Wookieepedia:Featured article nominations/Executor/Legends

< 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.

Executor

  • Nominated by: Toprawa and Ralltiir 20:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: At the risk of turning this into a cliched acceptance speech blurb, the completion of this article is really a testament to the spirit of community Wookieepedia fosters here. If you're reading this, odds are good that you're one of the many people who helped me in some immeasurable way at some point throughout of putting this article together, be it helping me look up up sources, telling me what I was missing, helping me get images, or just letting me bounce ideas off you, and you know who you are. And I thank you.

(5 Inqs/2 Users/7 Total)

Support

  1. JangFett Talk 20:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  2. Inqvote Well done, Toprawa. A very interesting read. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 14:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  3. Inqvote For what's probably the third time I'm telling you, an excellent read, Toprawa. CC7567 (talk) 04:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  4. Inqvote There are no more nits I feel qualified to pick. And as the most Saxtonite-leaning member of the Administration or Inquisitorius, I can say with authority that this is exceptionally well balanced. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 23:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
  5. Inqvote Look at the size of that thing! -- —Harrar (Cut the comm chatter) 00:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  6. --Skippy Farlstendoiro 06:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  7. Inqvote Brilliant. Grunny (Talk) 07:18, October 11, 2009 (UTC)

Object

  1. Fett's 2 cents
    • Let me say that this article is extremely well-put together. The only issue I saw was the images near the bottom of the article don't follow the style of left to right.
    • "Kendal Ozzel" and "Firmus Piett" and other "Admiralty line of succession" images are aligned at the left. Though it looks good, and I think you were going for that look—would it be best if it does follow that left to right image placing?
    • JangFett Talk 20:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
      • The left-right alternating thing is a guideline, not a rule, and where this article doesn't alternate, it's for good reason. Indeed, the admiralty section is done like that to give it the "profile" look, and there's nothing wrong with that. And the size of the BTS subsections doesn't afford alternating throughout. With all due respect, we're going to have a long time going if this nomination is peppered with mundane, nitpicky objections like this. Toprawa and Ralltiir 20:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
        • No problems Tope. Again, excellent job on the article :) JangFett Talk 20:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  2. From the Moffship of Grand Moff Tranner, part one:
    • Intro: "...the Executor, at a monumental 19,000 meters long..." - something about the wording just doesn't seem right. Perhaps "in length" rather than "long" would work better.
      • I agree that "in length" sounds better, and I have changed the introduction wording to that. The reason I had it worded like that is because I didn't want it to read verbatim to what is repeated in the Description section below, which also used the "in length" wording. So, I have moved the "long" wording to the body.
    • "The Executor's admiralty immediately passed to Firmus Piett" - some context on Piett, please (what was he before becoming admiral; you know the drill).
      • Added "Captain" Firmus Piett.
    • Design: "including the dual geodesic KDY ISD-72x deflector shield generator domes—an enlarged version specially developed from those aboard Imperial-class Star Destroyers—which doubled as communications sensor globes, the officers' quarters, briefing rooms, escape pods for the Executor's upper-echelon commanders, and, most importantly, the bridge." - the comma usage seems to indicate that the shield generator domes doubled as sensors, officer quarters, briefing rooms, escape pods, and the bridge. While it's obvious that that is not the case, this needs to be fixed somehow, but I'm not sure what to do with it.
      • Yes, good catch. I've added semicolons and a minor wording tweak to try and clear that up. I can still do a little more if you feel it needs it.
    • Design origins: Perhaps you should list some of the incorrect stats that the Imperial Senate reported (the important one being length, maybe number of weapons, etc.).
      • The source that mentions that does not specify what the incorrectly-stated stats were. It's obviously meant to retcon the length size and weapons inconsistencies across sources, but again, nothing specific is mentioned.
    • Manufacturing contract: Lusankya should be linked to when discussing the sister ship.
      • Done.
    • Starkiller's base of operations: "Having learned of Vader's treachery of taking on an apprentice of his own, the Emperor, watching on via hologram, ordered the Dark Lord to kill the apprentice or be killed himself." - aside from the grammatical error (on via), wasn't Palpatine actually there? If I recall correctly, he enters through the bridge doors and then watched Vader throw Starkiller around before turning to leave.
      • You've caught one of the novel-vs.-video game inconsistencies. From the novel: "PROXY, standing slightly behind their dark Master, transformed by sinister stages into the Emperor, hooded and enshrouded in shadow." I adjusted the sentence a little bit to specify PROXY's involvement, and note that the sentence is also sourced to the novel. The video game seems to imply that the Emperor comes aboard himself, but I guess with a little retconning imagination, you can say that he transformed into PROXY off camera. Toprawa and Ralltiir 00:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Part two coming soon. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 23:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  3. The Moffship, part two:
    • Imperial admirals' plot to sabotage the Executor project: The caption "Installation of the Executor's massive engines" is a bit misleading, given the fact that the Executor had had her engines installed for over three years prior to this time. Does the comic specifically depict/say that the engines were being installed at that point in time?
      • I absolutely understand what you're saying, but you've again hit on one of the major TFU inconsistencies. It has engines in TFU, and then two years later at Fondor it's shown without engines without any kind of explanation. I don't know how else to explain what is happening in that picture besides engines installation. FWIW, the BTS does discuss this as much as possible. Toprawa and Ralltiir 21:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
    • And now I'm up to "Ambushing the Rebel Fleet." I'll continue with my review when I get a chance. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 20:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  4. Moffship, part three:
    • Search for the Millennium Falcon: "They included the notorious Boba Fett, who had already been in the Hoth system and had boarded the Executor after responding to an Imperial hyperspace message issued even before the Executor's Hoth arrival that announced a crushing defeat of the Rebel headquarters and a large reward for hunting down Rebels fleeing from the battle" - this is a bit unwieldy, especially when compared to the brief descriptions of the other bounty hunters. Could you shorten it?
      • Shortened up. If the description is still a bit generous, let me know. Toprawa and Ralltiir 02:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Chasing Luke Skywalker at Kothlis: "...although Vader had received confirmation that the Millennium Falcon had indeed been the source of the Force signature, and therefore Skywalker." - I think something's missing here.
    • Endor aftermath: Specifically, the info from A Day in the Life. Heir to the Empire reports that the Executor disintegrated upon its collision with the Death Star - a fact mentioned in the Executor entry in the CSWE. So even though the Wister entry makes reference to the remains of the Executor, I still think that the story is non-canon - after all, doesn't the CSWE include entries for other characters who are known to be non-canon?
      • Not that I know of. I think you might be referring to CSWE making an effort to canonize the Tag & Bink stories as IU tall tales. It's completely contradictory, no doubt, but CSWE does mention the Executor on Endor from the story, and the character bios from the story are both definitely canon entries. Toprawa and Ralltiir 02:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
    • "At some point prior to Endor, the Executor and Death Squadron led an attack on an artificially-ringed planet, before an AT-AT assault force was dispatched to the planet's surface. An artist chose to use the Executor's orbital bombardment of the ringed planet to create an illustration of the scene, entitled Executor Executes." - any particular reason why you include this under "Endor aftermath?" It'd probably fit better at the end of "Destruction of Falleen's Fist."
      • The reason I have it included where it is is because I have tried categorizing this information with regard to the painting, not the battle. There's no indication of when the battle takes place, nor is there any indication of when the painting was released in the IU timeline. So, to be safe, I just put it the end. If you want, I can try rewriting that paragraph to reflect its focus on the painting, rather than the battle. Toprawa and Ralltiir 02:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
    • And that concludes part three. Part four will start at "Commanders and crew." Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 23:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  5. From the undisclosed location of Darth Culator:
    • These are more comments than objections, since I haven't had a chance to really read it in-depth yet, though having watched it take shape I'm fairly certain it will be an easy review.
    1. Before Imp objects to it, I'll be rescanning File:ExecutorKrake.jpg soon. (Soon as in actual time, not "soon" as in my usual definition.) Cylka did an admirable job cleaning up the Marvel scan, but it's not ALTAfied and it's the only Marvel image you have left that needs to be. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 15:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
    2. I'm doing a link review now. I hope you don't mind if I remove any excess duplicates I may find. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 20:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
      • By all means. Thanks for the scan. Toprawa and Ralltiir 20:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Only two link destinations were incorrect out of 987 unique links. Link duplication looks good at a glance, but I'm not going to check every one individually because there are 1,339 total links and I'm not COMPLETELY insane. This thing is a beast. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 18:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
    3. You have a single ref tag for Fact File 4, but that one is the only Fact File where you list two different relevant articles in the source list (HOT2-HOT4, The Battle of Hoth; OZZ1-OZZ2, Admiral Ozzel). Since the Fact Files were designed to be broken up into a binder and then looked up by the three-letter code, this makes this one ref tag less useful for immediate reference. If the Fact Files were designed like regular magazines, I wouldn't even mention this, but their unique publication format means the ref should probably be split. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 23:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Luckily for me, they're all from the Ozzel half. Specified/fixed. Toprawa and Ralltiir 03:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  6. Farlstendoiro has boarded the Executor. Get him out before he can object anything.
    • Intro: "at a monumental 19,000 meters in lenght". "Monumental" sounds POVish to me.
      • This is not what POV is. An example of a POV statement in this instance would be something like "The Executor, at 19,000 meters in length, was the greatest starship to ever grace the spacelanes." "Monumental" is a perfectly acceptable descriptive term for its importance and size. Toprawa and Ralltiir 03:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Intro: "The Executor's admiralty passed to Captain Firmus Piett". Correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand the admiralty is a property of a fleet, a battle group or a navy, never of an individual ship — which would always be under the orders of her Captain, even if it is the flagship.
      • I'm afraid you might be thinking on real-world terms, while the Executor and Death Squadron's admiralty-captaincy relationship was rather fuzzy, even on IU terms. The individual in command of the Executor was both the admiral of the ship and of the squadron. Toprawa and Ralltiir 03:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
        • If you say so... Then, we should change Admiral, btw.
    • Intro: "the Executor's relatively short life", again POV'ish.
      • That's not a POV statement at all. It's referenced in verbatim directly from Complete Locations. Toprawa and Ralltiir 03:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Description > Design: I know KDY stands for Kuat Drive Yards, but I'd like to avoid ambiguity. Maybe the first mention to Kuat Drive Yards could be "...and Kuat Drive Yards (KDY)".
      • I don't think this is really a problem. KDY equaling Kuat Drive Yards is really a no-brainer. Maybe if you had said you had issues making this connection yourself, I could see the need. Toprawa and Ralltiir 03:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Description > Design: "and, most importantly, the bridge." "Most importantly", POV?
      • No, not POV. The bridge is the command center of any starship, and is easily the most important component of the Executor's bridge module. Toprawa and Ralltiir 03:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Description > Design: "the enormous primary hangar bay, which was large enough to dock an Imperial Star Destroyer[41] and thousands of starfighters;[5]". Two different sources provide information about the volume of the hangar bay. Are we sure that the hangar can dock both a Destroyer and thousands of fighters? Maybe source #41 says "hangar can dock destroyer", source #5 says "hanger can dock thousands of fighters", and nowhere says "hangar can dock destroyer + fighters". Do you see what I mean?
      • This is a technique we use when writing articles to "combine" sources of similar information. Unless they're competing, contradictory descriptions of one another, there's nothing wrong with combining this information. Toprawa and Ralltiir 03:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
    • History > Design origins: There's a reference to the Imperator-class Star Destroyer. I think it should be a link (I understand it's simply the previous name of a known ship, but still).
      • I don't think that's necessary. We don't link to things twice in the same article. Toprawa and Ralltiir 03:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
    • History > Design origins: First mention to the Emperor Palpatine in the body of the article (not intro) is not a link.
      • I wouldn't necessarily make this a requirement, considering "Palpatine" is linked to upon first mention, but very well. I've pipelinked "Palpatine" into the first mention of "Emperor," but this is something I would recommend you changing yourself rather than taking the time to make an objection out of it. Toprawa and Ralltiir 03:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
    • History > Starkiller's base of operations: "liberated his his allies nevertheless". His his.
      • I have fixed this, but going along with my comments on the previous objection, please go in and fix these minor things yourself. It would have taken you less time and effort to change this than the time it took to make this objection. This is an instance of what those in the Inquisitorius jokingly term {{Sofixit}}. Toprawa and Ralltiir 03:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
    • History > Imperial admirals' plot to sabotage the Executor project. As the opening quote talks about "prestige and power", could you use synonyms when saying in 3rd paragraph that the admirals "would suffer a great loss of power and prestige"?
      • Good catch. I remember this bugging me when I was writing this. Changed. Toprawa and Ralltiir 03:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
    • History > Maiden voyage and approach to Yavin 4: "No, Admiral…it is just beginning!" Suggestion: Add a space after … and maybe capitalize "it".
      • That would not be correct. This is exactly how it is presented in the comic. Toprawa and Ralltiir 03:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
    • History > Probe droids launched and Circarpous V. "With the aid of the Force-magnifying influence of the Kaiburr crystal, Skywalker defeated Vader in a lightsaber duel despite being far from a match for Vader's might." Confusing, I suggest rewording. Skywalker was not a match for Vader's might without the influence of the Kaiburr, so the sentence should be ordered otherwise: "Skywalker dueled Vader with lightsaber", plus "Skywalker was not a match for Vader" but "as Skywalker was under the Force-magnifying influence of the Kaiburr crystal", "Skywalker defeated Vader".
      • I think your suggested rewording just makes the sentence unnecessarily convoluted and actually more confusing than it is now. But, I have reworded the sentence slightly to hopefully make it less confusing: "Skywalker defeated Vader in a lightsaber duel with the aid of the Force-magnifying influence of the Kaiburr crystal, despite being far from a match for Vader's might, and he escaped once again." Toprawa and Ralltiir 03:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
    • History > Battle of Hoth. Some context for Maximilian Veers, including the fact that he was among the crew of the Executor, his role on the ship, maybe the fact that he was under Ozzel's command and, if my memory serves right, that Veers tried to excuse Ozzel's mistake (ESB radio drama).
      • I have provided a bit more context for Veers, but that he's the general in charge of the Executor's forces is all the context that is ever given for him, and he was no more under Ozzel's command than he was under Vader's. Moreover, his being aboard the Executor is really a given, and I don't feel we need to restate the obvious. These types of specifics are covered in the article's "Commanders and crew" section. Also, you are mistaken about the ESB radio drama exchange. Vader challenges Veers to defy Ozzel's command for the latter's stupidity, but Veers refrains from badmouthing his superior officer. He does not apologize for Ozzel. Toprawa and Ralltiir 03:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
    • History > Search for the Millenium Falcon. Context of IG-88B including its relationship with the previously-mentioned IG-88A, particularly as it is referred later. I would also like a mention to the Gand Findsman Zuckuss, but only because I like Zuckuss; I'll understand if you don't want to.
      • Both of these are unnecessary for the purposes of this article in that they would just go off on unnecessary tangents of extraneous detail. Especially in the case of an article this size, the description should be kept as narrow to the point as possible. A link is provided for IG-88B should anyone wish to read into the character Toprawa and Ralltiir 03:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
    • History > Search for the Millenium Falcon. "but Vader did not care. He had lost his patience with the Executor's crew, who had failed him time and time again" You have already said that; maybe you could use a shorter sentence?
      • Really, I'm not sure what the problem is here. There's nothing here that is grossly repeated, and it's not overly wordy. I think this is necessary description for the focus of Piett's dilemma in that paragraph. Toprawa and Ralltiir 03:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
    • History > Invasion of Mygeeto. 'Among the pilots transferring was the "Imperial Ace."' The quotation marks are confusing. Could it be reworded to 'the sentient known only as "Imperial Ace"' or 'code-named "Imperial Ace"'
      • That would probably be bordering on Original Research. I don't think we can definitively state that he was "only known as" the Imperial Ace or that that was his code name. Information on the character is extremely limited since he was only featured in a cell phone game, and I think it works fine. Toprawa and Ralltiir 03:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
    • History > Return to Coruscant. Context for Kallic?
      • There is none, which is why I have not provided any. The quote at the top of that section is the only place Kallic is ever mentioned. Toprawa and Ralltiir 03:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
    • History > Feigning pursuit of the Death Star plans. "Soon enough, the Feylya's Pride". One apostrophe missing.
      • Fixed, but I call once more upon the {{Sofixit}} clause. You could have changed this yourself in less time than it took to make the objection. Please handle these things yourself next time. Toprawa and Ralltiir 03:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
    • History > Destruction of Falleen's Fist. "the two minutes expired with no word from Xizor". Please, add the reason: Did Xizor try to communicate and failed to broadcast his surrender? Or did he believe that Vader was bluffing? I think this is a very important point.
    • History > Protecting the Death Star construction site > "The Executor remained in Endor's orbit above the incomplete Death Star[105] while Vader departed in his shuttle to board the battlestation.[45][106] The Executor also regrouped with the Star Destroyers of Death Squadron at Endor.[7]" Reading this, I thought that the Executor dropped Vader on Endor and then left to re-join the Death Squadron somewhere else in the system. Suggested rewording: "Remained in Endor's orbit above the incomplete Death Star" + ", regrouping with the Star Destroyers of Death Squadron" + "while Vader departed yada yada".
      • I am sorry if you had trouble with this interpretation, but I think you're just reading into this far too much. The only thing going on at Endor is the Death Star, in Endor's orbit. Where else would they be regrouping? I don't think a change is needed. Toprawa and Ralltiir 03:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
    • History > Battle of Endor. "The unorthodox Rebel tactic proved incredibly effective" Maybe you could add who in the Rebel fleet suggested the tactic?
    • History > Death of a giant and Imperial fallout. "Piett believed that the Rebels were doomed from the beginning, and once the Rebel Fleet first advanced upon the Executor and the Star Destroyers in response to the Death Star firing, he was already beaten" Don't get it. Piett mistakenly believed that?
      • No, it's stating a fact. By that point in the battle, Piett (meaning his forces too) was a beaten man. I've made a very minor wording tweak here. Toprawa and Ralltiir 03:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
    • History > Death of a giant and Imperial fallout. "All hands onboard died with the Executor." No evacuation attempt was made? Why? Or maybe it was made and failed? Why?
      • There is no canonical example of any kind of evacuation attempt being made, and so nothing of the sort is described in this article. Adding any kind of description like that would be fanon. Toprawa and Ralltiir 03:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
    • History > Endor aftermath. Rewording of quote caption: I wouldn't want anyone to believe that Madine said the first line.
      • I would seriously question the analytical skills of anyone who did. I think the implication that Madine is debunking the belief that the Executor is attacking is made perfectly clear here, beside the fact that two separate quotations are presented. Moreover, there is no information regarding who said the first line, it was really just a sort of random shout coming from a crowd. I'm sorry, but I don't believe a change is necessary. Toprawa and Ralltiir 03:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
    • History > Executor's Legacy. "Pellaeon often wondered how the Battle of Endor's outcome might have been different if it had been Thrawn commanding the Executor, rather than Vader." Was Vader commanding the Executor during the Battle of Endor? The article seems to suggest that it was Piett, with Vader busy elsewhere (Mostly the Death Star, the planetary surface, wherever). Maybe Pellaeon misunderstood it, or maybe I'm misunderstanding?
      • I understand your concern, and that is indeed what it seems to suggest, but that is the description as it is exactly presented from the source. Toprawa and Ralltiir 03:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Commanders and crew > Kendal Ozzel. "Vader agreed to install him". Agreed with whom? (something already explained under History, but it would be nice to see it repeated here). Current wording only says that naming Ozzel wasn't Vader's idea.
      • There is really no clear connection between who Vader interacted with outside of Mara Jade to install Ozzel as the Executor's commander. Adding anything of that sort would be OR/fanon. What exactly would you suggest? Toprawa and Ralltiir 03:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Commanders and crew > Kendal Ozzel. "the Dark Lord executed him for his blunder, the second Executor admiral to receive such a punishment" Question: Is the source adamantly specific on Ozzel being the second Executor admiral killed by Vader? As far as I know at this point, maybe there was an interim admiral between Nameless Guy and Bentro, who lasted five minutes and then was killed by Vader. Maybe this guy was admiral during, say, Bentro's holiday or sick leave or anything. Simply tell me: Is there a source saying "Ozzel was the 2nd Executor admiral killed by Vader", or are we making assumptions?
      • I see your point. I've tweaked the wording to accommodate this possibility. Toprawa and Ralltiir 03:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Commanders and crew > Firmus Piett. "Miraculously, Piett survived execution after Skywalker..." Did he? There was no execution. This seems to suggest that Vader strangled Piett with the intent of killing him, but that the Dark Lord failed somehow.
    • Commanders and crew > Firmus Piett. "this time around Vader simply left the bridge, too shaken from his encounter with Skywalker on Cloud City." I think the "History" section suggested that Vader could have killed Piett (was not too shaken to execute him), but consciously decided not to, as Piett as not responsible of anything.
      • I'm merely describing what the sources say, be they contradictory or not. I'm not sure what you want me to do here, but I don't feel a discussion regarding a possible contradiction of Vader's mindset is so relevant to this article. Toprawa and Ralltiir 03:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Commanders and crew > Firmus Piett. "Piett had escaped his fate where the Executor's previous admirals had not." POVish, and inexact: Not all the previous admirals were executed by Vader; Griff died in combat. Unless you mean death in general.
      • Well, this is not what POV is. It is a technically incorrect statement, however, which I have tweaked for accuracy. Toprawa and Ralltiir 03:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Commanders and crew > Secondary commanders. I've just discovered here that Venka replaced Piett as the captain of the Executor when Piett was promoted. This is important enough to be mentioned under the "History" section.
    • Commanders and crew > Secondary commanders. Are we sure the captain in Star Wars 63 is not the same guy as the captain in Shadows of the Empire? Why?
    • Non-canon history > Star Wars: X-Wing. This description could use a date. When was Farlander captured? Or, more exactly: When does the plot of SW:XW takes place?
      • This isn't really necessary. The game spans the duration of Operation: Skyhook, but the Executor has no real role in the game, only appearing as a non-canon cut scene. The only time the Executor ever truly has a role in the game (which was removed in the 1995 re-release) is during the Battle of Tatooine from the beginning of ANH, which is all properly described in the article. If someone wants to read into the details of the game's canonical history, they can click that article's link. Toprawa and Ralltiir 03:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Star Wars: Rebellion (video game). Should this be added to the Non-canon history or the BtS? I think Executor is only a default name for any Superdestroyer the Imperial player/AI builds.
      • It should not. The Executor is only indirectly mentioned in the in-game Piett encyclopedia entry, which is canon. The Executor has no role in the non-canon portion of the game. The game has a number of randomly-generated names, Executor included, which the AI can apply to any given starship at any time. Toprawa and Ralltiir 03:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Btw, I created and stubbed an article for Atari, just to avoid redlinks, hope you don't mind. --Skippy Farlstendoiro 10:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  7. One more time, with feeling:
    1. You mention ending Black Sun's influence in the intro, but not in the body. It should be mentioned in both, though a less definitive wording like "thrown into disarray" would probably be more accurate. Rebellion Era Campaign Guide (p. 145) mentions that "The loss of Xizor decimates Black Sun in the months prior to the Battle of Endor, sparking an internal power struggle that lasts for several years," which I think is relevant to the legacy of the ship that killed him. (Incidentally, this seems to be the only mention of the Executor in the RECG, but that means it needs to go in the sources section so you may as well ref this to it.) -- Darth Culator (Talk) 21:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  8. Harrar - Description section
    • "Although the command tower....making such Imperial opulence a possibility." — I'm not sure opulence is the best word to use here. The majority of definitions which I looked up have it as closely linked to wealth, and that's certainly the connotation readers will receive. The command tower's positioning has little to do with wealth, surely?
    • While you'll probably contend that "like the gaping maw of some beast" comes from the sources you've used, I feel that similes are usually out of place in an encyclopedia. If you can think of another way to provide a description for the chamber than that'd be great; if not then I'll retract the objection. No worries, on reconsideration.
      • I could trim the simile down to just say "like a gaping maw," to make it a bit less dramatic. If you'd prefer that, please let me know. Toprawa and Ralltiir 20:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
        • Nah I reckon it works how it is! Appreciate the willingness to tinker though :)
    • "Vader acknowledged that his delay was to allow the Rebels time to report back to the Rebel base the Executor's advance toward Yavin 4, before ordering the Super Star Destroyer onward with no delay." Seems a shame to have delay repeated; please reword one of them.
    • "The Star Destroyers' inaccurate hyperspace jump stopped the Executor cold, allowing the last remnants of the Rebel Fleet to escape safely into hyperspace." — is it the damage caused by the inaccurate jump what stops the Executor, or is it some sort of hyperspace disturbance? If it's the damage incurred, can you clarify this please?
      • Well, it had less to do with any sustained damage and more with the collision just sort of stopping the Executor's momentum cold, just like a car crash might do to a speeding vehicle. I've tweaked the sentence ever so slightly to try and clarify this a bit. If you require more, please let me know. Toprawa and Ralltiir 20:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    • According to Brenn Tantor and my recollection of Force Commander, it's Tantor who commands Veers during the Battle of Hoth. What's up?
      • As far as I know, Brenn Tantor is not connected with the Executor in any way. And not all of the ground forces on Hoth were necessarily only from the Executor. I don't believe any mention of his name is necessary. Toprawa and Ralltiir 20:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
        • Okay cool, I was checking in case it'd been missed.
    • Finished my review. I'll say again that this is a work of true scholarship. -- —Harrar (Cut the comm chatter) 22:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  9. Can you explain in a foot note why you have placed the Tao incident where you have? From reading the comic, it seems to me it could also be placed a lot closer to the Battle of Hoth. As it is ambigious, I don't think it needs to be moved, but the placement should be explained. --Eyrezer 08:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
  10. According to The Essential Atlas the Executor was "The product of the oft-delayed Project Sarlacc". You could mention this --Jinzler 13:02, September 3, 2009 (UTC)
    • There are about six pages in the Atlas that contain new bits of Executor info, all of which I have yet to update this article with. I will get to it in due time. Until then, I'll ask everyone to please refrain from listing everything that needs to be updated, because I am aware of it all. Toprawa and Ralltiir 03:51, September 4, 2009 (UTC)
      • Ok, I've updated the article with this specific bit of Atlas info. Toprawa and Ralltiir 05:35, October 5, 2009 (UTC)
        • Objection(s) overridden by Inquisitorius 20:52, October 12, 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Approved as a Featured article by Inquisitorius 20:52, October 12, 2009 (UTC)

  1. Guys, I swear to you that one of the load screens from the Xbox 360 version of The Force Unleashed mentioned Executor as the Mammoth Star Destroyer. I think I mentioned this on the article's talk page before (here) but it was never backed up. Can somebody please look into this now that it's going up for FA? I think that the nickname or title or whatever of the "Mammoth Star Destroyer" should be mentioned somewhere. This is more of a general statement, sort of an objection until this is looked into... –Victor Sienar (talk page) 06:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
    • As I stated on the talk page, there's no indication that that's meant to be anything but a general description for a "large Star Destroyer," and I would question the sanity of anyone who would think otherwise, though I know there are some out there who will. Regardless, this would probably be information more relevant to the Executor-class article. Toprawa and Ralltiir 23:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Well that's a bit insulting, especially considering you haven't even seen it yourself, but okay–point taken. It won't be looked into. –Victor Sienar (talk page) 03:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
        • That's not meant to be insulting at all, but you can interpret it like that if you like. It's called a "mammoth Star Destroyer," which isn't indication of being a ship class, like "Mammoth-class Star Destroyer" would be. You're more than welcome to look into it, but I think, as I've stated, it has more to do with the Executor's class. Toprawa and Ralltiir 03:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
          • Like I explained before, it didn't come up as "mammoth", it came up as "the Mammoth Star Destroyer". –Victor Sienar (talk page) 04:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
            • What would you suggest exactly? I'm not sure where this would go other than a short BTS note. Toprawa and Ralltiir 04:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
              • Meh, I guess you're right, since the ship already has a class. Oh well. –Victor Squishy Vic (talk page) 05:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
  2. Dunno if it's any use to you for the length stuff in the BTS, but there's a comment here by one of the Forces of Corruption developers about the scaling of the Executor model in the game. -- I need a name (Complain here) 18:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Vote to strike Jinzler's objection (Inq only)

  1. Inqvote Fixed a week ago and Jinzler has been absent since then. Green Tentacle (Talk) 20:40, October 12, 2009 (UTC)
  2. Inqvote CC7567 (talk) 20:42, October 12, 2009 (UTC)
  3. Inqvote -- Darth Culator (Talk) 20:43, October 12, 2009 (UTC)
  4. Inqvote Chack Jadson (Talk) 20:46, October 12, 2009 (UTC)
  5. Inqvote Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 20:51, October 12, 2009 (UTC)