Wookieepedia:Good article nominations/Barefoot Squadron

< 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.

Barefoot Squadron

  • Nominated by: 501st dogma(talk) 19:55, January 20, 2015 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: A short GAN at 270 words. To explain the infobox's triple reference, Ylesia + Way are needed to confirm that the squadron was formed in 28 ABY, while ERC is needed for the exact date

(3 ACs/4 Users/7 Total)

Support

  1. JorrelWiki-shrinkableFraajic 21:13, January 20, 2015 (UTC)
  2. If I could go barefoot all the time, I would. But apparently that's not "socially acceptable". Icon_rolleyes.gif —MJ— Jedi Council Chambers 19:26, January 21, 2015 (UTC)
  3. Ayrehead02 (talk) 12:50, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
  4. ACvote IFYLOFD (Talk) 01:38, January 30, 2015 (UTC)
  5. Manoof (talk) 11:51, February 21, 2015 (UTC)
  6. ACvote Sir Cavalier of OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 23:36, March 23, 2015 (UTC)
  7. ACvote Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 00:12, April 16, 2015 (UTC)

Object

From the Council Chambers:
  • The triple reference is confusing. Can you please squash it into a single explanatory reference that details how those three sources interact to provide the date?
    • That should do it.
  • Normally I'd fix this myself, but I'm going to object this time so you know to watch out for it: the curly apostrophes in the quotes are a major no-no. They should be changed to standard, straight apostrophes. This is something that you always have to watch out for when copying and pasting.
    • Didn't even know apostrophes could get so curly. Killed.
  • Otherwise, good job. I found nothing to change in my attempt at a copy-edit, besides the apostrophe issue. —MJ— War Room 20:16, January 20, 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the review. 501st dogma(talk) 20:46, January 20, 2015 (UTC)
  • Your new reference leaves me concerned here. Do we know for sure that Barefoot Squadron was formed as part of this initiative to pair rookies with veterans? Right now, the wording sounds as if your assuming based on circumstantial evidence, and one piece of circumstantial evidence alone isn't enough for us the last time I checked. We need an explicit connection. If this is an assumption, then the date needs to go, along with mentions of this initiative, and that may kick this straight back to CAN. Also, if we do have explicit confirmation of being part of this initiative, then do we know that the initiative started actually in 28 ABY, or does the book leave it open to the possibility that it started earlier than that? If it's possible that it started earlier, then the date again needs to go. —MJ— Training Room 06:39, January 21, 2015 (UTC)
    • Since the author wrote both of Ylesia and Way, then it's extremely likely that it was formed then, as there is a lot of talk about rookies in Ylesia. However, it's possible that it wasn't, so the note's been changed. The bio as is should be good, because it doesn't directly say it was one of those squadrons, and that it was only formed at a time where the New Republic was mixing things up. Veila fought at Borleias before taking command as squadron leader, meaning it was formed 27 ABY to 28 ABY, so that's the new date note; coincidentally, the new squadrons were also formed after Borleias according to Way. 501st dogma(talk) 13:22, January 21, 2015 (UTC)
Cav
  • In the intro you state the squadron was formed in 28 ABY, but the body says between 27 ABY and 28 ABY. The definite statement from the intro probably needs to be changed to "around 28 ABY," or the body should reflect the intro.
    • Good catch, remedied.
  • Since they appear in Ylesia, is there any indication they participated in the Battle of Ylesia (28 ABY)? - Sir Cavalier of OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 12:59, March 16, 2015 (UTC)
    • Not that I could find when I searched the source when writing this. Tahiri participates, but that alone does not mean that the Barefoots are there. Thanks for the review. 501st dogma(talk) 20:29, March 18, 2015 (UTC)

Comments

Approved as a Good article by AgriCorps 00:12, April 16, 2015 (UTC)


  • I fixed an instance of "that" --> "than" in the second quote, but I can't verify that it's not wrong in the book. If it is "that", [sic] 'em. JorrelWiki-shrinkableFraajic 21:13, January 20, 2015 (UTC)
    • Seem's it actually that. Siced. 501st dogma(talk) 21:39, January 20, 2015 (UTC)