- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a featured article nomination that was successful. Please do not modify it.
Halagad Ventor
Support
- To 52! And more Abel suck-uppery! And political manuvering to curry favour with Azizlight! Nah, just kidding. *looks around nervously* .... 00:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Cull Tremayne 00:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Atarumaster88
(Audience Chamber) 01:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC) 
02:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)- Lord Hydronium 03:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- KEJ 13:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- --Shaelas(HoloConference)
23:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC) - I heart Halagad. --Azizlight 01:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose
It mentions Rahn's vision of Ventor before his death, but not that Rahn was among the Jedi specifically betrayed by Ventor to Vader. This needs to be added, as it is the context for the later vision. Otherwise its an irrelevant element of Rahn's life, not of Halagad's. QuentinGeorge 09:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Another complaint - Ventor was not the sole survivor of the crash when he was a padawan. Check the articles of the others, at least one other survived. I'm not telling you who - you gotta work for this, Fourdot. QuentinGeorge 03:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Almost. I'm sceptical of the mention of the Exactor. When and where was this mentioned in relation to Halagad Ventor? AFAIK, the only mention of this star destroyer was in Luceno's Dark Lord: The Rise of Darth Vader. If this sentence is an inference from multiple sources, it should be qualified as such, rather than baldly stated as fact. QuentinGeorge 06:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)- So, a footnote explaining the mention? .... 09:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes please. It needs to be explained so that its doesn't seem dubious on a canon-y level. Does the article specify "Vader's flagship" or "Vader's personal star destroyer"? If its just a generic "star destroyer", it doesn't conclusively prove the Exactor. Vader could be hitching a ride on some other star destroyer. QuentinGeorge 10:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)- I made the note. And Domain of Evil specifies that it's his flagship, which, thanks to Dark Lord we know is the Exactor at that time. .... 10:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- No big deal, but I'm still a little uncomfortable with the Exactor speculation. We don't know exactly when on the timeline Halagad's capture occurred, nor do we know how long the Exactor was Vader's flagship (AFAIK). Should we change the sentence to Imperial Intelligence officers extensively tortured Ventor onboard Vader's flagship (possibly the Star Destroyer Exactor)[5]? --Azizlight 13:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- I got the inference from Domain of Evil that Ventor's flight was really a kneejerk to Palpatine, and would have happened in the immediately following weeks. But if it's too much of a stretch, I can just ax the Exactor references. Or what you suggested, Aziz. .... 22:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd be happy for it to be phrased as "...Vader's flagship, most likely the Exactor, ..." QuentinGeorge 08:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- I got the inference from Domain of Evil that Ventor's flight was really a kneejerk to Palpatine, and would have happened in the immediately following weeks. But if it's too much of a stretch, I can just ax the Exactor references. Or what you suggested, Aziz. .... 22:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- No big deal, but I'm still a little uncomfortable with the Exactor speculation. We don't know exactly when on the timeline Halagad's capture occurred, nor do we know how long the Exactor was Vader's flagship (AFAIK). Should we change the sentence to Imperial Intelligence officers extensively tortured Ventor onboard Vader's flagship (possibly the Star Destroyer Exactor)[5]? --Azizlight 13:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- I made the note. And Domain of Evil specifies that it's his flagship, which, thanks to Dark Lord we know is the Exactor at that time. .... 10:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- So, a footnote explaining the mention? .... 09:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I also removed the mention of the 501st, since that is also speculation. Though since their involvement seems highly likely, I wouldn't object to someone adding "(probably of the 501st Legion)" --Azizlight 01:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)First quote is unsourced. --Darthchristian (Hey!) 16:16 12 April 2007 (UTC)- Fixed. --Azizlight 16:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Where did the death date of 1 ABY come from? Quentin added it ages ago. --Azizlight 04:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Probably can be changed to "Between 2 BBY and 5 ABY" if the exact source doesn't date it. QuentinGeorge 00:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Comments
Approved by Inquisitorius - Wookieepedia:Inq/Halagad Ventor 06:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC) (UTC)
- Only because Abel is awesome. Okay, that's not the only reason. Cull Tremayne 00:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)