Wookieepedia:Good article nominations/Battle of Kashyyyk (New Sith Wars)

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a good article nomination that was successful. Please do not modify it.

Battle of Kashyyyk (New Sith Wars)

• Nominated by: IFYLOFD ^{(You will pay the price for your lack of vision!)} 05:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Nomination comments: My first ever battle article. Let 'er rip.

(3 ACs/2 Users/5 Total)

Support

1. Jonjedigrandmaster ^{(Jedi Beacon)} 20:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
2. Nice job. Grand Moff Tranner ^(Comlink) 01:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
3. —Master Jonathan^{(Jedi Council Chambers)} 02:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
4. Mauser^Comlink 16:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
5. CC7567 ^(talk) 05:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Object

1. "In the end it took almost two thousand Sith units, but Kashyyyk finally fell. The Sith had won." Is the number of Sith really necessary to mention here? Also, the wording is rather un-encyclopedic. Jonjedigrandmaster ^{(Jedi Beacon)} 23:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
   • Reworded, but I believe the number of Sith is necessary because it shows how hard winning the battle was. IFYLOFD ^{(You will pay the price for your lack of vision!)} 01:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
2. Mauser:
   • If commander are unknown, you shouldn't fill that field at all.
     • Addressed.
   • Otherwise very good. Mauser^Comlink 10:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
     • Thanks for the review. IFYLOFD ^{(You will pay the price for your lack of vision!)} 03:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
3. Attack of the Clone
   • If there's enough info, can the Republic's Kashyyyk stronghold get linked and (per the new Rule 8) get a stub?
     • Path of Destruction doesn't talk about any specific installations or bases on Kashyyyk, it just says the planet itself is a Republic stronghold.
       • Oh, I see. Sorry for that. CC7567 ^(talk) 05:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
   • "However, the planet was a Republic stronghold, which they weren't willing to give up, no matter how badly outnumbered." The "weren't" isn't agreeing to "Republic" in its plurality, and it's a little unspecific. Could you try rewording the sentence?
     • Reworded.
   • Can you clarify the irregularity between the Bts and the Appearances templates? The Appearances and Sources say that it first "appeared" in Path of Destruction, while the Bts states that it was only "mentioned" in both.CC7567 ^(talk) 04:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
     • Addressed. Thanks for the review. IFYLOFD ^{(You will pay the price for your lack of vision!)} 03:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Approved as a Good article by AgriCorps 05:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)