Wookieepedia:Featured article nominations/Imperial II-class Star Destroyer

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

Imperial II-class Star Destroyer

(2 Inqs/2 Users/4 Total)

(Votes required: 1 Inq vote(s) required to reach minimum. Additional 2 user or 1 Inq vote required to pass.)

Support

  1. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 19:52, February 10, 2018 (UTC)
  2. QuiGonJinn Senate seal(Talk) 05:53, April 9, 2018 (UTC)
  3. Inqvote Good work on the objections. 1358 (Talk) 18:23, April 23, 2018 (UTC)
  4. Inqvote Looking good. Supreme Emperor (talk) 03:37, April 27, 2018 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your review SE. Tommy Imperial Emblem Macaroni 17:18, April 27, 2018 (UTC)

Object

Ecks Dee
  • Please check your image caption punctuation.
    • Is that better?
  • Keep in mind while writing that references break up the flow of the text and make reading much less pleasant; references should be used sparingly. For instance, let's take this sentence: "The command bridge of the[13] Imperial II-class[1] was arranged[13] almost identically to that of the Imperial I class,[16] with a command walkway and two pits where Imperial technicians operated their console stations, which were arranged perpendicular to the central walkway.[13]" This is a single sentence but you manage to use reference 13 a whopping three times. If you rearrange the information, you can cut down that to one: "Almost identical to that of the Imperial I class,[16], the Imperial II-class[1] had a command bridge with a walkway and two pits where Imperial technicians operated their console stations, arranged perpendicular to the central walkway.[13]" This is, of course, not possible in every instance and you shouldn't reduce references at the expense of sentence construction, but this is something to keep in mind. Please go through the article and see if there are any other instances of reference crowding where rearranging could be a solution. 1358 (Talk) 23:43, March 25, 2018 (UTC)
    • I've cleaned up some sentences, and removed some unnecessary references to the Rogue One guide for the name.—Tommy-Macaroni Imperial Emblem (TAKE A SEAT) 17:35, March 26, 2018 (UTC)
  • Do we really need the alternative spelling of "Two" instead of "II" in the intro? Considering II means two, it's not really an alternative spelling. 1358 (Talk) 21:19, March 29, 2018 (UTC)
  • ~"The class served as the successor to the Imperial I-class Star Destroyer in the Imperial-class line, which was also used by the Galactic Empire." This sentence is a bit confusing. What was also being used by the Empire? The ISD-I or the Imperial-class as a whole? You could reword this to something like "Part of the Imperial-class line, the ISD-II served as the successor of the ISD-I, which was also used by the Empire".
    • Done.
  • The second paragraph of the intro, which covers the usage history, feels a bit skinny. I feel like you could at least establish some sort of timeline there, if nothing else.
    • Now expanded.
  • "which were located side by side in the forward wall of a large, open space in the ventral hull.[7]" I'm not sure that "large open space" is the best possible terminology for that thing. See if you can find something more suitable.
    • Okay, I think that's better than what it was.
      • Still not quite there, I think. May I suggest something like "in the anterior wall of a depression(/indentation) in the ventral hull". "Forward wall" is a bit ambiguous and "open space" doesn't necessarily describe the fact that there's a "hole" in the hull. 1358 (Talk) 22:45, April 3, 2018 (UTC)
        • Yeah that sounds much better. Added.
  • You could probably mention the apparent presence of Imperial officers since you mention technicians and pilots and stuff, in Characteristics.
    • I had already mentioned officers, but I hadn't mentioned technicians. I checked Shattered Empire, and all the people on the bridge are officers, with no technicians present.
  • In the "Bridge" section, you use the word "arranged" twice in the same section; maybe find another word for one of the instances.
    • Done.
  • You should probably mention that the people fighting against the Torment are part of the Rebel Alliance.
  • Per our IRC discussion, numbers higher than 100 should use numerals rather than being spelled out. 1358 (Talk) 21:03, April 2, 2018 (UTC)
  • Seeing as you use audio for some Aftermath: Empire's End quotes, I feel like it would be more appropriate to source those to the audiobook instead of the novel. 1358 (Talk) 22:45, April 3, 2018 (UTC)
  • OK, I honestly thought I was having a stroke while reading the quote caption of "Eleodie Maracavanya's find." I went back in the page history to find out who has managed to sneak in vandalism without it being noticed. Finding nothing, my second guess was some sort of meta-joke about the stereotypical German pronunciation of "the" as "ze". I'm talking about "zhe" and "zher", neither of which are recognized as words in the English language by a reputable dictionary. It turns out that the character is indeed canonically referred to as with "zhe" and "zher", and while my personal thought on the matter are best left elsewhere, I'm asking you to reword the section so that the readers don't end up suspecting they're having a stroke. Some clever writing can easily solve the quote caption, for example: "Eleonie explains the plan to the pirate crew". 1358 (Talk) 22:51, April 4, 2018 (UTC)
    • Okay that's done, I agree it was a bit strange to read before. Tommy Imperial Emblem Macaroni 07:06, April 5, 2018 (UTC)
  • I would prefer if the History section image caption was rewritten so that the subject of this article is the subject of the caption sentence as well: "The Torment was destroyed by the Restoration."
    • Done.
  • Do we know when the Devastator was built? If we have some rough idea, that'd provide a good indicator of time for the History section.
    • Done.
  • Before I begin a proper review of the History section, I'm noticing a glaring lack of context for a lot of subjects. Darth Vader - who is this guy and who is his employer? Battle of Endor - between who? Palpatine - the Emperor of what? Who is the Torment aligned to? Contingency and Operation Cinder - what are their purposes? Please go through the entire History section and add context as appropriate. 1358 (Talk) 20:39, April 5, 2018 (UTC)
    • I think I got all the glaring ones. Tommy Imperial Emblem Macaroni 07:33, April 6, 2018 (UTC)
      • Honestly, re: QGJ's objection below, I find the amount of context in the intro a bit excessive after your recent edits. The second sentence of the second paragraph is basically just a context sentence and feels disconnected from the rest of the text. Right now you have a ton of context but you don't actually talk about the ship itself. If I may suggest some rewording: "Following the death of Galactic Emperor Palpatine at the Battle of Endor in 4 ABY, the ISD-II Torment was dispatched to Naboo as part of Operation: Cinder, an order from the late Emperor to destroy Imperial planets with satellites. However, the plan was thwarted by the Rebels and the Torment was destroyed before it could withdraw."
        • I second this. This sounds much better. QuiGonJinn Senate seal(Talk) 05:53, April 9, 2018 (UTC)
          • Yeah much better, added. Tommy Imperial Emblem Macaroni 07:05, April 9, 2018 (UTC)
  • "although they fled from the battle." It's not exactly clear here who the "they" is referring to. The Imperial IIs, the remnant or the New Republic? Please clarify.
    • Clarified.
  • I think the "it too must blah blah" references read really redundant and awkward, so I've taken the liberty of rewriting one of them. See what you think. If it sounds good to you, I recommend adopting a similar format for the others, because it feels really redundant to repeat "it too must have these features" a million times. 1358 (Talk) 19:24, April 19, 2018 (UTC)
    • So much better! Updated. Tommy Imperial Emblem Macaroni 20:04, April 19, 2018 (UTC)
  • "Duvat, assisted by Lieutenant Gulin, immediately set course for Naboo, and upon his arrival, deployed the satellites to create massive storms across the planet." It's not explicitly clear here that the Torment arrived at Naboo, since you phrase it as "his arrival". Please clarify.
    • Done.
  • Does the source show or mention TIE fighters being deployed? This part comes out of the blue, somewhat, since you don't say TIEs were deployed: "and the Star Destroyer's complement of TIE fighters."
    • It does. Now expanded.
  • "Just as the three starfighters were about to be destroyed by the TIEs" Wait, which TIEs? You just said they were destroyed.
    • Clarified.
  • "Maracavanya then elaborated on the decision" You should make it clear here to whom Maracavanya is elaborating the decision (the crew of the Liberty's Misrule, as per the quote caption?)
    • Done.
  • "However, in the new canon, it is not known if the class appears in in The Empire Strikes Back, not any other content that features Imperial-class Star Destroyers with communications towers." I'm not sure what this sentence is trying to say.
    • Okay, so that was put in there to clarify why ESB ISDs (and any any others with communications towers) aren't automatically ISD IIs like they were in Legends. It's just in there because I already know some people have been confused on why ESB and RotJ aren't under appearances.
  • I had a shot at simplifying one of the Bts references; please double-check that its meaning is unchanged. 1358 (Talk) 19:06, April 22, 2018 (UTC)
  • I'll catch you on IRC regarding a referencing issue tomorrow. 1358 (Talk) 23:16, April 22, 2018 (UTC)
QGJ
  • The usage of "which saw" and "which was" in such succession creates a run-on sentence. See if you can reword this. In 5 ABY, three Imperial II-class Star Destroyers fled from the Battle of Jakku, which saw the last stand between the last major Imperial remnant and the New Republic, which was what the Rebel Alliance had transitioned into.
    • How does it look now?
  • However, it was actually under the command of pirate Eleodie Maracavanya What was under his command? The previous sentence references a fleet, a Star Destroyer and an Imperial remnant. This phrase can refer to either of the three.
    • Done.
  • I don't think we should refer to it as "new canon." There's no such thing as "old canon" and "new canon." There's only canon and Legends.
    • I think I saw an Inquisitor wanting it to be put into another article, which is why I originally added it, but I've removed it for now.
  • Who wrote the comics? Also the illustrators should be established earlier in the Bts, instead of the "Inconsistencies" section.
    • Done.
  • I'm seeing some contractions in the Bts and in citations. Please avoid using stuff like "wasn't" and "isn't." Those are only allowed in quotes.
    • Yeah that's a bad habit of mine. Gone.
  • Reiterating Ecks' objection, there is still lack of context in the intro. The purposes of the Contigency and Operation Cinder need to be clarified. The Battles of Endor and Jakku would also benefit from a brief context note. QuiGonJinn Senate seal(Talk) 14:44, April 8, 2018 (UTC)
Exiled Jedi
  • The reference for the 9700 stormtroopers doesn't really make it sound like they were part of the crew. From what the source states, could the stormtroopers simply be passengers on the ship?
  • "Organized almost identically to that of the Imperial I-class" I don't think that Spark of Rebellion can be used as the only source for this, as the Imperial II does not appear in that source.
  • "This is because, in the new canon" I don't think you need to specify "new canon" here. I see it was discussed above, so I wanted to make sure that another Inq didn't want it to be mentioned this way.
  • Out of curiosity, how is the Imperial II mentioned in Dawn of Rebellion?--Exiled Jedi (talk) 14:13, October 20, 2018 (UTC)

Comments

  • From original nomination: "I know that this page is currently in Category:Pages with missing permanent archival links. I've tried to use [1] just as Toprawa suggested here, and I can get onto the page alright, but I'm stuck with an infinite loading bar once I try to search for [2] at the top. I have tried this on my Mac, my friend's Chromebook and my phone, whilst connected to my wifi, my work's wifi and my 4G. Does anyone have any ideas on what I'm doing wrong?"—Tommuskq Imperial Emblem (TAKE A SEAT) 19:39, February 10, 2018 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I forgot to mention the FA nom in my edit summary. This is the edit: [3].—Tommy-Macaroni Imperial Emblem (TAKE A SEAT) 21:04, February 11, 2018 (UTC)
  • Just an observation or question, but wouldn't it be better to have the cinematic cutscene image of the Imp 2 rather than the gameplay version? Both models differ, such as the dorsal small square turrets at the top, which the cinematic version doesn't appear to have.--Vitus InfinitusTalk 18:23, August 7, 2018 (UTC)
    • Either Ecks or Imperators requested the new gameplay image to show the vessel "the right way up", as the only full shots of it in the cutscenes are from below, and with fire. In fact, if I remember correctly, they said a comic image would be better than the cutscene one if I couldn't get a gameplay one. Tommy Imperial Emblem Macaroni 18:28, August 7, 2018 (UTC)