- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a featured article nomination that was successful. Please do not modify it.
Stark Hyperspace War
- Kuralyov 05:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- SFH 22:12, 7 April 2006 (PDT)
- Cull Tremayne 04:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- KEJ 10:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- EAGLES610 01:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Lord Hydronium 03:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- Roron Corobb 16:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Mirlen 01:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Objections
- Short intro. Also, shouldn't The Phantom Menace novelization, Cloak of Deception and HoloNet News Vol. 531 45 be in appearances instead of sources? And as I see it the article could use a better division into sections instead of a very big overview. And finally, how 'bout a timeline maybe?--UVnet 20:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- 1) The lead-in is no shorter than other featured articles. 2) Why should those be in appearances? They only mentioned the war or its aftermath, not actually showing it. 3) What do you mean, "better division into sections"? And why exactly shouldn't an article about an event give a detailed overview of it? Would you prefer I deleted half of it so the events seem vague and open-ended? 4) What's there to timeline? The war takes place over a short time, no specific time passage is given in the comic, and both the overview and list of battles in the article cover that. Kuralyov 21:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- 1) Mistakes of the past shouldn't re-occur in the future. 2) What is (Mentioned only) supposed to be for? 3) What I meant was, that maybe the article formatting could be better if it weren't a very long section called overview divided into sub-sections followed by the standard Behind the scenes, Appearances, etc. but rather a number of sections relative to the event followed by the standards. 4) Hey, just a suggestion, no need to get aggravated. --UVnet 00:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- UV, you need to stop making arbitrary rules for this, especially since the majority of your contributions to this site appear to be for this section and no one else agrees with your arguments. Nothing has changed since the other articles with short intros were accepted, so that is not a reason to reject this article. "Mentioned only" is stupid and I don't use it, and since there's no requirement to I don't have to. Besides I have all appearances and first mention listed. And all that is in the overview because it is the overview. Nothing is against the manual of style in either regard. Kuralyov 17:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, so if I am not contributing ENOUGH for your taste I shouldn't be allowed to participate in FA discussions? Or perhaps we should limit FA discussions only for users with specific contribution requirements? Or maybe just do the simple thing and limit it only to admins? The last time I remembered this was a WIKI, meaning that every user (and even not registered users) have the right to express their opinions about a subject, especially when they don't try to interfere or go against the basic rules of the community. Everybody has a right to have their own standards, regardless of the requirements an article must stand up to. If articles where given featured status solely upon meeting requirements couldn't there have been an automated procedure for this? Articles vary greatly in quality and each must be treated individually. --UVnet 07:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- It's a great article, but I agree that the introduction is too short for the main page. -LtNOWIS 21:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, so if I am not contributing ENOUGH for your taste I shouldn't be allowed to participate in FA discussions? Or perhaps we should limit FA discussions only for users with specific contribution requirements? Or maybe just do the simple thing and limit it only to admins? The last time I remembered this was a WIKI, meaning that every user (and even not registered users) have the right to express their opinions about a subject, especially when they don't try to interfere or go against the basic rules of the community. Everybody has a right to have their own standards, regardless of the requirements an article must stand up to. If articles where given featured status solely upon meeting requirements couldn't there have been an automated procedure for this? Articles vary greatly in quality and each must be treated individually. --UVnet 07:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- 1) The lead-in is no shorter than other featured articles. 2) Why should those be in appearances? They only mentioned the war or its aftermath, not actually showing it. 3) What do you mean, "better division into sections"? And why exactly shouldn't an article about an event give a detailed overview of it? Would you prefer I deleted half of it so the events seem vague and open-ended? 4) What's there to timeline? The war takes place over a short time, no specific time passage is given in the comic, and both the overview and list of battles in the article cover that. Kuralyov 21:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments
- I just spent a heckuva lot of time going over the comic and adding in details, so much that it caused my new TPB to separate from the cover. The only thing I think I need more of is images, due to the fact that I don't have a scanner and I think the school's might cost money. But other than that, I think it looks pretty shiny. Kuralyov 05:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- Very impressive. -- SFH 22:12, 7 April 2006 (PDT)
- Looks good but I agree it needs more images, especially since this was basically described in comics. Get some more pictures and I'll give you a vote! - Breathesgelatin 22:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- I really hate this arc in the Republic series, but aside from that, the article is great. I really admire the way the article lays out the reasons for the conflict and how it affects the rest of the Star Wars galaxy. Another very professional job Kuralyov. Cull Tremayne 04:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Replace with a longer intro then I will vote for it. Darth Kevinmhk 03:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- I really hate this arc in the Republic series, but aside from that, the article is great. I really admire the way the article lays out the reasons for the conflict and how it affects the rest of the Star Wars galaxy. Another very professional job Kuralyov. Cull Tremayne 04:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Looks great. —Mirlen 01:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Looks to me like the objections have all been dealt with. - Lord Hydronium 03:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- I've been working quite a bit on this to bring it to true FA level. You can move it to the Feature list already. What I have left to do I can do as it is in the queue. --UVnet 22:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Can the {{inuse}} tag come off, then? I don't think it can go anywhere as long as that's up. - Lord Hydronium 05:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- I've been working quite a bit on this to bring it to true FA level. You can move it to the Feature list already. What I have left to do I can do as it is in the queue. --UVnet 22:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)