroid field's natural resources, while in fact, all of the corporation's funding went to the construction of the weapon, which began inside the asteroid belt in 12 ABY." 3 successive "corporations," and quite the run-on. Dozing off, will finish later.—Tommy 9281 Monday, December 12, 2011, 07:31 UTC
  • Fixed.
• Finished now, all set.—Tommy 9281 Tuesday, December 13, 2011, 00:22 UTC
  • Thanks for the review. QuiGonJinn ^(Talk) 18:40, December 13, 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• May I ask what the canonical basis is for italicizing "Darksaber" and "Darksaber Project?" After FAing Hoth asteroid field some time ago, I ended up de-italicizing these names after an objection to this point made me realize that none of the sources I was using, IIRC, namely the Darksaber novel, actually italicized these names. Is there source material I'm unaware of that italicizes? Toprawa and Ralltiir 21:23, October 9, 2011 (UTC)
  • The superlaser databank entry and The Official Star Wars Fact File 124 both italicize "Darksaber." QuiGonJinn ^(Talk) 14:10, October 12, 2011 (UTC)
    • Ok. And what about all the sources that come after the release (and now extinction) of the Databank and the publication of FF 124? Although these two sources may italicize, it seems the vast majority does not. This may be a case of taking what the majority of sources do, because certainly the most recently released sources apparently do not italicize. Toprawa and Ralltiir 17:32, October 12, 2011 (UTC)
      • Very well. I've deitalicized it. I don't mind either way. QuiGonJinn ^(Talk) 13:43, October 18, 2011 (UTC)
        • Works for me. I think that's best here. Thank you. Toprawa and Ralltiir 21:43, October 23, 2011 (UTC)

Approved as a Featured article by Inquisitorius 01:07, December 14, 2011 (UTC)