- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a good article nomination that was successful. Please do not modify it.
Atrivis 7
- Nominated by: --Eyrezer 22:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- Nomination comments:
(2 AC/3 users/5 total)
Support
Toprawa and Ralltiir 23:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)- IFYLOFD (And now, young Skywalker, you will die.) 00:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- SoresuMakashi(Everything I tell you is a lie) 04:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Cull Tremayne 03:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)- Looks good. MadclawShyriiwook! 03:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Object
- Toprawa:
One thing: Resistance fighter in what capacity? "Atrivis 7 was the homeworld of resistance fighter Sheeka Tull." Toprawa and Ralltiir 06:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)- Added.
- IFYLOFD:
A word or two of context for Sheevis Tull.IFYLOFD (And now, young Skywalker, you will die.) 21:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)- Likewise. --Eyrezer 22:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Comments
Approved as a Good article by AgriCorps 19:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- Is it really such a good idea to have all that speculation? Grand Moff Tranner
(Comlink) 23:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- Lol. I've just been having this discussion with Toprawa and decided the best is to create an Atrivis article. Have a look at the new arrangement. --Eyrezer 03:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- The assumption that's in the Atrivis sector...well, it's OR, methinks. I don't really see any way it can't be, even if it is exceedingly, obviously logical. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 23:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah. Our current criteria for what is acceptable is that "Editors may make straightforward mathematical calculations or logical deductions based on fully attributed data that neither change the significance of the data nor require additional assumptions beyond what is in the source. It should be possible for any reader without specialist knowledge to understand the deductions" (from WP:OR). I believe this falls squarely within that. What do you think? (I notice you put this as a comment rather than straight out objection.) --Eyrezer 00:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)--Eyrezer 00:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, it wasn't meant to be an objection. Based on what you posted from WP:OR I'm okay with it, but I'd suggest adding a ref note like you've done here with the reference to Reidi Artom's Expansion Manifesto. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 12:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- Added. --Eyrezer 16:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, it wasn't meant to be an objection. Based on what you posted from WP:OR I'm okay with it, but I'd suggest adding a ref note like you've done here with the reference to Reidi Artom's Expansion Manifesto. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 12:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah. Our current criteria for what is acceptable is that "Editors may make straightforward mathematical calculations or logical deductions based on fully attributed data that neither change the significance of the data nor require additional assumptions beyond what is in the source. It should be possible for any reader without specialist knowledge to understand the deductions" (from WP:OR). I believe this falls squarely within that. What do you think? (I notice you put this as a comment rather than straight out objection.) --Eyrezer 00:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)--Eyrezer 00:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
