Wookieepedia:Featured article nominations/RX-Series pilot droid/Legends

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a featured article nomination that was successful. Please do not modify it.

RX-Series pilot droid

• Nominated by: ~Savage 23:19, July 5, 2012 (UTC)
• Nomination comments: So I missed the barn burner by a few days. My shuttle got sidetracked and flew into an ice comet field. The rest is history... ~Savage 23:19, July 5, 2012 (UTC)

(4 Inqs/2 Users/6 Total)

Support

1. Plagueis327 (talk) 18:59, July 6, 2012 (UTC)
2. Oppan Gangnam style. Menkooroo (talk) 13:05, August 31, 2012 (UTC)
3. IFYLOFD ^{(Floyd's crib)} 00:36, September 2, 2012 (UTC)
4. CC7567 ^(talk) 21:15, September 4, 2012 (UTC)
5. Cade Calrayn 20:22, September 14, 2012 (UTC)
6. Cavalier One^{(Squadron channel)} 11:18, September 18, 2012 (UTC)

Object

Rexington

• Some double-linking: speaker, pilot, photoreceptor, the galaxy, and Industrial Automaton. I recommend going through the entire article and checking for others.
  • Done! Done! ~Savage 12:19, August 28, 2012 (UTC)
• The intro says that they were introduced to the galactic market at some point before 19 BBY, but the body goes three years further and says that it happened by 22 BBY. Menkooroo (talk) 07:31, August 28, 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, technically both are correct... ;P Done. ~Savage 12:19, August 28, 2012 (UTC)
• In "Role:" "Still, RX-Series pilot droids were capable of defending themselves..." This seems oddly-placed --- the "still" makes me wonder if it was supposed to go earlier, after the bit about them not being intended for combat? Currently it follows a sentence about them speaking basic and binary, and the "still" seems odd since them defending themselves is unrelated to the languages they speak.
  • The intent was to contrast that with their happy personalities, but, yeah, it didn't flow right. I think it's fine without the still. ~Savage 12:43, August 30, 2012 (UTC)
• I think ref [9] needs to indicate in what years Episodes III and IV take place, else it's not really clear from where the date of "as early as 0 BBY" comes.
  • Check now. I think the 0 BBY was a mistake, since all we know is it takes place after the formation of the Rebellion, which is 2 BBY. ~Savage 12:43, August 30, 2012 (UTC)
• And ref [10]: Shouldn't 4.3 ABY be sourced to Leland's blog, like in RX-24? What's currently ref [10] is the ref for asserting "New Republic" in Rex's article; I think this one should follow suit.
  • I don't follow. Ref [10] here is the same as Ref [17] in Rex's article, both of which go to NEC, not Leland's blog. But this date stuff is confusing, so perhaps I'm missing something? ~Savage 12:43, August 30, 2012 (UTC)
    • In Rex, the NEC ref is used for the words "New Republic," as it's the needed ref for asserting that it's NR rather than Rebel forces. Rex's article uses Leland' blog as the source for "In 4.3 ABY," as that's the blog that dates Star Tours at 4.3 ABY. Currently, this article uses the NEC as the ref for "In 4.3 ABY," which is inconsistent with Rex's article and, I think, incorrect, unless the NEC mentions the Battle of the Death Star III. Menkooroo (talk) 08:02, August 31, 2012 (UTC)
      • I think I understand. Take a look. ~Savage 13:00, August 31, 2012 (UTC)
• As crazy as this sounds... context needed for George Lucas.
  • Done! Wasn't sure who he was, but Duckduckgo told me, "George Lucas is an American film director." :) ~Savage 12:43, August 30, 2012 (UTC)
• Can you indicate in the BTS when Star Tours II opened?
  • Done. Added it to Rex too. ~Savage 12:43, August 30, 2012 (UTC)
• (Mentioned only) doesn't seem right for CWA based on the BTS description. Maybe something custom, like (game power-up only)? Actually, be more inspired than that. :P Menkooroo (talk) 05:07, August 30, 2012 (UTC)
  • I double checked on that, and it appears that the droid isn't a powerup after all. Instead, you see a bunch of blocks and try to clear some out; supposedly it's a graphical representation of the RX droid's memory banks. Do you think this would qualify for an addition to the "History" section? "During the Clone Wars, a programmer cleared the memory banks of an RX unit owned by the Galactic Republic." ~Savage 12:43, August 30, 2012 (UTC)
    • Regarding the appearances section: we have {{TCWA}} for a reason, guys. :P {{TCWA|Droid Programming}} should suffice, and then you can use {{C}} after that as necessary. Also, the CWA player character is always Unidentified Jedi Knight (Clone Wars). CC7567 ^(talk) 12:45, August 30, 2012 (UTC)
    • Sounds like it's worth a mention in "History," I guess. Also sounds like a weird game. Menkooroo (talk) 08:02, August 31, 2012 (UTC)
      • OK, done. Went ahead and added a little something to "Role" as well. Thanks for the review! ~Savage 12:20, August 31, 2012 (UTC)

The Other Better Captain Rex

• The second paragraph of "Description" has several sentences in a row that each use the same reference. Please check this.
• Two same refs in a row in the first paragraph of "Role."
• Again, at the end of the second paragraph of "Role," three sentences in a row are separately sourced to the same ref.
• Two same refs in a row in the first paragraph of the Bts.
• Same thing in the second paragraph. I want to make sure you're aware of the specifics of the sourcing policy—hopefully these are just simple errors, but please correct them all the same.
• The Enemy Within uses "approximately" 22 BBY, so please make sure that the article accurately reflects this in each case.
• "into the midst of a icy comets": this needs to be checked. CC7567 ^(talk) 19:27, September 4, 2012 (UTC)
  • The ref stuff should be fixed; it was an (embarrassing) oversight due to the article being nominated at the end of last semester. I've added appropriate qualifiers to the 22 BBY dates, and the icy comets are now described as a field of such. Thanks for the review, and let me know if there's anything else! ~Savage 20:05, September 4, 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Approved as a Featured article by Inquisitorius 11:18, September 18, 2012 (UTC)