Wookieepedia:Featured article nominations/Onager-class Star Destroyer

< 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.

Onager-class Star Destroyer

  • Nominated by:--Vitus InfinitusTalk 18:25, March 4, 2020 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: Giving featured article nominations another try!
  • WookieeProject (optional): WP:FFG, WP:AMB

(3 Inqs/5 Users/8 Total)

(Votes required: No additional votes required to pass, please consider reviewing another article.)

Support

  1. Great job on fixing up the article! —Tomotron Revanchist Sith (Star Forge) 01:02, March 10, 2020 (UTC)
  2. QuiGonJinn Senate seal(Talk) 14:45, May 7, 2020 (UTC)
  3. A fine read. Braha'tok enthusiast (Hello there) 23:09, May 29, 2020 (UTC)
  4. Mr Star Wars Amino Republic talk 6:30 May 30, 2020 (UTC)
  5. Inqvote Nice work! Supreme Emperor (talk) 01:49, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
  6. Inqvote MasterFredCommerce Guild(talk) 20:35, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
  7. Love the detailed description of the ship ~ Loqiical (talk) 00:15, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
  8. Inqvote Tommy-Macaroni 10:36, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Object

UberSoldat
  • Well done for the most part, however, you have some issues:
  • "Navigation computer" seems to be infobox-exclusive.
  • Battle of Endor should be given a date in the intro
  • "During the Galactic Civil War, there were several examples of this class. Several ships were the Cataclysm, the Rakehell, the Sunder, and the Onager-class Testbed." This can be merged into one sentence to use the named ships as the examples specified in the first sentence.
  • "Beyond the end of the indentation but before the command tower structure were two deflector shield generator domes similar to those[3] found in Imperial-class Star Destroyers,[6] as well as several other deflector shield generators." I don't think you should use Rogue One as a source if it doesn't mention the deflector shield generator. I would suggest replacing the reference with the Blueprints from Card Trader (See the exact card used in the status articles Formidable and Adjudicator).
    • Thanks! Fixed!--Vitus InfinitusTalk 01:15, March 6, 2020 (UTC)
      • Ok so for this, you'll need to make two separate references. For stuff like "solar ionization reactor" or "deflector shield," follow Rakehell, Sunder, and Cataclysm as examples. You don't need two separate references for that info. Secondly, the reference for the ISD should be the card directly, as you've currently used the same reference for both. UberSoldat93 (talk) 06:15, March 6, 2020 (UTC)
  • Second paragraph of the History section is missing a reference at the end.
  • Do the sources make the connection between the Mandator IV and the Onager? If they don't, then I don't think you can say the former functioned similarly to the latter. What you could say is that the concept of orbital bombardment weaponry aboard a Star Destroyer was implemented into the Mandator IV. UberSoldat93 (talk) 04:02, March 5, 2020 (UTC)
  • Galactic Civil War should be given dates. UberSoldat93 (talk) 04:07, March 5, 2020 (UTC)
  • Article needs to list all cards within the Expansion Pack that feature or mention the Onager instead of just linking the whole set like that. UberSoldat93 ClanMudhornSignet-Redemption (talk) 01:25, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Sources need to be listed chronologically, and a 1stID next to the source that identifies the ship by its full name.
  • The article says "Imperial Siege Breaker" while BTS and the Sources section say "Siege Breaker." Please correct this. UberSoldat93 ClanMudhornSignet-Redemption (talk) 06:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
  • "Sometime between the years[2] 5 and 0 BBY[10] during the early rebellion against the Galactic Empire..." Since we determined that the Civil War starts by 4 BBY, I think you should just remove the "early rebellion" bit. UberSoldat93 ClanMudhornSignet-Redemption (talk) 14:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
  • You will now have to list the Onager cards rereleased in Upgrade Card Collection. These are different from the original cards so you need to list them separately. UberSoldat93 ClanMudhornSignet-Redemption (talk) 19:01, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Toprawa
  • The size of the article warrants a larger intro than just one paragraph. Also, please fix the italicization formatting of this nomination. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 19:13, April 20, 2020 (UTC)
    • Expanded intro. I fixed italicization of the title of the nomination, is there anything else?--Vitus InfinitusTalk 20:35, April 20, 2020 (UTC)
QGJ
  • You've got a few duplicate links.
  • Please fix image caption formatting. Remember that only full sentences get a period at the end.
    • I changed image captions, and I think I fixed the formatting--Vitus InfinitusTalk 15:03, May 3, 2020 (UTC)
  • Each ref note should have all available subjects linked to.
  • Can you reformat ref 4 to make it less cumbersome? It's really hard to understand what it's trying to get across at the moment. QuiGonJinn Senate seal(Talk) 09:43, May 3, 2020 (UTC)
  • There are instances of info sourced to two consecutive references. Those should be avoided unless absolutely necessary. And if they are necessary, then consecutive ref notes should always be arranged in ascending order. There are some refs that do not follow this rule. QuiGonJinn Senate seal(Talk) 15:36, May 6, 2020 (UTC)
OOM
  • Haxen Delto and Airen Cracken shouldn't be linked in the quote template.
  • The alternate names "Onager-class Destroyer and "Siege Breaker" are completely unnecessary. I see that when mentioned without -class, Onager isn't capitalised, but there's no point including it as an alternate title in the intro.
  • Same goes for the list of names in "General characteristics" section.
  • Some of the images could be enlarged.
  • "Despite the Rebel victory at Endor […]" Not sure about the capitalisation of "rebel" here. Is it capitalised in the source?
  • Starter sentence for the Legacy section should connect with the previous line about the GCW. The Empire's ultimate defeat there should be mentioned in place of "after the fall of the Galactic Empire."
  • I found some linking of individual words of proper compound nouns while skimming through the article. (e.g. Death Star) There's probably a few more in the article that needs removing. - - -CIS roundel OOM 224 ༼༽{talk}༼༽ 18:53, September 22, 2020 (UTC)
    • Thank you. I'll check through it and remove any more that I find--Vitus InfinitusTalk 21:45, September 24, 2020 (UTC)
      • I can't find any more but I'll keep looking--Vitus InfinitusTalk 17:52, September 25, 2020 (UTC)
        • Great. Striking so that the objection won't exceed the time limit. - - -CIS roundel OOM 224 ༼༽{talk}༼༽ 21:58, October 1, 2020 (UTC)
  • Not sure what this is about. Please reword with some formal language and without original research. "At one point during the Imperial Era, an Imperial moff ordered an Onager-class Star Destroyer to destroy a city from orbit, while in another moment an Alliance base was destroyed, though it was undetermined if the Empire had equipped a miniaturized Death Star superlaser on an Onager or if it was something else." - - -CIS roundel OOM 224 ༼༽{talk}༼༽ 21:58, October 1, 2020 (UTC)
    • That is not original research, that's how it's worded in the source. I've slightly reworded to be more encyclopedic, but I'd appreciate it if you don't say that I'm using original research without checking first, thanks.--Vitus InfinitusTalk 13:48, October 8, 2020 (UTC)
      • Sorry for the assumption. Does the source mention who was undetermined as to whether the Onager used DS technology? Also, I don't understand what "a different circumstance" is referring to; that the Onager could have been equipped with some other technology? - - -OOM 224 ༼༽{talk}༼༽ 15:41, October 8, 2020 (UTC)
        • No worries! The source phrases the sentence as a question, so for that piece of information within the question I phrased it as being undetermined. Additionally, "a different circumstance" is the change I made to "something else" to make it more encyclopedic, since the source says "something else." The full statement is "Has the Empire successfully mounted a miniaturized Death Star superlaser on an Onager, or did something else destroyed the base?"--Vitus InfinitusTalk 00:25, October 9, 2020 (UTC)
  • The Mustafar DB entry doesn't say the action at Mustafar marked the beginning of the GCW, only that it was "one of the earliest rebel victories" of the war. Please revise the article accordingly. - - -OOM 224 ༼༽{talk}༼༽ 15:41, October 8, 2020 (UTC)
  • The article body and intro states the alternative name is "Imperial Siege Breaker," while it's just "Siege Breaker" in bts.
    • It's because it was originally only identified as the Siege Breaker. Onager-class Star Destroyer and Imperial Siege Breaker originate from much later sources.--Vitus InfinitusTalk 14:33, October 9, 2020 (UTC)
  • Could the Onager's designation as a capital ship be included in the infobox? - - -OOM 224 ༼༽{talk}༼༽ 13:55, October 9, 2020 (UTC)
  • (Reviewing note) Links should be provided in individuals references; when used in ref notes, they don't count as duplicate links.
  • (Reviewing note) Twitter citations don't need an image link if a backup link is already provided.
  • The Legacy section could use an additional image. - - -OOM 224 ༼༽{talk}༼༽ 11:47, October 16, 2020 (UTC)
  • The amount of text in the caption of the last image is a bit too much. Enlarging the image would help, but even then the text should be shortened. - - -OOM 224 ༼༽{talk}༼༽ 14:50, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Fred strikes back
  • Can we try to divide these massive sections up? A section should ideally be between 1-3 paragraphs. MasterFredCommerce Guild(talk) 04:26, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
  • To build off the last objection, with more sections, are there any more images or quotes that could be added? MasterFredCommerce Guild(talk) 05:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
    • There's no other quotes but there is an image, though I don't really want to use it since there's no high quality version. File:SunderFFG.png. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 14:58, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
      • That's fair. That image is definitely not suitable for a status article. MasterFredCommerce Guild(talk) 03:55, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  • {{Mediacat}} should be placed inside the reference scrollbox. MasterFredCommerce Guild(talk) 03:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Fixed --Vitus InfinitusTalk 03:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
      • Actually, it should go in "Sources," but since I misspoke, I went ahead and moved it. MasterFredCommerce Guild(talk) 21:10, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Is there a reason you don't italicize "Onager" when on its own? MasterFredCommerce Guild(talk) 06:29, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Starships and Speeders doesn't italicize, so I didn't either. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 20:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  • You shouldn't start a new section with a pronoun when referring to the subject of the article.
  • "Toward," "forward," "backward," and similar words are preferred without the "s" at the end.
  • See here for an explanation on when to use "that" versus "which." You can see where I changed some in my copy-edit here, but that only covers the intro and first two sections. MasterFredCommerce Guild(talk) 06:51, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Seems like most of them were in the paragraphs you fixed. Done. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 20:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  • The first sentence of "Role" is a run-on sentence.
  • "Considered an even greater threat" by who? MasterFredCommerce Guild(talk) 19:39, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Tommy
  • To clarify, is the relationship between the Onager and the Mandator IV directly mentioned in sources? Or is that a link you've made?
    • I have spoken with Vitus, and he has allowed me to adopt the nomination. Alright, I have not found any established connection between the two ships, nor with the Xyston. I can ask Vitus if you'd like me to, though. CIS roundel Erebus Chronus (talk) 18:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
      • I've spoken with Vitus, and the connection is established in the Rebel Files. It implies that the technology was used by the First Order. CIS roundel Erebus Chronus (talk) 21:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Please refer to the MoS section on linking. Tommy-Macaroni 13:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
  • OK, so first of all I think we could get some more images in here, especially in the Characteristics section. With the upgrade card collection, we now have modestly good scans of artwork only available on Armada cards, so I think getting images of maybe the Orbital Bombardment Particle Cannons, Superheavy Composite Beam Turbolasers, and maybe the Sunder could be good to better illustrate the article, depending on how much room there is.
    • Added two images, though I don't have the Upgrade Card Collection or a scanner. The quality is iffy, but I noticed that you had the collection, so if the quality isn't as good I wanted to ask if you could maybe be able to get a good quality image? --Vitus InfinitusTalk 15:06, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
      • I don't have a scanner either; I originally pulled the Sunder scan from this video, which contains scans of the entire collection. Maybe try to use that to get better quality on the Superheavy Composite Beam Turbolasers image. Tommy-Macaroni 11:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm also wondering how relevant the last paragraph of the history section is. First off, the Onager isn't mentioned once in that paragraph, which suggests there is extraneous info. That fact you've inferred the link between the Onager and the Mandator is fine, but I'd recommend it be a passing mention, not an entire paragraph, which makes it seem like the link between the two ships is official. Tommy-Macaroni 09:35, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Okay, I kept the link between the Onager and Mandator with some more trimming and removed the other information. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 15:06, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
      • Good stuff, though you now have a whole paragraph where the Onager isn't mentioned (Legacy, P1). I suggest having the following structure: Describe the excavation, the Resistance's acquisition, and the annotation of the Onager section. Then paragraph break. Then specifically describe those annotations, which will lead onto the Mandator IV mention at the end. Tommy-Macaroni 11:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
  • The intro needs some work. The mention of the Xyston is currently intro exclusive, so that needs to be removed. I'd also advise removing the Mandator mention as well, since it only has a fleeting reference in the body, so that third paragraph can probably be cut down considerably. To bulk up the intro again, I'd recommend using some info from Description and Role, like the first paragraph of Secutor-class Star Destroyer. Tommy-Macaroni 11:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
  • OK, sorry for the time it's taking to get back to you on these, but we should be nearly there. You currently introduce The Rebel Files twice in the History section, so you can remove the second one in Legacy. I'd recommend noting the burial of the files either in the Post-Battle of Endor or Legacy sections, so then you can dive straight into noting the excavation of it in Legacy. Tommy-Macaroni 21:09, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
    • No worries, done! --Vitus InfinitusTalk 22:55, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
      • I still can't see any information on the burial of the files. Tommy-Macaroni 20:11, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
        • Oop, I did several edits but history only shows one. I think I accidentally closed and exited thinking I added all the info. It's added now in the Legacy section. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 21:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
  • "The bridge was situated inside the elevated command tower at the center of the ship toward the rear, and the bridge itself was located on a near-trapezoidal structure on top of the command tower." - Please rephrase this, you say the bridge is both inside and on top of the command tower.
  • I've noticed that often in your writing you use the same word twice in the same sentence, for example "The front of the ship was defined by two prongs that defined the bow". Please avoid this as it sounds quite unprofessional, if need be just search for word synonyms to replace one with.
  • "These weapons in the indentation of the vessel were longer than half of the ship." - This seems a little out of place since you've already discussed the physical characteristics of the weapons and are now discussing their application. Maybe move this a little earlier?
  • "[It] deployed its starfighters to defend its bow from critical strikes against enemy fighters." - shouldn't this read "from enemy fighters"? Strikes against enemy fighters would be strikes from the Onager itself.
  • Ref 9 will need some expansion, mentioning the part of the Rebel Files that info is mentioned in, like here.
    • Looks like there's an issue with this. The section is 14 AFE through 17 AFE, which would be 5 BBY to 2 BBY. However, this section covers events all the way up to the Battle of Yavin. Looking at the date of Chron One, that also covers the same time period. I have an earlier copy, so I'm not sure if this is limited to the first printing of books that had all the errors or if this has stayed consistent. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 21:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
      • Looking at my copy, Chrons 1 and 2 are both 14-17 AFE too. I also have an earlier copy so I'd recommend asking around to see if anyone with later prints has it different. If not, then you'll still have to change that date note to explain where you got 14 AFE and 19 AFE from. Tommy-Macaroni 08:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
        • Okay, I'll go to the local bookstore soon and see if they have the updates Rebel Files, if not I'll go ahead and make a new ref note.
          • Any update on this? Tommy-Macaroni 21:07, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
            • Had zero luck on the bookstores, so I added a ref note instead. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 21:35, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
  • "as they both could cut through almost any material while fitting comfortably within a satchel" - this obviously isn't true for the Onager, is this some sarcastic comment from the Rebel Files? If so I'd recommend removing it.
    • It was a comparison made by someone in the Rebel Files, so yeah I'll remove it --Vitus InfinitusTalk 21:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't think ref 12 is necessary, you should just be able to source BFII and anything the Onager is pictured in directly.
    • I'm not clear on which ref this is exactly. Is it 12 or do you mean 11? --Vitus InfinitusTalk 21:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
      • Sorry, forgot I removed a ref in my copy-edit. I mean the current ref 11. Tommy-Macaroni 08:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
  • "The Siege Breaker was officially designated as the Onager-class Star Destroyer and was deployed by the Imperial Navy on various sensitive operations." - is this bit necessary? You've already mentioned the class' name many times, even in this section, as well as its role.
  • "An Onager-class once fired its Superheavy Composite Beam Turbolasers, while another shot its Orbital Bombardment Particle Cannons." - I also think this is far too unspecific for the history section; by describing these weapons earlier you've basically told the reader that they've been fired at least once. Tommy-Macaroni 20:11, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments

Approved as a Featured article by Inquisitorius 10:36, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

  • In reference to the Sunder image linked above, the card was recently released in Upgrade Card Collection in a larger size, meaning you can acquire a higher quality shot for the article. UberSoldat93 ClanMudhornSignet-Redemption (talk) 10:22, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
    • I'll add it when I'm able to have access to that card --Vitus InfinitusTalk 03:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I am taking a temporary personal leave from the site for the sake of my personal health and happiness, and I expect to return anywhere from one week to several weeks. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 14:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I have returned :P --Vitus InfinitusTalk 21:50, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Sorry if this is in the wrong spot (I'm not objecting to this article), but I think some info can be added to the BTS regarding how the Onager-class takes its name from the Latin/English word "onager" (the species of horse), as well as the Roman siege weapon with the same name (because this Star Destroyer has a siege weapon on it). Thanks. Loqiical (talk) 00:05, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
    • Thanks, Loqiical! This type of information is not added to the articles, as far as I understand, however. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 21:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
      • Since it was recently added to the Secutor article, I don't think it's unreasonable to do the same here. UberSoldat93 ClanMudhornSignet-Redemption (talk) 06:33, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
        • Although it's unorthodox and something that we don't include, I'll go ahead and add it since it doesn't hurt to include it --Vitus InfinitusTalk 15:26, 27 July 2021 (UTC)