Wookieepedia:Featured article nominations/Gorgon

< 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.

Gorgon

"Nothing larger than a Star Galleon, but it's a start."--Gilad Pellaeon
"We're going to need more than just a start, Captain."--Grand Admiral Thrawn

(6 Inqs/0 Users/6 Total)

Support

  1. Inqvote Cavalier One(Squadron channel) 12:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
  2. Inqvote Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 21:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
  3. Inqvote Chack Jadson (Talk) 20:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  4. Inqvote —Xwing328(Talk) 23:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
  5. Inqvote Greyman(Talk) 08:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
  6. Inqvote Thefourdotelipsis 23:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Object

  1. No BtS. I'm seeing an awful lot of sentences starting with "the Gorgon" in the first few paragraphs. Also, I would've though there'd be at least info -- probably stats< -- in the Jedi Academy Sourcebook. Succession box is unsourced. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 16:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
    • BTS created and sourced. Succession box sourced. Also, the Gorgon is its name, if you were to look on other articles, you'd see the article's name at the beginning of the first paragraphs too. I don't have the Jedi Academy Sourcebook so I can't verify whether or not there are any stats.--Mitth'raw'nuruodo(Imperial HoloNet)Imperial Emblem 22:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
      • It did kinda occur to me that "the Gorgon" is its name; but, if you were to look on other articles, you'd see that the first sentences of the main body don't practically all start with the same thing. Jedi Academy sourcebook objection still stands; you really shouldn't nominate articles which have such a major source that hasn't been checked. Also, "Return to the Maw and death" is kind of a strange title since it's can't and doesn't die. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 07:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
    • There are less Gorgon mentions in the first few paragraphs. And I suppose that Cavalier One's comments should be taken into account.--Mitth'raw'nuruodo(Imperial HoloNet)Imperial Emblem 00:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Struck most of my objection, but I checked the JAS myself and there's still plenty of info missing there, including a crew size which appears to contradict what is currently in the article. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 17:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Well, I'm not sure if the JAS's canonicty supercedes the novel itself. Besides I don't have it, so unless someone wants to help, your objection might be here a while...--Mitth'raw'nuruodo(Imperial HoloNet)Imperial Emblem 11:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
          • Also checked the JAS, and found no seeming crew controversy. Added some info, but as Cav One said, there's not an individual stat section. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 19:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
  2. From the squadron briefing of Cavalier One
    • Regarding the infobox - are the exact model of weapons correct and attributable to a source? While I normally wouldn't point something like this out on a ship article, bear in mind that it was isolated for over a decade, and may have had earlier model weapons fitted.
      • Those are the earliest models for an Imperial I-class Star Destroyer. There are no earlier models for the time that the Gorgon was constructed.--Mitth'raw'nuruodo(Imperial HoloNet)Imperial Emblem 00:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Are you sure the Edict is a Gamma-class shuttle? It's own article says it is of an unknown class.
    • In the intro, you mention that the Gorgon was constructed at Kuat. While a reasonable supposition, is there direct evidence it was manufactured there?
    • Under Specifications, you mention that The Gorgon was very unusual in that it possessed a complement of starfighters and assault craft that shied away from the standard size of a Star Destroyer's complement. While this may be true for the support craft, the starfighter complement of the vessel is a standard six squadrons. Unless you are refering to the models of starfighters used, which then needs to be made clearer.
    • First paragraph of Construction and Deployment is unreffed.
    • Mention why Doole's fleet was near the Maw when the Gorgon exits for the first time.
    • The captain of the corvette that Daala captures is named in the Jedi Academy Sourcebook as T'nun Bdu. This should be linked to.
    • Explain how Ackbar used the Startide to destroy the Manticore.
      • Already done.--Mitth'raw'nuruodo(Imperial HoloNet)Imperial Emblem 00:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Perhaps I should have been clearer - how did Ackbar gain control of the Startide? Was there any crew on board? I know the answers, but it should be made clear what the state of the Startide was and what Ackbar had to do to make it crash. - Cavalier One(Squadron channel) 08:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
          • Considering Daala didn't know herself, and this isn't about the Startide I think that's straying too far away from the Gorgon's story isn't it?--Mitth'raw'nuruodo(Imperial HoloNet)Imperial Emblem 11:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
            • Context is important, and whether or not Daala knew what had happened is irrelevant since this is an encyclopaedic article written from a neutral point of view. A small reference to how Ackbar used remote control to take command of the half-completed vessel and direct it towards the Star Destroyer is not a lot to add, really. - Cavalier One(Squadron channel) 13:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
              • Hmm, I suppose not; I guess I simply assumed that if you were willing to make an objection over it, you would want something more substantial (which would distract from both Daala and, essentially, the Gorgon's story). Anyway, done.--Mitth'raw'nuruodo(Imperial HoloNet)Imperial Emblem 22:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
    • From the Jedi Academy Sourcebook - mention needs to be made that the crew was comprised of individuals with little or no ties to the outside galaxy so they would not be missed. Also, the crews are bored and angry after so long in isolation. - Cavalier One(Squadron channel) 11:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
      • It's mentioned in the second History paragraph.--Mitth'raw'nuruodo(Imperial HoloNet)Imperial Emblem 00:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
        • No, it isn't. You mention that the Maw installation was isolated from outside contact, but not that the selection of the crew was based on their ties to the outside galaxy. The fact that the crew was bored after ten years in isolation is also not mentioned. - Cavalier One(Squadron channel) 08:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  3. The succession box says preceded by "none" and cites Jedi Search. Does Jedi Search establish that it was Daala's first flagship, or is it an assumption based on the lack of a previous flagship existing in canon? If it's the latter, please change to "unknown" or something. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 18:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
    • It is Daala's first command, so that would mean that it was her first ship. Plus, she had been a weather woman and cook for like five years. It's all in Jedi Search.--Mitth'raw'nuruodo(Imperial HoloNet)Imperial Emblem 00:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  4. From the squadron briefing of Cavalier One, second run
    • Just a little thing I missed first time around - the identities of the prisoners (Solo, Chewie and Kyp) should be revealed when they were first brought aboard the Gorgon, as well as the fact that they had escaped from Kessel. - Cavalier One(Squadron channel) 08:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  5. From the desk of Atarumaster88
    • (Intro) Seeming contradiction-how can Gorgon be one of the best ISDs in the fleet if they haven't had contact with other people for ten years?
    • This is somewhat nitpicking, but you can't say for sure that they were XX-9s if you're reffing from Jedi Search. That's original research.
      • Only the numbers are from Jedi Search. I assumed there was a consistency among Star Destroyer weapon models. I've removed the exact types of weapons.--Mitth'raw'nuruodo(Imperial HoloNet)Imperial Emblem 21:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I'd like a reference to a standard Star Destroyer's configuration. Is that ISD-I or ISD-II?
      • Um, I'm not sure what your asking for, but the Gorgon is an ISD-I.--Mitth'raw'nuruodo(Imperial HoloNet)Imperial Emblem 15:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
        • You'll need a reference to what a "standard config" is, unless it's stated in Jedi Search what the standard config is, or that Gorgon is at less than standard config. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 15:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Jedi Search indicates that Gorgon has less than a standard crew at some point during the Maw Installation; you can't say it has 45,000 crew if you're reffing from Jedi Search. It's said to have a skeleton crew.
      • I hardly call 45,000 a skeleton crew.--Mitth'raw'nuruodo(Imperial HoloNet)Imperial Emblem 15:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
        • If you look closely at Jedi Search, Daala says the normal complement of crew on an ISD was 45,000. In the very next sentence, she states that the Gorgon is running at less than full complement. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 15:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
    • What is a "ragged shuttle"? Reword.
      • A ragged shuttle is one that is torn up; severely damaged, etc.--Mitth'raw'nuruodo(Imperial HoloNet)Imperial Emblem 15:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Find me one direct quote from canon that uses that adjective for that purpose and I will strike this. Otherwise, reword it please, because ships don't come in "ragged" condition. Metal can't be "ragged". Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 15:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
    • "Dumbstruck by the news, Daala decided that since Tarkin was dead, his mandate thus nullified, the only thing she could do would be to fight her own guerilla war against the New Republic." Run-on.
    • "seemingly fool-proof" is a little POVish. Reword please.
      • In the book they use even more severe modifiers. Seemingly fool-proof is nothing compared to "invincible", etc. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't like those either. And it did seem fool-proof to Daala, and everyone else. I'm just stating facts, it's not POV.--Mitth'raw'nuruodo(Imperial HoloNet)Imperial Emblem 15:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Then state that Daala considered it fool-proof, not that it was fool-proof. That's the difference between POV and NPOV. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 15:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I know this isn't your fault, but there's some confusion with Mon Calamari vs. Dac.
      • So...what do you want me to do?--Mitth'raw'nuruodo(Imperial HoloNet)Imperial Emblem 15:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Pipelinking is the easiest fix IMO. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 15:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
          • Wait, do you want me to replace all mentions of Dac with Mon Calamari?--Mitth'raw'nuruodo(Imperial HoloNet)Imperial Emblem 18:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
            • As far as I'm concerned, simply being consistent and picking one will work. I don't want to see both "Dac" and "Mon Calamari" (in reference to the planet), though. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 15:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
              • Both mentions of Mon Calamari are reffering to the species. First to the cities ("the floating cities of the Mon Calamari") and then to the code Ackbar uses to take control of the Startide ("using a Mon Calamari code"). Everything is consistent.--Mitth'raw'nuruodo(Imperial HoloNet)Imperial Emblem 21:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Spell out New Republic Defense Force and Mon Calamari.
    • "Her first real defeat" . . . eh, Daala regarded the loss of the Hydra as a defeat as well IIRC.
      • Hence first real defeat as opposed to first defeat.--Mitth'raw'nuruodo(Imperial HoloNet)Imperial Emblem 15:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
        • In that case, what is a "real" defeat? How is her first defeat not a "real defeat"? Regardless of how you define it, it's still confusing and needs reworded. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 15:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
    • "and the Durron had already set up a supernova in the nebula." Reword.
    • "to make an emergency hyperspace jump to any point." Reword; the last part is a bit vague.
    • "But it was too late, as the burst of energy radiated out from the supernova explosion the Gorgon barely made it out of the nebula, while the Basilisk was not so lucky, and was incinerated." Reword, stilted wording.
    • "and that too many good men had died because of her selfish actions." POV.
    • Have a Super Terrific Friendly Un-frustrating day. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 14:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
  6. From the planet-slagging flagship of Chack Jadson:
    • "Gorgon would prove to be the Installation's bane." I don't like this wording.
    • "It was a powerful vessel". POV, and doesn't flow with the next sentence.
    • "The Gorgon was unusual in that it possessed a complement of assault and support craft that shied away from the standard size of a Star Destroyer's complement." Again, I think this could be worded a little better.
    • In the first quote in History, are you sure it's accurate. Not "the" Maw Installation?
    • "The Gorgon was constructed over Kuat by Kuat Drive Yards and was commissioned by Grand Moff Wilhuff Tarkin. The Gorgon was constructed alongside three other Imperial Star Destroyers: the Hydra, the Basilisk, and the Manticore." I'd like these sentences to flow better.
    • "which had been created by Tarkin himself." Obviously, Tarkin didn't create the plan, just the tactic, but that's not the impression I get. Please rephrase.
    • "in her opinion too many good men had died because of her selfish actions." Could use better phrasing and positioning in the sentence.
    • Chack Jadson (Talk) 23:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  7. "These vessels were intended by Tarkin to guard his secret military research facility, Maw Installation, where monstrosities such as the Death Star and the World Devastators were designed." - monstrosities borders on POV, I feel. "Maw Fleet" or "Maw fleet" - choose one, preferably the latter. Thefourdotelipsis 10:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  8. Toprawa:
    • I'm glad I have this opportunity to make this objection, because I've been waiting for this. From the second edition of A Guide to the Star Wars Universe, originally from the Death Star Technical Companion, "Every Imperial-class or Super-class Star Destroyer...has a special throne room set aside for [the Emperor's] specific and total use. From each throne room, the Emperor can take control of ship systems, monitor all activity, and contemplate the dark side of the Force and his own grand schemes." Something discussing this should be added to the "Specifications" section. Toprawa and Ralltiir 18:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
    • If the ship was commissioned in 1 ABY, it needs a Rebellion era tag at the top of the page and in the infobox
      • This has been fixed. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 18:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
        • And in the infobox. It appears that the field is missing from this page. I would suggest reloading the Indivivdual ship infobox while making sure there aren't any other omitted fields that could be filled in. Toprawa and Ralltiir 19:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
          • No can do, bossman. That infobox doesn't contain an eras field. I completely reloaded it anyway, but template fixing is not the responsibility of an FAN nominator, IMO. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 18:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
    • What kind of shuttle? A New Republic shuttle? Please specify: "before a lone shuttle entered the Maw and was captured by the Gorgon's tractor beams"
    • And what is the fate of the Empire? Since Endor, for example? Greater specification/contextification: "Daala learned the fate of the Empire"
    • This makes no sense to me. How can it be fulfilling its duty of protecting the installation by destroying it? I would request this be reworded: "the Gorgon fulfilled its role of protector by destroying the Installation"
    • Is it delivering Daala to sanctuary with the Remnant? So she can become its leader? Please specify why this is happening: "after transporting Daala to the Imperial Remnant in the Deep Core"
    • Who are "the warlords"? Context, please: "the warlords dismantled the Star Destroyer"
    • The date of its dismantling should also be worked in there somewhere. Toprawa and Ralltiir 22:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Tossed in a 12 ABY. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 18:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
        • Well, I meant the intro, which I have since added. But the infobox claims it was dismantled in 11 ABY, not 12 ABY. Which is it? Toprawa and Ralltiir 19:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
    • The majority of the Description section is effectively being sourced to Complete Cross Sections. Please remedy.
    • I'd like to see something mentioned in this same section dealing with the crew size and how it compares to the standard crew of an ISD, whatever that figure may be. Toprawa and Ralltiir 22:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
      • That's kind of dicey; check out the BTS. I'll work on it however. Chack Jadson (Talk) 20:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
        • Well, given the BTS information ad your most recent edit, I'm confused why the infobox specifies the ship had a crew of 45,000 and the article claims it operated with less than that and the BTS claims it operated with a skeleton crew at the same time. Something isn't matching up here.
          • Ok, after reading your ref note, it seems this whole deal is operating under the assumption that just because she has the right amount of men to evenly crew her four ships that she is indeed doing so. I don't know if this is the nominator's interpretation or what, but if the book says she operated with a skeleton crew, then the ship operated with a skeleton crew. There's no reason to have this huge ref note explaining a bit of speculation. All that needs to be presented in the article is that the ship operated with a skeleton crew of somewhere less than 45,000, the standard crew amount of an ISD-I. Likewise, it would seem this BTS note is now unnecessary. The article doesn't need to stipulate any error on the author's part, which leads you to my final objection listed below. Toprawa and Ralltiir 19:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
            • Now that it's been pointed out, it seems really obvious that that bit was unneeded. I guess I just went with what Thrawn had without thinking about it. It's now been removed. Chack Jadson (Talk) 22:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
    • After reading through the ship's individual entry in the Star Wars Encyclopedia and comparing that entry to this article's introduction, it's like reading about two different ships. The second paragraph of the intro is very weak and should be rewritten almost in full. I would suggest using the SWE entry as a guide. Toprawa and Ralltiir 23:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
      • This is what I'm talking about: from the SWE entry, "[Daala] set what appeared to be a suicide course into the Installation, presumably destroying the Gorgon. In reality, she took the ship...to the Core Worlds, etc." The intro just claims that the Gorgon fired at and destroyed the station, with no mention of its presumed destruction. Did the NR think it was destroyed, for example? This should all be discussed in the intro. Toprawa and Ralltiir 19:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
    • The quote heading up the "Leaving the Maw" sections seems off somehow. Maybe there's a wrong word put in there, or the punctuation is wrong, I'm not sure, and I could be completely mistaken, but please check to make sure the original nominator got it right.
    • Please kill this dead construction and specify what "this chance" is: "This chance came in 11 ABY"
    • The Gorgon has more than one tractor beam projector, contrary to what this wording alludes to: "the Gorgon used its tractor beam"
      • Easy fix; you could've done this one even with no knowledge of the source material. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 22:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure ISDs have more than one hangar bay: "to pull the damaged shuttle into its hangar bay"
    • The article randomly drops in this description of the shuttle being damaged without any prior explanation of how it became damaged. Did the tractor beams damage it? "the damaged shuttle"
      • Removed altogether. The word damaged is not pertinent to the article. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 22:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm not going to sugarcoat this one. This wording just stinks: "and Emperor Palpatine and Darth Vader had died on a failed attempt to reconstruct the battlestation."
    • "Smother" just seems really off kilter. I'd rather you choose a different word: "the most the fleet could do was physically smother the superweapon with TIE Fighters"
      • Actually, that physically is what Daala was trying to do. She's trying to fill space with so many craft that the superweapon can't escape through all of them. Still, I can try and find a different word if you insist. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 22:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Ditto with "fruitlessly": "The confused fleet fired fruitlessly"
    • The Gorgon's sensors are a vital communications outpost? Please fix this clausal confusion: "Despite being a vital communications outpost, the Gorgon's sensors"
      • Fixed. Another objection that doubtless took more time to make than fix. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 22:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Can we think of a more compelling section title than the "Return to the Maw and end"? That's pretty bland.
    • The Imperial warlords are bearing deep scars and are damaged beyond repair? Clausal confusion: "Bearing battle scars, damaged nearly beyond repair, and limping along with what amounted to a skeleton crew, the various Imperial warlords who had domains in the Deep Core"
    • As has been done with the intro, I would like to see some description worked into the penultimate paragraph of the final history section dealing with the SWE info. There shouldn't be any information exclusive to the intro, which currently there is.
    • All of the battles that have been listed in the infobox should be linked to someplace in the article. I see no links for the Battle of Dantooine or the Battle of the Maw Installation.
    • Really? Where is this stipulation presented? "it would seem her ships may have been unevenly crewed. This can also be seen as an error on the author's part, a stipulation made by this article."
    • I'd rather like to see more added to this description. Is this the standard size for an ISD-I, or ISD-II? Also, you should add something to the ffect of "as specified in Complete Cross-sections, etc.": "As 45,000 is a standard crew size for a Star Destroyer" Toprawa and Ralltiir 19:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
  9. From the Undisclosed Location of Darth Culator:
    • Intro: "After the irreparably damaged Gorgon delivered her to the Imperial Remnant in the Deep Core in 11 ABY, so that Daala could become the Remnant's new leader, the Imperial warlords dismantled the Star Destroyer for use in the construction of newer vessels." That's not why it took bravely bold Sir Robin Daala there. It took her there because she was running away from the Republic. Becoming leader of the remnant didn't even occur to her until well after the Gorgon's demise. Not only that, but I don't think the use of the proper term "Imperial Remnant" is really appropriate. Fortunately, that's the only occurrence of it in the article. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 01:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Remove nomination (Inquisitorius vote only)

  1. Inqvote It's been three weeks since the author contributed to the site, and two since the last objection was placed with no attempts on anyone's part to rectify it. Graestan(Talk) 14:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  2. Inqvote 4 votes or not, this thing is idle. Toprawa and Ralltiir 15:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
    • If Chack is truly willing to work on this, as he's indicated to me directly, that's fine. I won't hesitate to reinstate this vote should he choose not to, however. Toprawa and Ralltiir 21:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Do not remove nomination (Inquisitorius vote only)

  1. Inqvote Negative. If Chack's willing to adopt it and other people take it over, I think it's fine. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 16:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
  2. Inqvote You know, I never ever say this but... per Ataru. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 21:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
  3. Inqvote Greyman(Talk) 08:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • It could use a sentence or two in the Bts explaining the mythological origin of the name, like with Chimaera. -LtNOWIS 20:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
  • You may consider any and all outstanding objections pertaining to myself to be Null and Void due to my strong desire to no longer have anything to do with this nomination. Toprawa and Ralltiir 21:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
  • That means this is Approved as a Featured article by Inquisitorius 23:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

.