- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Good article nomination that was unsuccessful. Please do not modify it.
Bellator-class dreadnought
- Nominated by: Vitus InfinitusTalk 22:30, September 20, 2020 (UTC)
- Nomination comments: Bae-llator
(0 ACs/0 Users/0 Total)
(Votes required: 3 AC vote(s) required to reach minimum. Additional 2 user or 1 AC votes required to pass.)
Support
Object
Toprawa
- The article body is only 149 words, which does not meet GAN rule 12. If the article body cannot reach 165 words, the intro will need to be removed, and it will only be eligible for CAN status. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 03:56, September 21, 2020 (UTC)
- Provided additional relevant information.--Vitus InfinitusTalk 16:45, September 21, 2020 (UTC)
- I don't see why the second paragraph of the Characteristics section is at all relevant. That information seems particularly relevant to the Surveyor-class and the Active-class, upon which it was based. It doesn't say the Surveyor-class design was based on the Bellator. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 18:27, September 22, 2020 (UTC)
- Removed second paragraph, though I left a bit that the Bellator's command structure was similar to that of the Surveyor, unless you think that should be removed as well. The body character count is at 156, so I will be removing it for GAN.--Vitus InfinitusTalk 20:36, September 22, 2020 (UTC)
- I don't see why the second paragraph of the Characteristics section is at all relevant. That information seems particularly relevant to the Surveyor-class and the Active-class, upon which it was based. It doesn't say the Surveyor-class design was based on the Bellator. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 18:27, September 22, 2020 (UTC)
- Provided additional relevant information.--Vitus InfinitusTalk 16:45, September 21, 2020 (UTC)
Zed
- Regarding the second paragraph of the Characteristics: Given the inclusion of that information in the infobox, does the source explicitly establish that the Bellator itself had those characteristics? If that is the case, it should be worded that way, because currently it seems to just be describing the Surveyor-class.
- Removed information from infobox.--Vitus InfinitusTalk 20:55, September 21, 2020 (UTC)
- In that case, those details don't really need to be mentioned on the Assertor page. At most, the only relevant detail is that the Surveyor had a similar design. Zed42 (talk) 21:18, September 21, 2020 (UTC)
- Done--Vitus InfinitusTalk 22:07, September 21, 2020 (UTC)
- In that case, those details don't really need to be mentioned on the Assertor page. At most, the only relevant detail is that the Surveyor had a similar design. Zed42 (talk) 21:18, September 21, 2020 (UTC)
- Removed information from infobox.--Vitus InfinitusTalk 20:55, September 21, 2020 (UTC)
- "…being active by the time the Assertor-class Command Dreadnought that was introduced at some point prior to the Battle of Yavin in 0 BBY, the Executor-class Star Dreadnought entered service by 1 ABY, and Mandator-class." I'm confused by the wording of this. Is it establishing that the Bellator entered service prior to the Assertor, which itself was active prior to Yavin?
- I'm trying to say that the Bellator was active by the time the Assertor and Executor were in service, not necessarily active prior but active at the same time they were.--Vitus InfinitusTalk 20:55, September 21, 2020 (UTC)
- Right, I see. If I'm understanding this correctly, it being active at the same time as the Assertor, which was established to have been introduced prior to Yavin, means the Bellator must have also been active by Yavin. Given that, I think it would be clearer if the 1 ABY date was removed. Zed42 (talk) 21:18, September 21, 2020 (UTC)
- Done--Vitus InfinitusTalk 22:07, September 21, 2020 (UTC)
- Right, I see. If I'm understanding this correctly, it being active at the same time as the Assertor, which was established to have been introduced prior to Yavin, means the Bellator must have also been active by Yavin. Given that, I think it would be clearer if the 1 ABY date was removed. Zed42 (talk) 21:18, September 21, 2020 (UTC)
- I'm trying to say that the Bellator was active by the time the Assertor and Executor were in service, not necessarily active prior but active at the same time they were.--Vitus InfinitusTalk 20:55, September 21, 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not entirely sure if the information from the endnotes is necessary to mention in the canon page's BTS, since that just pertains to the Legends equivalent. Zed42 (talk) 19:36, September 21, 2020 (UTC)
- It was added due to an objection on another nomination that requested similar information to be added.--Vitus InfinitusTalk 20:55, September 21, 2020 (UTC)
- It's an objection from Tommy-Macaroni who also said that's how it was for the Secutor-class Star Destroyer FA article.--Vitus InfinitusTalk 21:09, September 21, 2020 (UTC)
- Fair enough, then. Can it be worded similarly to those two pages, where the existence of the specifications and their approval is mentioned but the exact details are left out? Zed42 (talk) 21:18, September 21, 2020 (UTC)
- Fixed--Vitus InfinitusTalk 22:07, September 21, 2020 (UTC)
- Fair enough, then. Can it be worded similarly to those two pages, where the existence of the specifications and their approval is mentioned but the exact details are left out? Zed42 (talk) 21:18, September 21, 2020 (UTC)
- It's an objection from Tommy-Macaroni who also said that's how it was for the Secutor-class Star Destroyer FA article.--Vitus InfinitusTalk 21:09, September 21, 2020 (UTC)
- It was added due to an objection on another nomination that requested similar information to be added.--Vitus InfinitusTalk 20:55, September 21, 2020 (UTC)
UberSoldat
Intro is too short. Please expand with relevant information.UberSoldat93
(talk) 19:44, September 21, 2020 (UTC)
- Expanded--Vitus InfinitusTalk 21:06, September 21, 2020 (UTC)
- Like Assertor-class Command Dreadnought and Secutor-class Star Destroyer, you must prove who Ansel Hsiao is.
- Can the info about the fan design be supported by Essential Guide to Warfare? UberSoldat93 (talk) 13:22, September 22, 2020 (UTC)
Comments
Because it no longer meets GAN character requirements, I would like to remove this nomination in order to begin a CAN process.--Vitus InfinitusTalk 20:37, September 22, 2020 (UTC)