Wookieepedia:Good article nominations/Attack on the Ghost

< Wookieepedia:Good article nominations
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Good article nomination that was successful. Please do not modify it.

Attack on the Ghost

  • Nominated by: Brandon Rhea(talk)(he/him/his) 22:53, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: First nomination in years - please let me know if there's anything I missed and I'm happy to address!
  • Date Archived: 20:19, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Final word count: 853 words (175 introduction, 492 body, 186 behind the scenes)
  • Word count at nomination time: 673 words (150 introduction, 422 body, 101 behind the scenes)
  • Word count at nomination time: 873 words (173 introduction, 491 body, 209 behind the scenes)
  • WookieeProject (optional): Wookieepedia:WookieeProject Rebels

(4 ACs/0 Users/4 Total)

(Votes required: No additional votes required to pass, please consider reviewing another article.)

Support votes

  1. ACvote amazing OOM 224 00:00, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
  2. ACvote we are so back Wok142 (talk) 17:08, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
  3. ACvote —spookywillowwtalk 19:52, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
  4. ACvote Lewisr (talk) 20:18, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Objections

OOM
  • I was inspired by your new Rebels noms and wrote up the raiding missions on Imperial supply ships article, since I remembered that tie-in game from years ago and hadn't nominated anything in a while. Little did I know that they kinda overlap (sorry!)…but I think it's fine to treat them as separate in lieu of more information, so your article should be alright. I recommend mentioning my article in the Prelude of yours and just add that those events occurred at around the same time, per the 5 BBY date refs. OOM 224 23:56, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
    • You did a great job on that article, OOM. I'm glad my recent noms could inspire that! I also learned new info from it, since I hadn't heard of that game, so thanks for taking the time to write that article. I went ahead and added a brief reference to it at the end of the Prelude of my article. I also added a reference before that, per Star Wars: Timelines, about how the Spectres formed in 5 BBY, so that should cover the fact they happened around the same time. - Brandon Rhea(talk)(he/him/his) 01:37, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
      • Fabulous OOM 224 22:23, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
  • One last thing: this could use an imagecat {{Mediacat}} OOM 224 13:35, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
Wok
  • After the re-write, I am now confused on what the supply convoy is. As I understand it now, there is no actual convoy of supplies, but are the four fighters still being considered as the convoy? The current page for Unidentified supply convoy treats them as such, and this is linked in the infobox but nowhere in the body. Those links can be added to wherever the convoy is being described, whether it is the the four TIEs or something else. Wok142 (talk) 04:29, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
    • I meant to de-link that since there's no actual supply convoy. It's just the TIE fighters. The comms chatter about the convoy was made up to lure rebels into a trap. I'll go ahead and remove the link. - Brandon Rhea(talk)(he/him/his) 17:11, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
Lew
  • Any particular reason the Ghost isn't in the participants? Lewisr (talk) 17:25, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
  • I think the intro could be split into two paragraphs, would imo look a little better aesthetically Lewisr (talk) 17:25, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
  • The Meet Chopper video in sources appears to have been released before it actually appeared in the short itself so that should be noted as a 1stm in sources and BTS, and looking at the dates of release Chopper Saves the Day should be noted as its first appearance instead of the short Lewisr (talk) 17:25, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
    • Done! - Brandon Rhea(talk)(he/him/his) 21:04, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
      • Made a few small changes to remove some information that we don't mention (where it was released, short length). But do have a couple other things to address; the authors of the novels mentioned should be added, and when introducing Rebels we contextualize it as an animated television series (see Berzite for example) Lewisr (talk) 05:11, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
        • Thanks Lew, appreciate the copy edits! I've made the two changes you requested as well. I did a slight tweak on the "animated television series" ask just so it would fit with the flow of what was already there, but it gets the same info across so hopefully that works. - Brandon Rhea(talk)(he/him/his) 07:25, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
  • I think the second paragraph of the BTS should be removed, we've been removing these kind of paragraphs as they just kinda repeat information that you get from reading the article Lewisr (talk) 17:25, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
spookly
  • Nowadays, the listing of prev= conc= next= events has gotten a lot stricter; essentially, a reference note seems like it might be needed in this case. This attack doesn't seem to have "Art Attack" listed as an appearance/mention, but the Attack on a Lothal airfield is referenced to only that episode. Would likely need a reference note saying Star Wars: Timelines (or your source of choice) establishes that the Lothal airfield attack occurs after this attack on the Ghost, to avoid sourcing to the episode alone. Unless this information is present in "Art Attack," in which case it would be some form of mention to add to this article's Apps.—spookywillowwtalk 14:00, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
    • Added an Insider source - hopefully that works! - Brandon Rhea(talk)(he/him/his) 19:32, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Last thing—the current ref 6 says "...are dated to 5 BBY (see Note 3)..."; but ref 3 seems to be a reference to the Rise of the Rebels book without any logic tucked in. I'm assuming the ref ordering got shifted around during objections. But, on that note, it would be better to include the logic in ref 6 itself. For a few reasons, but some of them being that the ref order shifting could in theory happen again and cause issues, for the sake of reference tooltips users, and because policy treats refs as individual 'entities' of a sort in several ways. Or, if you think its too bulky, it can always be turned into a pipelink and say 'dated to XX per the reasoning [link]' by putting the logic off into its own dating template.—spookywillowwtalk 23:45, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Comments

Approved as a Good article by AgriCorps 20:18, 30 March 2025 (UTC)