- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a good article nomination that was successful. Please do not modify it.
Arxeum
(6 ACs/0 Users/6 Total)
Support
IFYLOFD (Floyd's crib) 05:03, March 19, 2013 (UTC)- CC7567 (talk) 14:10, March 29, 2013 (UTC)
- Winterz (talk) 17:12, April 7, 2013 (UTC)
MasterFred(Whatever) 19:07, April 15, 2013 (UTC)- Cade Calrayn 19:13, April 15, 2013 (UTC)
- JangFett (Talk) 01:34, April 16, 2013 (UTC)
Object
Attack of the Clone
Was an arxeum a specific starship class? If so, that should be mentioned in both the intro and Bio. Even if it wasn't a specific class, the fact that it was a starship needs to be specified in both aforementioned places; at the very least, starship needs to be pipelinked.- The source does not state that it was a starship and to be honest I am uncertain as to whether they should be considered to be starships or a space stations, because they seem to have attributes of both. Admittedly I did use a starship infobox in the article, but that was more for the sake of convenience, because the article needed an infobox. I'm happy to include to pipelink starship if you still insist, but my preference would be to not do so, given the ambiguity. --Jinzler (talk) 18:53, March 24, 2013 (UTC)
- Hmm. Well, my main issue was that it's part of the Sith starship classes category, and while I know there probably isn't a good alternative to that category, that discrepancy does come off as a little confusing to the reader. Based on what's in the article, it sounds as though it would be a starship as opposed to a space station, since they're mobile, capable of space and atmospheric travel, and even have self-propelling engines (space stations can be moved around as well, but it doesn't sound like they would have engines). That would sound like grounds to assume it's a starship, so I think that would be worth linking, unless you have strong objections to it. CC7567 (talk) 14:28, March 25, 2013 (UTC)
- The source does not state that it was a starship and to be honest I am uncertain as to whether they should be considered to be starships or a space stations, because they seem to have attributes of both. Admittedly I did use a starship infobox in the article, but that was more for the sake of convenience, because the article needed an infobox. I'm happy to include to pipelink starship if you still insist, but my preference would be to not do so, given the ambiguity. --Jinzler (talk) 18:53, March 24, 2013 (UTC)
"In 1,032 BBY, Bactra agreed to provide an arxeum to the Sith Lord Daiman": it sounds like this arxeum is notable enough to warrant its own article. Please clarify.If ground warfare and/or space warfare are applicable in regards to the battles mentioned throughout the article, then they should ideally be linked somewhere.CC7567 (talk) 17:01, March 23, 2013 (UTC)- I have linked to ground warfare but not to space warfare, as I can't see anywhere in the article where such a link would be appropriate. I've never really bothered linking to those two articles before, so I will bear this in mind when nominating articles in the future. Thanks for your review. --Jinzler (talk) 18:53, March 24, 2013 (UTC)
Winterz
You should indicate somewhere that Odion was also a Sith Lord.Winterz (talk) 15:36, April 3, 2013 (UTC)
Fred strikes
The second-to-last sentence in the second paragraph of "History" is a run-on.- Again, be careful of you use of commas. Lots of unnecessary ones. I've removed all the ones I found. MasterFred(Whatever) 21:45, April 8, 2013 (UTC)
- Cheers for your review and thank you for bringing this issue to my attention once again, this is something that I am trying to improve at. My general approach to the usage of commas is not stylistically incorrect for British English, where there is a tendency for greater use of commas than in US English; indeed this is how I was taught to use them at school and is how I use them in my job when writing up business reports. I'm thankful to reviewers such as yourself for picking up on my errors and if you know of anywhere I can look to to further my understanding of the correct usage of commas under US English then I would be very grateful. --Jinzler (talk) 18:16, April 9, 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, I was unaware there was a difference in comma use between British and American English. I found this with a quick Google search, and it seems to have all the main comma uses we have. MasterFred(Whatever) 19:07, April 15, 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, I was unaware there was a difference in comma use between British and American English. I found this with a quick Google search, and it seems to have all the main comma uses we have. MasterFred
- Cheers for your review and thank you for bringing this issue to my attention once again, this is something that I am trying to improve at. My general approach to the usage of commas is not stylistically incorrect for British English, where there is a tendency for greater use of commas than in US English; indeed this is how I was taught to use them at school and is how I use them in my job when writing up business reports. I'm thankful to reviewers such as yourself for picking up on my errors and if you know of anywhere I can look to to further my understanding of the correct usage of commas under US English then I would be very grateful. --Jinzler (talk) 18:16, April 9, 2013 (UTC)
Comments
Approved as a Good article by AgriCorps 01:33, April 16, 2013 (UTC)