Wookieepedia:Good article nominations/88-R Nightscreamer/Legends

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

88-R Nightscreamer

Nominated by: Manoof (talk) 06:48, March 23, 2015 (UTC)
Nomination comments:CA that cleans up good

(3 ACs/2 Users/5 Total)

Support

<-Omicron^{(Leave a message at the BEEP!)} 02:05, April 2, 2015 (UTC)
501st dogma^(talk) 12:18, April 22, 2015 (UTC)
grunny@wookieepedia:~$ 13:51, May 3, 2015 (UTC)
IFYLOFD ^(Talk) 00:11, May 11, 2015 (UTC)
Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 14:37, June 23, 2015 (UTC)

Object

501st

~~When you say the end of the Bounty Hunter Wars in the body, it would be good to give a date. Not everyone knows off of the top of their head when that was.~~
- Added. Manoof (talk) 05:14, April 21, 2015 (UTC)
~~I don't think restating your ref note about time period in the BtS is necessary. It should probably go.~~
- In a conversation with EJ, he suggested it should be included. Manoof (talk) 05:14, April 21, 2015 (UTC)
  - I'm not seeing anything about that on where you linked to. 501st dogma^(talk) 00:57, April 22, 2015 (UTC)
    - "You can say in the body that he wrote it before or during 0 ABY. That's really all that can be said without speculation in the body. Then I would suggest mentioning in the BTS that Chentu Chek lived around the same time as Dengar along with a mention of the timeframes where Dengar was active.--Exiled Jedi Oldrepublic crest (Greetings) 02:35, March 17, 2015 (UTC)" Manoof (talk) 05:24, April 22, 2015 (UTC)
    - And further down... "While it is probably not clear enough to go in the body, Cradossk's intro mentions that the updated edition overviews recently introduced trade tools. This needs to be mentioned somehow in the article; the BTS would probably be the best place." Manoof (talk) 05:25, April 22, 2015 (UTC)
      - It seems I'm blind. 501st dogma^(talk) 12:18, April 22, 2015 (UTC)
~~Also, when you have a crew of one, then the minimal crew is most definitely also one, so I don't believe that the minimal crew field should be filled in in the infobox.~~ 501st dogma^(talk) 02:37, April 21, 2015 (UTC)
- Removed. Manoof (talk) 05:14, April 21, 2015 (UTC)

Exiled Jedi

~~Could you give the intro a slight expansion?~~
- How's that? Manoof (talk) 23:23, May 16, 2015 (UTC)
"Around 0 ABY, sometime before the end of the Bounty Hunter Wars, the bounty hunter veteran Chentu Chek..." Where are you getting the around 0 ABY? From the source, I thought all we knew was that it was prior to the death of Cradossk.--Exiled Jedi (Greetings) 20:39, May 16, 2015 (UTC)
- Misphrased that, it should be correct now. Manoof (talk) 23:23, May 16, 2015 (UTC)
~~The part about it being produced by Ikas-Adno and costing 11,500 credits is more appropriate for the history section.~~--Exiled Jedi (Greetings) 05:29, June 13, 2015 (UTC)
- Not sure I agree, but changed. Manoof (talk) 09:06, June 13, 2015 (UTC)
"He felt that the Nightscreamer was Ikas-Adno's best product due to its speed, particle shield, and the availability of aftermarket packages." You don't really state that this was his reasoning in the body.--Exiled Jedi (Greetings) 05:37, June 13, 2015 (UTC)
- Clarified. Manoof (talk) 09:06, June 13, 2015 (UTC)

Toprawa

What is the purpose of using that weird reference note for the "Crew"? Why can't this just be sourced to the book? As a side issue, you should never, ever, ever write a manual reference note like this without attributing it to a source.
- I felt that since the book didn't explicitly state one rider, it needed to be explained. I've changed the ref so it is just the book. Manoof (talk) 10:28, June 12, 2015 (UTC)
If you're going to mention the optional side-car in the infobox, then you need to mention the optional twin blaster cannon and the shroud emitter too. The infobox should also specify that these are aftermarket features.
- Done, I noted them simply as "Aftermarket" Manoof (talk) 10:28, June 12, 2015 (UTC)
Your manual reference note for the date is not very good. What you wrote to explain this situation in the BTS is what your reference note should be, and there's no reason to explain it all over again in the BTS. Please move the BTS explanation out of the BTS and into the reference note. I'll continue my review once these issues are resolved. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 19:18, June 11, 2015 (UTC)
- As I mentioned to Dogma, I added the information due to a conversation with EJ. Since you're the second person to mention this, I've changed the reference to more closely reflect the BTS wording, and removed that section of the BTS. If you could just check the reference looks ok now, I'd appreciate it, and will change the other article if you're happy with it. Manoof (talk) 10:28, June 12, 2015 (UTC)
  - I may tweak the wording, but the basics are there. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 04:34, June 20, 2015 (UTC)
I'm afraid I disagree with the above objection regarding moving the manufacturer and cost out of the Characteristics and into the History. It's been our common practice to list these things in Description/Characteristic sections, as many of our status articles will show. It's not a bad practice to mention the manufacturer in both sections as the need requires, but the manufacturer should definitely be listed in Characteristics as standard. Cost is also treated more as a design spec than it is a historical fact, which is why we list it in Characteristics. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 04:34, June 20, 2015 (UTC)
- After discussing this with Tope, I'm fine with this going either way.--Exiled Jedi (Greetings) 16:13, June 20, 2015 (UTC)
  - Alright, reverted that specific change (all non-related or later changes kept) Manoof (talk) 10:02, June 23, 2015 (UTC)

Comments

Approved as a Good article by AgriCorps 14:37, June 23, 2015 (UTC)