Wookieepedia:Featured article nominations/Starstorm One

< 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.

Contents

  • 1 Starstorm One
    • 1.1 (5 Inqs/2 Users/7 Total)
      • 1.1.1 Support
      • 1.1.2 Object
        • 1.1.2.1 Starstorm One
        • 1.1.2.2 Green Tentacle
        • 1.1.2.3 Toprawa
        • 1.1.2.4 Nickel Bag of Funk
      • 1.1.3 Comments

Starstorm One

  • Nominated by: IFYLOFD (Floyd's crib) 02:43, April 7, 2011 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: Another TOTJ starship. Not great quote material.

(5 Inqs/2 Users/7 Total)

Support

  1. Pre-nom. Kilson Likes PIE(The Bakery) 02:45, April 7, 2011 (UTC)
  2. Inqvote Excellent work. Menkooroo 12:32, June 3, 2011 (UTC)
  3. You should've quoted the engine roaring? –Tm_T (Talk) 11:41, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
  4. Inqvote Cavalier OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 18:29, June 13, 2011 (UTC)
  5. Inqvote Green Tentacle (Talk) 19:25, June 13, 2011 (UTC)
  6. Inqvote "We be to rap what key be to lock…"—Tommy 9281 Wednesday, June 22, 2011, 02:19 UTC
  7. Inqvote Toprawa and Ralltiir 20:53, June 23, 2011 (UTC)

Object

Starstorm One
  • There are a couple of details about Kun that I'm not really sure are relevant to the Starstorm One --- is it necessary to note that he was Vodo-Siosk Baas's apprentice? That info doesn't come into play later in the article, so it might be better left out. Not sure.
    • Removed.
  • I also wonder about the bit at the end of Wartime Mission's first paragraph about Ulic being captured and put on trial. If Kun doesn't actually take the Starstorm One that time, do his destination and mission objective (or even the fact that he leaves the planet at all?) need to be described?
    • Removed.
  • Since the word "destroyed" is explicitly used in both the intro and body, should the destroyed field of the infobox be filled in? Menkooroo 05:12, June 2, 2011 (UTC)
    • I didn't really find it necessary, because it was repaired. IFYLOFD (Floyd's crib) 00:11, June 3, 2011 (UTC)
Green Tentacle
  • The ship's ability to travel in hyperspace should be mentioned in the description section.
    • Addressed.
  • Description "The cockpit, located at the center of the ship, could hold as many as three humanoids. … The Starstorm One could be operated alone, and had significant cargo space, able to hold hoards of Jedi treasures looted from the Great Jedi Library in 3,996 BBY." The "operated alone" bit feels out of place where it is. I think this would read better if it was mentioned during the previous bit, for example: "Although the ship could be operated by just a single pilot, the cockpit, located at its center, could hold as many as three humanoids. … The Starstorm One had significant cargo space, able to hold hoards of Jedi treasures looted from the Great Jedi Library in 3,996 BBY." Green Tentacle (Talk) 13:30, June 11, 2011 (UTC)
    • Addressed. Thanks for the review. IFYLOFD (Floyd's crib) 01:30, June 13, 2011 (UTC)
Toprawa
  • Preliminary objection: I'd like to see you insert some paragraph breaks in the intro, Description, first "Kun's quest" paragraph, and final "Wartime missions" paragraph to break up the daunting blocks of text. Toprawa and Ralltiir 20:12, June 15, 2011 (UTC)
    • Done. IFYLOFD (Floyd's crib) 01:21, June 16, 2011 (UTC)
  • Please also reload the infobox. Toprawa and Ralltiir 18:48, June 17, 2011 (UTC)
  • Why is it necessary to establish Kun specifically as a Human male here in the intro? This seems rather extraneous to the subject of the starship. Just saying "a curious young man" would do, I think: "A curious young Human male who was fascinated..." Toprawa and Ralltiir 19:41, June 22, 2011 (UTC)
    • Fixed. IFYLOFD (Floyd's crib) 01:18, June 23, 2011 (UTC)
Nickel Bag of Funk
  • Intro starts to be lead less with Starstorm One as the primary subject. Some of it is even unnecessary. Please rectify.—Tommy 9281 Friday, June 17, 2011, 22:02 UTC
    • Addressed. IFYLOFD (Floyd's crib) 04:54, June 20, 2011 (UTC)
      • Not quite.—Tommy 9281 Tuesday, June 21, 2011, 04:05 UTC

Comments

Approved as a Featured article by Inquisitorius 20:53, June 23, 2011 (UTC)