Wookieepedia:Featured article nominations/Facility 301G

< Wookieepedia:Featured article nominations
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Featured article nomination that was withdrawn. Please do not modify it.

Facility 301G

  • Nominated by: AxMech (talk) 01:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments:
  • Date Archived: 13:24, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Final word count: 1137 words (129 introduction, 952 body, 56 behind the scenes)
  • Word count at nomination time: 1084 words (129 introduction, 901 body, 54 behind the scenes)
  • WookieeProject (optional):

(0 Inqs/0 Users/0 Total)

(Votes required: 3 Inq vote(s) required to reach minimum. Additional 4 user or 2 Inq votes required to pass.)

Support

Object

Comet
  • Since Ahsoka and Hera are mentioned in the body, they shouldn't be linked in the quote captions
    • Removed link
  • The second and third subsections of History both have enough room for an image
    • Added new images
  • The 9 ABY date needs a separate reference since isn't directly citable to the episode
    • Fixed
  • I think Marrok should have some context besides being part of Morgan's forces, maybe that he was a former Inquisitor
    • Fixed
  • Closure and detentions is only a single sentence, so I think it could be merged with the previous section
    • Restructured the entire History section, let me know if it works better
  • The IU mention of Rise and Fall should have a publication year. Kin's pronouns are also not citable to the book. (They are citable to the new encyclopedia)
    • Added the correct reference
  • Also think the end of the Galactic Civil War and the Liberation of Lothal should have dates
    • Added the date for Lothal, but I don't think it's been specified when the New republic took control of the shipyard. Could be after Endor, or after the signing of the Concordance
  • In the BTS, Rise and Fall only needs a year, not the exact date, and it should have its author mentioned.
    • Added
  • The episode's airdate isn't citable to itself
    • Fixed
  • Santhe Corporation is infobox exclusive CometSmudge (talk) 03:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Removed completely, source was inconclusive.AxMech (talk) 12:32, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
  • The episode guide includes concept art of the shipyard that should be noted in the BTS. Also think you should go through the sources for the series to see if it appears in any trailers/articles/databank entries
    • Added all I could find
      • Per Spooky's comment below, pretty sure there's some picture only sources missing. From quickly checking, I saw it pictured in several of the entries here CometSmudge (talk) 23:03, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
  • You should note that the Imperial Archives had a file on the facility CometSmudge (talk) 01:52, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Fan
  • The existing images are incredibly tiny, please enlarge them.
  • There should not be a single-sentence subsection. Fan26 (Talk) 05:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Fixed both
Thrawn
  • In the Sources section, the note says "Facility #301G", but the rest of the article has "Facility 301G". ThrawnChiss7 Mitth symbol Assembly Cupola 19:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    • CorrectedAxMech (talk) 00:40, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
Lew
  • Does this actually appear in Galaxy's Edge, I notice that you list the ride but there's no information from it on the page at all Lewisr (talk) 00:18, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Santhe Shipyards does appear on the related yt short but I don't know about or have access to the ride itself; it appears that this information was added by an unregistered user (edit here: https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Facility_301G?oldid=13587178 ).AxMech (talk) 00:40, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
      • I believe the GOA short is an adaptation of the ride itself, might be worth looking into YouTube clips of the ride, or Fred might be able to help if you ask him about the ride (might be worth leaving a message in the Galaxy's Edge channel on discord). My main question is though do we know that this facility specifically is what appears? The shipyards appear for sure, but is it this facility? Lewisr (talk) 01:09, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
        • The shape of 301G as seen in Ahsoka when the Phantom is chasing CT-05 is the same (or extremely similar) to the shape of the main facility seen in the end of the clip before they depart Corellia. I'd say it's clearly intended to be the sameAxMech (talk) 02:55, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
      • Just to briefly chime in: I mean this in the kindest way possible, but it's clearly stated in the FAN rules that an article needs to be done to be considered for Featured status. Not having a source is not a reason to skip covering it in an article. Asking for help for sources one doesn't have is fine, but just not documenting something out of lack of access to it or not knowing about it isn't a valid reason that'll fly: and each source should be checked out and documented before something goes up, or removed if proved a false source, or an article is not complete because it has missing information. I'm concerned this nomination is close to violating the stability rules of not undergoing large day-to-day changes as well; would advise taking a sharper pass through to avoid this, as there still even-now seems to be a lot missing (such as the 1stp documentation). Which, while fixing errors is what the nomination process is for, large day-to-day changes aren't quite so.—spookywillowwtalk 01:21, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
        • Thank you for the notice. Just to clarify: you're referring to the fact that I'm unaware of the Galaxy's Edge ride details and keeping an edit made by an unknown user? If I understand correctly and that is indeed the issue here, this is why I didn't remove the appearance altogether. I am in the process of looking for clips of the ride online, and depending on whether I find something or not I will update the Appearances accordingly. I'm not sure what other issue there could be with the sources or if I've missed something else, the 1stp documentation is there (the teaser trailer).AxMech (talk) 02:55, 25 January 2025 (UTC) [Note: I just read through the edit you've linked; I understand the issue was the lack of sources when the article was nominated. Admittedly an oversight on my part. Does the process allow for a re-nom in this case? Thanks again.AxMech (talk) 03:01, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
          • Yes; it is the nominator's job to to verify all information on a page. If something is an Appearance, then it either needs to be a) documented or b) proven false and removed, after verifying. If a nominator cannot personally verify something on their nominated page (regardless of who first added it), whether due to not having access to it or otherwise, it's their responsibility to seek help, or not nominate it; not documenting it but keeping it listed is not an option. An article is not complete if it has potentially missing information. An article is always supposed to be 100% done when it is nominated: it is not where articles go to get IU Appearances documentation or (bulk) Sources information added after. So tldr; yes, this process of looking for the ride online—or looking for any other additions—needed to be done prior to nomming. As noted on prior noms; putting nominations up in the best state they can be both saves you (the nominator) time, but also makes it so board members needn't leave piles of objections for basic, policy-defined things like... citing date notes, not following image formatting rules, etc.—aka, non-controversial things already in community policy—because these things are required to be done beforehand. So, yes, I would heavily advise withdrawing this (via Discord command) and working on it to get it to a Featured-ready state to re-nom. People very readily offer pre-nom reviews before nominations go up, and then once in a state much closer to Featured (as defined by the FAN rules), then it goes up. While this message is sharp, this is meant to press the point that this has happened some times before, and, putting nominations up in a better state to begin with will prevent them from being taken down either for stability, or even more rarely, simply the nonsense clause used for articles definitively below standard. Learning from the process and not repeating the same mistakes makes for an editor eventually improving to the point where they nominate articles that have few to no issues from the get-go; instead of board members renumerating the same issues over and over, for things already decided by policy.—spookywillowwtalk 07:57, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Comments

  • Leland Chee has stated we should treat the Smuggler's Run and Ahsoka facilities as separate until something confirms they are the same. I've removed the attraction and GOA from the appearances list. Master FredceriqueCommerce Guild(talk) (he/him) 22:25, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Leaving ArtStation link for documentation; fairly sure the filming and other details will be available in the Ahsoka DVD. I don't see it as a Source, but there's no way this isn't in it (and probably its featurettes and bonus content). And these too; I find it exceedingly hard to believe a location with this much screentime is only in the two sw.com articles, even if just a bunch of pictured only's. There's also quite a number of googleable interviews that need to be checked accordingly, from production staff.—spookywillowwtalk 22:38, 25 January 2025 (UTC)