Wookieepedia:Featured article nominations/Death Star II

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

Death Star II

(1 Inqs/4 Users/5 total)

Support

1. Jediknight19bby 00:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
2. --Darthtyler ^{(talk) (HSM RKY)} 00:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
3. Unit 8311 07:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
4. --The All-knowing Sith'ari 10:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
5. Thefourdotelipsis 01:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

• Rule 2: POV ("did a fine job"), Rule 1: Not well-written (needs cleanup- "emporor", "thusly" etc.), Rule 7: Needs longer intro, Rule 4: Remove sourcing from intro per Wookieepedia:Sourcing, Rule 11: Source article completely, especially part about 17 BBY, Rule 1 and 9: Not very detailed. This could easily be longer- no info on shield generator on the mooon and only a small paragraph on the Battle of Endor section. It could easily be longer and more detailed. Atarumaster88 ^{(Talk page)} 13:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I added to the intro, I think it's at a pretty good length now. π = 3 ^{(Talk to me, babe.)} 18:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• Definitely needs a longer intro, which should probably mention the IG-88 sillyness. -- Ozzel 01:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Intro should be longer. Battle of Endor section and how the Death Star II related to the GCW should be expanded. Chack Jadson 01:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Source it properly, particularly the "Acquiring the Death Star II plans" section and the "Complement" part of the infobox. There's no mention of any of the relevant stuff from TIE Fighter, such as the Rebels almost being warned that it was a trap. Some of the conflicting sources on getting the plans should be addressed in BTS. Green Tentacle ^(Talk) 09:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments

• How could you want it detailed more? Some parts are almost too detailed. The longer intro and removing the sourcing from the intro is complete. I'll work on sourcing it soon. Jediknight19bby 14:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • You must not have seen some of my pet Featured Article projects. Only 1320 actual words of prose for such a major topic is severely lacking. I like detail. Atarumaster88 ^{(Talk page)} 15:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Remove Nom (Inq only)

1. This article's FAN is going nowhere—next to none of the said objections have been addressed, and no major expansion has been attempted in over a month. Remove Greyman^(Paratus) 12:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
2. Like the man said, this is going nowhere. Green Tentacle ^(Talk) 12:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
3. Seriously, let's get the junk off the page. Atarumaster88 ^{(Talk page)} 01:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
4. --Eyrezer 01:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
5. Lord Hydronium 01:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
6. Gonk ^(Gonk!) 01:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)