- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a good article nomination that was successful. Please do not modify it.
BC-714 luxury transport
- Nominated by: Ghulavar Ø 19:30, January 18, 2017 (UTC)
- Nomination comments: As the first GAnom has been removed due to inactivity several years ago, here we go with the second.
(3 ACs/3 Users/6 Total)
Support
- Great work! - AV-6R7Crew Pit 15:31, January 19, 2017 (UTC)
- <-Omicron(Leave a message at the BEEP!) 02:30, January 25, 2017 (UTC)
- Nice job! Cevan
(talk) 21:15, January 30, 2017 (UTC) 
I have to agree with the guys, nice work on this one. Imperators II(Talk) 12:11, June 8, 2017 (UTC)- Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 22:46, August 19, 2017 (UTC)
1358 (Talk) 18:22, August 23, 2017 (UTC)
Object
AV-6R7
According to- AV-6R7Crew Pit 20:40, January 18, 2017 (UTC) Repurposed Star Wars Technology - Back from the Drawing Board, Part 2 on StarWars.com (backup link), the B -724 didn't actually end up appearing in AotC. Can you verify at they did in fact appear?- Good catch. As the Fact File (F: TEC1-2) states, San Hill didn't use a BC-714 for his travel to Geonosis but a Hardcell freighter that went down over E’Y-Akh desert due to a malfunctioning thruster. According to this and to the StarWars.com blog entry you're right: The BC-714 does not appear AotC. On the other hand, the IGBC databank entry states that the ship couldn't be seen in the film "clearly". I think, that's kind of contradictory. I added that to the BtS section and removed the obviously wrong information. Sorry for that. Ghulavar Ø
Could you put a 1stm tag in somewhere?- AV-6R7Crew Pit 22:07, January 18, 2017 (UTC)The old Databank entry for San Hill called this ship an InterGalactic Banking Clan ship; this should be mentioned in the intro and somewhere in the body, where it should be cited to the Databank entry.- AV-6R7Crew Pit 23:32, January 18, 2017 (UTC)The article I linked to earlier had concept art of this ship; perhap this piece can be found in full in the AotC art book. It would make a good addition to the Bts section.- AV-6R7Crew Pit 00:16, January 19, 2017 (UTC)The outdated info about Hill using a BC to go to Geonosis is still in the intro. This should be fixed, since he only used one as his personal starship.- AV-6R7Crew Pit 15:01, January 19, 2017 (UTC)
It's a Muun rocket, alright
If the ship was manufactured for and used by IGBC, why list Techno Union in the affiliation field of the infobox?The "travel to systems they had business dealings with" bit should also be mentioned somewhere in the article's body.Since The Clone Wars Campaign Guide only depicts one variant and doesn't even mention the other, how can you say they're identical in most aspects? That bit should be left out.I thought that when RPG stats list the complement of a starship, they describe what vessels, if any, the starship normally carries, or is supposed to carry, not whether it actually has any physical space available for carrying them. Can you reword this?- I went ahead and assumed these were addressed, as well.
The Databank entry doesn't actually identify the BC-714 by its alternate name.- Where's the mistake of the text?
Is there any reason why "Science Fiction" and "Twin-Ion" are capitalized in the BTS?Imperators II(Talk) 07:11, May 23, 2017 (UTC)- I'm From Germany. We Capitalize A Lot Of Words. ;D Done. Ghulavar Ø 21:16, May 30, 2017 (UTC)
- Hahah, that's a reasonable explanation. :D Imperators II(Talk) 06:16, May 31, 2017 (UTC)
- I'm From Germany. We Capitalize A Lot Of Words. ;D Done. Ghulavar Ø 21:16, May 30, 2017 (UTC)
Toprawa
In the infobox, certainly this ship is equipped with an engine? In which case it's customary to just say "Equipped" (pipelink it to the engine article) in that field and reference accordingly. The article body will also then need to mention its sublight engines.Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 23:34, July 20, 2017 (UTC)- Done, it's already mentioned in the body. Ghulavar Ø 16:19, July 30, 2017 (UTC)
- After reading the article body, the specific mention of twin ion engines is what we're looking for. That should be mentioned in the infobox, which I have done for you. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 23:58, August 11, 2017 (UTC)
- Done, it's already mentioned in the body. Ghulavar Ø 16:19, July 30, 2017 (UTC)
Similarly, the infobox's deflector shield field should specify something. I would suggest reflecting simply what the article body says and say "Heavy shielding." And the armament field should specify "None."Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 23:58, August 11, 2017 (UTC)I find the nomenclature used here strange. When referring to hyperdrive ratings, specifying the class in terms of numerals by saying "Class 1.0" or "a rating of 0.5," for example, is the most common format I'm aware of. I can't ever recall a source saying something like a "rating of one" or a "rating of six" to refer to a hyperdrive. I'm assuming this information in that book is just coming out of a standard RPG spec chart, which I'm also assuming just uses numerals as well -- in which case I would definitely suggest revising this wording to using the standard numeric system instead of spelling out "one" and "six": "...and an advanced hyperdrive, which had a rating of one, as well as a backup with a rating of six."- Reviewing note: After looking at the AOTC TCG card myself, I notice the correct reference is "InterGalactic Banking Clan Starship," not "InterGalactic Banking Clan ship." The latter (notice the capitalization, too) isn't used in any of the source material, AFAIK. I've revised the article accordingly. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 23:58, August 11, 2017 (UTC)
- I see that I'm mistaken, in that "InterGalactic Banking Clan ship" is mentioned in the San Hill DB entry infobox. I suppose you might as well present both names as alternatives, then. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 00:34, August 12, 2017 (UTC)
Comments
Approved as a Good article by AgriCorps 18:22, August 23, 2017 (UTC)