Wookieepedia:Featured article nominations/Starfighter combat/Legends

< 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.

Starfighter combat

(5 Inq/8 Users/13 Total)

Support

  1. Nominated.--Goodwood 11:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  2. Although i would prefer *see comment* it's still a brilliant article. Tutos Lumenarious 21:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  3. Good work. - Graestan Jedi Order (This party's over) 01:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  4. Inqvote Thefourdotelipsis 08:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  5. I'd decided to stay as far away from this FA-business as possible, but in recognition of the effort put into this great article, I'm going to cast a supporting vote. KEJ 11:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  6. Jedimca0(Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 21:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  7. -- AckbarSigdmirableAckbar (It's A Trap!) 22:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  8. Inqvote Greyman(Paratus) 02:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  9. Inqvote A really creative topic for an article. Nice to see it given such through attention. Nice work! --Eyrezer 03:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  10. Inqvote Per Eyrez. I wanna see more articles like this, covering vast concepts thoroughly and, yes, even interestingly. Gonk (Gonk!) 22:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  11. Per Gonk. jSarek 00:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  12. Inqvote Cull Tremayne 18:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  13. I appreciate the promptness in the addressing of objections. Brilliant work. Hobbes15(Tiger Headquarters) 23:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. The complete lack of film screenshots raises my eyebrow. Thefourdotelipsis 09:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I've substituted a few of the more pathetic current images with film screenshots already on-site. Hope that makes the difference though I can always scrounge more...--Goodwood 12:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  2. Skywalker Loop is linked in the article, but the source it's from doesn't have any other coverage. The book is called Starfighter Battle Book - X-Wing vs. TIE Interceptor; it's all about dogfighting. I hate to say it, but you might have a lot more material to cover. (If you need help finding the book, ask on IRC.) Also, the Ssi-ruuk used entechment to power their starfighters, which was pretty unique. That might warrant coverage. -LtNOWIS 01:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I've been through that battle book frontwards and backwards, LtNOWIS, and that's just about the only useful thing I got out of it. Basically the book is a "choose your story" except the "story choices" are "maneuvers" and you turn to the appropriate page to figure out the results. I have, however, added a notation about the Ssi-ruuk and entechment (included in a section in Technology about droid starfighters--not enough room in the History section)--Goodwood 02:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Thanks. -LtNOWIS 16:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  3. Nice article, very thorough. Two points: Firstly, when describing the Ssi-ruuk and entechment, you use "essentially sucked the soul out of a living being and implanted it". That is not very encyclopedic. I think "soul" should be removed and the sentence reworded. Secondly, in the history section, mention should be made of a starfighter destroying the first Death Star. Surely, this is one of the most significant actions undertaken by starfighters! --Eyrezer 05:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Addressed. Note: Insofar as the notation about entechment goes, you're correct however I've modified the sentence to reflect the narrative -- if I recall correctly both Ssi-ruu and others referred to the process thusly (or, at least how I amended it to be), including Dev Sibwarra and Luke Skywalker. I could perhaps add Dev's quote on the process from The New Essential Guide to Weapons and Technology -- which, incidentally, I now have.--Goodwood 20:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  4. From someone who isn't here
    • Haven't read the whole thing thoroughly, but it seems to skimp on a number of NJO and post NJO details, such as stutter-fire and shield trios. Actually, the whole tactic of close formations to increase shield strength (mentioned in VotF also) could use some mention. some guy who isn't here. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 19:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
      • The shield trios has been addressed. Greyman(Paratus) 22:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Not nearly enough. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 17:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
          • Try it now...look under "Other Tactics".
    • I've read The Krytos Trap many times and never does it make doctrinal statements that are in the characteristics section AFAIK. Source or remove it.
      • Addressed; I have rephrased the source.
    • Does it actually state that the dogfight is the main type of starfighter engagement? Source or remove
      • Addressed: "Dogfight" is used in virtually every mention of starfighter combat that there is within canon.
    • Where does it say NR fighters are more effective than the Empire's overall? This would seem to contradict that.
      • Addressed. Rephrased the statement.
    • Ridiculously large amount of Original Research in the training section. You cannot assume that everyone trains the same as the Alliance does. The Making of Baron Fel has some info on Imperial training methods.
      • Partially addressed - unable to obtain The Making of Baron Fel for study, however have included a statement from another source which should add a bit of contrast.
        • Better, but no cigar. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 17:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
          • I have added a section on Imperial methods, from three different sources, including the (extremely meager) Fel story. - Graestan Jedi Order (This party's over) 03:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Source the part about dying within 5 missions. (3.4)
      • Addressed.
    • Information on Chiss droid starfighters needs added (ref Force Heretic II)
      • Addressed. Prototype only; mentioned in passing.
    • Actually, Ssi-ruuk droids are smaller than Rebel starfighters if you check TAB. Please correct and adjust paragraph.
      • Addressed.
    • 6.1 What does "The battle was pitched" mean?
      • Addressed. Rephrased the statement.
    • Lots of fluff in the history sections- irrelevant information that could be culled and trimmed.
      • Addressed as I was able.
    • Excessive/redundant internal linking. Needs HTML cleanup.
      • Addressed so far.
        • A quick look still shows multiple links to the same thing (mostly involving redirects- TIE fighter, Rebel Alliance, etc. as well as the 1st mention of a topic not being linked per MoS. A number of battles mentioned are not linked in the history section Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 17:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
          • Darth Culator fixed it for us.--Goodwood 12:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Pictures aren't relevant. Battle at Kuat has nothing to do with Thrawn campaign.
      • Addressed.
        • Some sections can get away with having random pictures of starfighters shooting each other. Some can't. At the very least, 3, 5, 6, 9 (atmospheric combat only), and 10 should have only context-relevant images, which they don't atm. Only 9 does currently. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 17:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
          • At the request of Goodwood, I went through the article and, to my knowledge, addressed the picture objections. Greyman(Paratus) 22:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
    • IIRC, StealthXs have slightly less firepower than XJs.
      • Addressed. Yes, addressed.
    • No mention of CCIR Needles at all. For shame- those things could have revolutionized starfighter combat.
      • Addressed.
    • Link to battle with two SSDs.
      • Addressed.
    • There are large numbers of quality images available, yet the images in this article seemed scattered and arbitary. Could use a few more pics to provide an even spacing of images. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 17:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Doing my best so far...I hope you're not planning on making this a separate objection from what is essentially the same one, four objections up.
        • At the request of Goodwood, I went through the article and, to my knowledge, addressed the picture objections. Greyman(Paratus) 22:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC) addressed
    • "Doctoral" statements in one of the first references should be "doctrinal" statements.
      • Addressed.--Goodwood 01:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
    • The Adumari have a whole culture built around starfighters, starfighter combat, and starfighter pilots, and no mention at all? Their honor duels should be mentioned somewhere please.
      • Addressed.--Goodwood 01:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
    • In Legacy of the Force: Betrayal, Wedge (through Syal) makes some doctrinal statements about missile runs on capital ships. Should those be included?
      • I just added the whole Legacy of the Force series to the first footnote, including, by extention, Betrayal.--Goodwood 21:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
        • What I meant was that Wedge makes some specific comments about how to make missile runs on capital ships that I feel should be mentioned in the article. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 16:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
          • I've reviewed the relevant portions of Betrayal and there wasn't 'that' much to add that isn't in the article already. I did, however, add a quote from that source to lead off the section and added a small addendum about "focus". In addition, I've added a bit to the paragraphs on nova flare about following your missiles in.--Goodwood 22:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Also, I personally think Thrawn's use of starfighters in the battles with the Vagaari and with Outbound Flight could use some mention. (Outbound Flight (novel) Actually, no mention of the Battle of Naboo or Stark Hyperspace War either. A short history section entitled something like "Republic's decline" would be good between the Mando/Jedi Civil War and Clone Wars. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 14:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Section on Republic Decline added.--Goodwood 21:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Section on Unknown Regions/Chiss use of starfighters added, using information from Outbound Flight, which, in fact, offered very little material on starfighter usage. - Graestan Jedi Order (This party's over) 05:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
    • A brief mention of Death Seed Crisis and Black Fleet Crisis in History section please. Both featured somewhat significant starfighter engagements.
      • Black Fleet Crisis is already mentioned in the Starfighters versus capital ships section. I've added a mention of the second Death Seed pandemic in the section about the CCIR Needle, essentially tying the Needle in with that crisis. In the context of the history section, they're not so important that they merit two separate mentions apiece (remember your earlier objection about "fluff" in the history section?) I take that back. Section on Black Fleet Crisis added.--Goodwood 21:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Fair enough. The Black Fleet Crisis section has been edited down to my satisfaction. And with the Nam Chorios/Death Seed/CCIR section, I've provided a model for what I'm looking for when I ask for brief expansions covering certain areas. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 16:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Need a brief expansion of X-wing sabotage and Battle of Almania, as well as First Corellian Insurrection. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 16:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
      • X-wing sabotage? Anyway, I've added a section about the "New Rebellion" as well as the First Corellian Insurrection.--Goodwood 06:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
        • I think he means the sabotage that occurred in The New Rebellion concurrent with the events of the Battle of Almania...I could be wrong though, since it has been awhile since I read that book. Greyman(Paratus) 15:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
          • You appear to be missing the point somewhat: I don't want the history of the conflict in general. I want the history of the conflict as it pertains to starfighter combat. Please adjust the sections accordingly and use the Unknown Regions section on Outbound Flight as a model, or the Nam Chorios section. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 02:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Hull section needed.
    • Stealth section needed ala TIE Phantoms and StealthXs, etc.
    • Shield section needed.
    • Have a Super Terrific Friendly Un-frustrating Day. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 16:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Thank you.--Goodwood 02:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Getting there...--Goodwood 20:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
          • Trying my damnest...but then again there is no try, only do or do not. Heh.--Goodwood 01:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  5. As far as I've read, it looks very good. But The CCIR Needle needs to be referenced. I'll read more later. Hobbes15(Tiger Headquarters) 22:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Addressed.
  6. Okay, here are a few objections.
    • In The Great Hyperspace War and Great Sith War, wasn't there only one meditation sphere, the one that Sadow had?
      • If Legacy of the Force: Exile is to be believed, then there were more than just the one Meditation Sphere that was used by Sadaw and Gav Daragon.--Goodwood 20:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Do you have a page number for this? I don't recall it being mentioned, but I'm probably wrong. Hobbes15(Tiger Headquarters) 04:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
          • Not really, just that the novel features another Meditation Sphere from around that time - Ben Skywalker finds it on Ziost, which would tend to indicate that there were more then just tone one used by Sadow and Gav Daragon. Howver, I've amended the line per your objection.--Goodwood 12:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
            • Oh... I thought that you meant the novel specifically mentioned the use of multiple meditiation spheres in the battle. Maybe the one in Exile was from a different time period. Hobbes15(Tiger Headquarters) 23:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
    • "Following a defeat by Thrawn, Zaarin attempted to flee into hyperspace with the corvette, ignorant of the dangers"? The last bit should be reworded a bit.
      • Addressed.--Goodwood 20:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
    • "With starfighters serving their part, including the newly-formed Wraith Squadron once Rogue Squadron had come back from fighting the Bacta War" does not make sense.
      • Addressed.--Goodwood 20:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
    • In The Thrawn Campaign, mention that Thrawn began outfitting some of his TIE Interceptors with shields.
      • I cannot recall any mention of this from the Thrawn trilogy. If you would be so kind as to give me a source I'd be glad to put it in.--Goodwood 20:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
        • I'm almost sure it's in Dark Force Rising, which, unfortunately, I do not own. I'll try and get my hands on it sometime soon, though. If anyone does have it, I'd appreciate it if you could check. Hobbes15(Tiger Headquarters) 04:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
          • I have DFR but I don't remember seeing that. On the other hand, a number of other books feature modified TIEs with shields and hyperdrives--I've added a notation about this in the Hyperdrive subsection of Starfighter technology.--Goodwood 12:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
    • The Aleph-class fighters did in fact see some action in the final months of the Yuuzhan Vong War, though very little (see page 319 of Legacy of the Force: Betrayal).
      • Addressed.
    • A little more detail on how to avoid being shot down by The Trap would be good.
      • Addressed.
    • Attack Pattern D'moporai is not referenced.
      • Addressed.
    • Perhaps add Wes Janson to notable pilots? Just my personal opinion, though, not necessary.
      • I would have, but I didn't want to overbalance the "Rebel/New Republic" section in relation to the rest; by way of compromise the choice was made to add a picture and link to his page in the Pilots section.--Goodwood 12:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
    • These are mainly minor things though. Overall, the article looks great, and I'll be happy to vote for it once these little things are addressed. Hobbes15(Tiger Headquarters) 04:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I'll read more later. Hobbes15(Tiger Headquarters) 17:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  7. The entire "Tactics and maneuvers" section is basically a long list. Would it be possible to flesh this out a bit? If not, consider merging several sections. --Imperialles 20:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Considering that a fair number of the "main articles" for those tactics were written by me, I don't really see any alternative to what your objecting to - it should be a list, organized by category (sections within a section). Besides, it makes for easy reference this way - but that's just one fellow's opinion.--Goodwood 21:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
      • I agree with Goodwood's approach here. A short description of the most mentioned tactics, plus links to main articles and other tactics seems like the best way to handle this. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 14:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
        • I just feel such a list belongs more at, say, List of starfighter combat tactics than in this article. Wouldn't it be preferable to have sections on starfighter tactics and maneuvers in general? --Imperialles 14:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
          • We discussed this in IRC and reached a compromise: Keep all the information from the "Tactics and maneuvers" sections in the article, but convert the list to prose. --Imperialles 18:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
            • The situation has been addressed.--Goodwood 13:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  8. Remove the "Miscellaneous" tactics sections. If they're not important enough to expand on, they're not important enough for the article. --Imperialles 13:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Addressed. ==== replaced with .--Goodwood 13:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
      • I meant remove them completely. --Imperialles 13:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
        • I like the paragraphing, however there's still "Miscellaneous tactics" sections to go. —Unsigned comment by Imperialles (talk • contribs)
          • I've paragraphed the rest of them, but I would at least like to bold the subsections rather then axing them entirely.--Goodwood 19:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  9. Notable pilots: How are Atton Rand and Carth Onasi notable pilots? The same goes for the clone pilots and the Fetts (who I imagine are far more notable due to their bounty hunting than their piloting skills). Weed out the non-notables. --Imperialles 13:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Carth was known for his piloting skills throughout the Mandalorian Wars (take the KOTOR comics with the game, for example) and Atton proved himself a capable enough pilot in KOTOR II - like Han Solo they both made their reputations flying bigger ships, like the Ebon Hawk and Millennium Falcon - in point of fact Solo has never been seen flying starfighters as far as I know yet you do not dispute his belonging on that list. In addition the Fetts were fine pilots on the same level as Solo, Onasi and Rand. The fact that Jango was able to hold his own against Obi-Wan Kenobi in the Geonosis asteroid ring - and indeed turning the tables on him in a ship that, on paper, should have been inferior to the Jedi's starfighter, is proof enough of that. Not trying to be argumentative; instead I'm just trying to point out why they should be included in the list I've assembled--though I did eliminate the clone pilots.--Goodwood 18:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
      • As a side note here, which should be taken into consideration for these types of lists, notability is, almost all the time, a personal preference. Who one user sees as a "notable" pilot, others may not. That's why I usually tend to disagree with these type of lists in our articles, especially FAN's. However, this is not an objection and should not viewed as such—it is merely a little bit of perspective for this type of thing to those discussing the point. Greyman(Paratus) 14:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  10. Re-scan the infobox image (File:X-wingDF.jpg) per the image policy. It's very low quality. --Imperialles 03:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments

  • I've worked my fingers to the bone to get this article where it is now, but I'm not complaining because this has been a labor of love. All reasonable objections/suggestions will be taken into due consideration and acted upon.--Goodwood 11:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Not complaining or anything but i think it's a little long, could it not be devided into different sections of something like that?Tutos Lumenarious 22:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Breaking the article up into different articles would defeat the purpose of the article. Hence why I've included a veritable cornucopia of links to more in-depth articles on various covered subjects.--Goodwood 20:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • This isn't enough of an objection to actually object, but couldn't we get a more appropriate infobox? With the recent work done on space warfare, I think there's justification for a category and infobox for "forms of combat" or something similar. Other than that, nice work. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 04:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)