Wookieepedia:Featured article nominations/Viidaav (species)

< 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 Viidaav (species)
    • 1.1 (4 Inqs/3 Users/7 Total)
      • 1.1.1 Support
      • 1.1.2 Object
        • 1.1.2.1 Cav
        • 1.1.2.2 Attack of the Clone
      • 1.1.3 Comments

Viidaav (species)

  • Nominated by: ~SavageBOB sig 03:00, March 20, 2013 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: Had no idea this was over 1,000 words. The more you know... ~SavageBOB sig 03:00, March 20, 2013 (UTC)

(4 Inqs/3 Users/7 Total)

Support

  1. Hanzo Hasashi (talk) 04:13, March 20, 2013 (UTC)
  2. Inqvote Cade Calrayn GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit 04:15, March 20, 2013 (UTC)
  3. Splendid. Stake black msg 17:35, March 21, 2013 (UTC)
  4. Inqvote IFYLOFD (Floyd's crib) 00:57, March 23, 2013 (UTC)
  5. Inqvote Sir Cavalier of OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 09:27, April 11, 2013 (UTC)
  6. 501st dogma(talk) 20:19, April 11, 2013 (UTC)
  7. Inqvote CC7567 (talk) 16:21, April 13, 2013 (UTC)

Object

  1. Context on Jedi Civil War, Sith Empire, Separatist Crisis, Coruscant, Star Wars: Clone Wars Adventures Volume 7. Stake black msg 20:07, March 20, 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the review! I've contextified the last two of these, but the other three seem to be in a category we don't normally require context for. I don't think there's a set rule on this, but large, galaxy-spanning governments and conflicts don't normally seem to require context in our status articles. For instance, check out Wedge Antilles and see how the article throws out terms like Galactic Empire and Second Galactic Civil War without batting an eyelash. It's possible we should require context on these sorts of things, but I think that might require a broader SH or CT than a simple nom like this one. What do you think? ~SavageBOB sig 17:28, March 21, 2013 (UTC)
      • Maybe I'm too used to CA noms where I'm constantly required to give context to everything. But I suppose it's all right! Stake black msg 17:35, March 21, 2013 (UTC)
        • In my opinion, the only ones that need to be contextified are Coruscant and Separatist Crisis - it's fairly obvious what Volume 7 is since you already describe Volume 5, and the governments and wars are relatively obvious. Separatist Crisis is a little more fuzzy, but I guess it's fine here. Cade Calrayn GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit 17:37, March 21, 2013 (UTC)
Cav
  • Is there any reason why Viidaav servers are bulleted under Viidaav commander in the infobox?
  • They spread across their homeworld and founded at least one colony, - was the colony on the planet, or another planet? Using the term colony generally means the latter. Also, I think you probably need an article for it.
  • Is the Battle of Viidaav explicitly named as such? If not, pipelinking and decapitalising "Battle" are needed. - Sir Cavalier of OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 22:45, April 1, 2013 (UTC)
    • The servers were added by an anon, I think; I've removed them as not notable enough for the infobox. The colony is on their home planet, so I've tried to clarify that and the source for that assertion. The battle is not named, so I've tried to de-proper-nounify it. Thanks for taking a look, and let me know if anything else is needed. ~SavageBOB sig 01:18, April 2, 2013 (UTC)
Attack of the Clone
  • In the infobox, I think a separate ref citation note should be made to explain the 1.8-meter height, since it relies on estimation and comparison to the clone troopers' height, which isn't directly stated in the comic.
  • Similarly, that ref note should be used in the "Biology and appearance" section, since the 1.8-meter height isn't sourceable to the comic. Also, there's a slight inconsistency between here ("about" 1.8 meters) and the infobox, the latter of which just lists it as 1.8 without the "about" or any approximation. Please clarify.
  • One more thing regarding the clones' height: it's technically 1.83 meters, not 1.8. Is there a reason for rounding it down? I would assume because it's the approximation, but even if we're approximating, I think the 1.83-m height should be mentioned instead because it's more accurate. CC7567 (talk) 19:26, April 11, 2013 (UTC)
    • All should be addressed. 1.83 seemed like splitting hairs to me since it's an approximation, but I guess it doesn't hurt anything either. Thanks for taking a look! ~SavageBOB sig 19:59, April 11, 2013 (UTC)

Comments

Approved as a Featured article by Inquisitorius 16:21, April 13, 2013 (UTC)