Wookieepedia:Good article nominations/Escape from Darth Vader

< 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.

Escape from Darth Vader

  • Nominated by: ProfessorTofty (talk) 23:30, December 8, 2014 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: I have been working hard on this one and I think it's ready to go. I've got plot summary, plenty of background info, images, etc. The only thing I'm slightly unsure about is the source in the development. I know Wookieepedia isn't normally a source, but I think in this case it's acceptable because it's referencing the page history simply to prove that the Amazon link is a match; that it proves that the same link that existed then exists now. ProfessorTofty (talk) 23:30, December 8, 2014 (UTC)

(4 ACs/8 Users/12 Total)

Support

  1. Brandon Rhea(talk) 16:48, January 18, 2015 (UTC)
  2. 501st dogma(talk) 00:59, February 4, 2015 (UTC)
  3. Looks good! Manoof (talk) 11:41, February 18, 2015 (UTC)
  4. ACvote IFYLOFD (Talk) 19:20, March 21, 2015 (UTC)
  5. Ayrehead02 (talk) 10:38, April 15, 2015 (UTC)
  6. ACvote Winterz (talk) 03:09, April 19, 2015 (UTC)
  7. I know this already has enough votes, but I just gotta say, that article seriously looks fantastic. LoLuX12 (talk) 23:13, April 8, 2016 (UTC)
  8. Asithol (talk) 04:48, April 15, 2016 (UTC)
  9. Lewisr (talk) 00:47, August 6, 2016 (UTC)
  10. ACvote Nice seeing an OOU work nom. Imperators II(Talk) 05:34, August 6, 2016 (UTC)
  11. Cevan IMPpress (talk) 23:43, August 7, 2016 (UTC)
  12. ACvote I didn't think it was going to make it. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 03:15, September 3, 2016 (UTC)

Object

Brandon

  • Right off the bat - the sections were in the wrong order. I fixed it, but please keep the Out of Universe Layout Guide for published narrative works in mind in the future.
  • Is there no information anywhere about the creation/development of this book? No author interviews or tweets or anything? The development section, as it currently stands, is all about the release. Obviously if that's all there is then that's fine.
  • Are there no reviews from significant sources that you can use for a reception section?
  • Also, Wookieepedia is definitely not a source in this context. For all we know, that information was wrong. That will need to either be sourced or removed.
  • More later, if I find anything. Brandon Rhea(talk) 23:58, December 8, 2014 (UTC)
    • Regarding point 1: I was actually using an existing good article for a book as a model for the order of the sections. It would seem that one then has them out of order. I'll have to go back and fix that one later, but thank you for fixing this one. Regarding point 2, given its being a somewhat minor children's book, I wouldn't be surprised if there aren't, but I'll research this one and report back here. Regarding point 3 - good idea. I'll add that. As for the last point, hmm. Okay. This is going to take some digging, but I'll try to find something with a date attached to it regarding the book going that far back. I'll try to take care of all of this tomorrow. In the meantime, any other objections or thoughts from anyone else are welcome. ProfessorTofty (talk) 01:31, December 9, 2014 (UTC)
      • Thanks. Remember, when it comes to things like what I mentioned in the first point, your first stop to figure out how it should be are Wookieepedia policies, not existing articles. They may have been written before policies were updated/created, issues may have been missed, etc. Existing status articles are a good guide for new nominations, and I’ve used then myself, but the policies trump existing status article in regards to how you should do it. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 01:51, December 9, 2014 (UTC)
        • Yeah, I'll definitely make sure to do that in the future. Okay, point 2: there is nothing. Nothing. Michael Siglain has a Twitter, but started in May of this year and says nothing on about this book. Neither does Roux on hers. I couldn't find anything else, anywhere, whatsoever. Point 3: Reception section added. Point 4: Ee. This really stings, but again, there's nothing. I couldn't grab anything off of Internet Archive and I couldn't find anything else anywhere that proves that that listing was there at that time. Information removed. ProfessorTofty (talk) 20:40, December 9, 2014 (UTC)
  • It should be noted: items in the Appearance section should be listed alphabetically, not by order of appearance. I've fixed the Appearances section to reflect.
  • Also regarding the Appearances section, it seems a bit lacking. You mention in the summary, for example, that the ship is pursued by a Star Destroyer (via a link to the ISD page) but that's not in the Appearances section. Please check through the Appearances section and add anything that's missing.
  • Having not read the book, the plot summary seems light on details. Please expand it to include a more detailed summary of the story. Additionally, can you clarify (on this review page) at what point in A New Hope that the story ends? The publisher's summary, for example, mentions Luke, yet your plot summary doesn't.
  • Your linking was a bit inconsistent; sometimes you'd like to something a few times after it was mentioned, or even not at all. I've fixed this as well. Check out the diffs to see what I did.
  • More later, if I find anything. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 03:00, December 21, 2014 (UTC)
    • Thank you for fixing this.
    • The Appearances section is lacking because the book is small. I've added Imperial-class Star Destroyer, but see more my next bullet-point. I will also check the book again just to be absolutely sure, but I really doubt I missed much of anything else. It may have to wait a day or two, though, because I checked it out from the library and I'll have to get it back from there.
    • Having read the book, the plot summary is light on details because the book is light on details. Visit the links and check out the preview pages; you'll see that each page has at most two sentences; some have less than one sentence. If I added anymore detail, I might as well just reprint the content of the book. The story ends with R2 and C-3 landing on Tatooine, followed by a page that presents several of the characters as illustrations, simply as a way of saying "here's what's coming next in the story." The bit about them "meeting Luke" is publisher puffery - that doesn't happen in this book.
    • Thank you for fixing that also! Not sure why I didn't notice that myself, but I checked over your edits. ProfessorTofty (talk) 15:37, December 21, 2014 (UTC)
      • Plot summary updated with a few additional details. I don't think I can do anymore than that without basically just plagiarizing the book. Appearances updated, mainly just starship classification and a couple of other miscellaneous items. Two other Appearance items considered but rejected due to being unable establish notability - "Binary star" and "Cloak." ProfessorTofty (talk) 00:03, December 30, 2014 (UTC)
501st
  • I'm assuming the book doesn't mention Devastator by name, but it should be pipelinked to in the body. Also, it should be added to the Appearances section.
    • You're right, it doesn't mention it by name. I've added it to the Appearances, but I'm not sure how can work it into the body and pipelink it. Should I just mention it by name in the body? ProfessorTofty (talk) 01:59, January 23, 2015 (UTC)
      • Yeah, that would work.
  • You'll need to find somewhere in the body to add that it is 32 pages long, as that is infobox exclusive info right now. I'd place it in the Development section. Author, cover artist and illustrator also needs to be mentioned in the body, preferably in the Development.
    • Okay, that's all done. Cover artist is the same as the illustrator, do I need to mention that specifically, or will just saying that Roux illustrated it do? ProfessorTofty (talk) 01:59, January 23, 2015 (UTC)
      • That'll do just fine.
  • That last part of the Continuity section will have to be sourced.
    • Is it okay now? I just took the Amazon links to the two titles and placed them both at the end. ProfessorTofty (talk) 01:59, January 23, 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd recommend sourcing the article to itself, like here, just so that you can fully source the article. It helps show what info is from what, and avoids the ambiguity currently present when you don't source a section, making the reader wonder if it's from the book, or someone forgot to source it. 501st dogma(talk) 22:04, January 21, 2015 (UTC)
    • So would simply source it as The Rebellion Begins? And should that be at the end of the Plot summary section? ProfessorTofty (talk) 01:59, January 23, 2015 (UTC)
      • Not sure what you mean by the Rebellion Begins, but just source all facts that come directly from the book (i.e plot) to Escape from Darth Vader. 501st dogma(talk) 02:58, January 23, 2015 (UTC)
        • Haha, I had The Rebellion Begins on the brain because I'd been addinga lot of Appearance information to it. Anyway, that's now done. The book itself is referenced at the end of the Plot summary section. ProfessorTofty (talk) 03:44, January 23, 2015 (UTC)
          • Timeline, ISBN, and series fields in the infobox can probably be sourced to itself as well. 501st dogma(talk) 17:45, February 3, 2015 (UTC)
            • Timeline and series done. ISBN cannot be done, on this or any other page. Attempting to do so breaks the infobox. ProfessorTofty (talk) 00:09, February 4, 2015 (UTC)
Floyd
  • There are some things in the intro that require context: for instance, the Tantive IV, the Star Destroyer (which I would name) and the two droids.
    • Added material to give context. Alright now? ProfessorTofty (talk) 17:58, March 17, 2015 (UTC)
  • C-3PO and R2D2 must keep Darth Vader from discovering the Rebels' secret plans!" Is R2D2 written this way in the actual summary?
  • I'd also toss a mention of the author into the intro. IFYLOFD (Talk) 04:32, March 16, 2015 (UTC)
Ayrehead
  • I've not reviewed many out of universe articles but should the Battle of Yavin timeframe be infobox exclusive? Ayrehead02 (talk) 11:42, April 4, 2015 (UTC)
    • You know, I'm not really sure. Perhaps precedent would be helpful in this case, but I don't know off-hand of any other good or featured articles for books like this. However, I did add a line at the end of the plot summary regarding the book's events being part of ones key to the future of the Alliance, and linked to the Galactic Civil War. How's that? ProfessorTofty (talk) 01:53, April 8, 2015 (UTC)
      • I still think a direct mention of the Battle of Yavin in the body somewhere might be better. Ayrehead02 (talk) 10:38, April 15, 2015 (UTC)
        • Okay, I added a direct mention in there at the end. ProfessorTofty (talk) 02:02, April 19, 2015 (UTC)
Toprawa
  • All external link referencing requires the use of Cite web. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 20:45, July 21, 2015 (UTC)
    • All such links updated to use that, with the exception of one that was changed to an Amazon link. Also made a couple of other tweaks based on developments since this was last reviewed. ProfessorTofty (talk) 19:58, July 22, 2015 (UTC)
      • That's how you use Cite web. All possible fields should be filled in. The instructions are on the template page. Please read them. Additional issue: There's no reason why reference 9 should be a separate citation. Just incorporate it into reference 1. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 04:22, July 30, 2015 (UTC)
        • Okay, thanks, I'll definitely keep those guidelines in mind. Though I have no idea where you managed to find some of those names, like "Peter Morrison." Also, I changed the reference you mentioned to use reference 1. ProfessorTofty (talk) 21:33, August 4, 2015 (UTC)
          • The article tagline reads, "Posted on September 16, 2014 by Peter." A quick search of the site indicates that it is maintained by one Peter Morrison. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 01:36, August 5, 2015 (UTC)
  • The Bibliography is meant for officially licensed sources from Lucasfilm and its licensees. Links to Amazon and other bookseller sites belong in the External links section. We don't really have a set practice for this since very few OOU book articles have been taken to status, but there's really no reason to list all of these bookseller sites. I would suggest listing Amazon only, unless you're citing one of the other websites in the article someplace. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 04:22, July 30, 2015 (UTC)
    • Name of the section changed to External links and limited to Amazon and iTunes download, since that one I am citing within the article. Besides, might not be a bad idea to have that at least, since it's an entirely different format. ProfessorTofty (talk) 21:33, August 4, 2015 (UTC)
      • Basic Layout Guide rule: External links section goes after the Notes and references. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk)
        • Ah yes, the change in section type necessitates a change in placement. Moved. ProfessorTofty (talk) 02:17, August 5, 2015 (UTC)
  • Referencing: In any article you write, you should reference as much as you possibly can to primary sources. For example, if you're writing a film subject from Attack of the Clones, you should source as much information as possible to the film itself rather than secondary sources such as reference books. In the case of this article, you should source as much as you can to the book itself (the primary source) rather than secondary, unofficial sources like Amazon. In the infobox, you're sourcing the author, illustrator, publisher, media type, and number of pages to Amazon. Can none of these be sourced to the book itself? Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 02:40, August 5, 2015 (UTC)
    • Everything except for the release date sourced to the book itself, as the book gives the month and year, but not the exact date. ProfessorTofty (talk) 02:30, August 8, 2015 (UTC)
  • Going through the infobox, there is nothing on this Amazon page that says that Use the Force! follows Escape from Darth Vader. I understand that you're making a basic inference here that Level 1 is followed by Level 2 in this reader's series, but your referencing is basically bollocks. I don't even know how to tell you to fix this exactly. Maybe a manual reference note would be best.
    • Given your below take that this World of Reading isn't even a series, would it be alright if I simply removed it? I'm not sure I really have a good answer for you on this, otherwise. The books themselves don't list which books are part of the series, as such, and I can't find anything anywhere online that simply lists them and starts definitively that one follows from the other. ProfessorTofty (talk) 00:20, August 30, 2015 (UTC)
      • I'm requesting clarification on your comment here: What are you asking to remove exactly? I'm confused because you seem to have misunderstood what I'm saying. World of Reading is definitely a series; there are just no defined sub-series, such as World of Reading original trilogy. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 02:34, September 1, 2015 (UTC)
        • Toprawa, sorry for taking so long to reply. Perhaps I did misunderstand. In any case, I would like to get this resolved, so let's tackle it, and sorry for this being kind of lengthy. You're saying that "World of Reading" is a series, where as the sub-series aren't a defined series and therefore don't merit their own pages. I disagree in that while there is no formally defined series for the original trilogy or Rebels, I feel that if you just put them all under the banner "World of Reading," then you don't really have a series either, so much as a collection of books that happen to share certain characteristics, such as the fact that they're all illustrated and they all use simple language. For example, we have the DK Readers, such as What is a Wookiee?, which we've loosely defined as a "series" for the purpose of the infobox, but for those, we don't try to specify a "previous" book or "next" book because it's pointless. They aren't really intended to have a chronological order. So what I'm asking to simply remove is the statement that the book is "Followed by" Use the Force, assuming we redefine this as "World of Reading" and not "World of Reading original trilogy." Barring that, I'm not really sure how to satisfy your objection, as I can't really find anything specifically stated anywhere that states that "Use the Force" is the next book in the series. For that matter, if the intention would be to define the "following" book as the next book in the in-universe timeline, then that would actually be AT-AT Attack! ProfessorTofty (talk) 00:23, September 14, 2015 (UTC)
          • The last thing you say there is kind of what's making me iffy on listing Use the Force! That book is certainly the next in Siglain's series, but if you take the entire original trilogy set together, you're correct that AT-AT Attack is the next chronologically. Since AT-AT Attack is Level 1 and Use the Force! is Level 2, I think maybe the best solution would be to list both in that field on separate bullets and then just use each book's respective Amazon page as references. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 03:27, January 6, 2016 (UTC)
          • Ok, I just went ahead and did this one too to show you what I'm looking for. Let me know if you have any issues with this. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 16:10, January 6, 2016 (UTC)
            • No, I'm alright with it, mainly because I can't really think of any other way to do it. Thanks for taking care of it. ProfessorTofty (talk) 02:47, January 22, 2016 (UTC)
  • This isn't an objection exactly, since any resolution here will ultimately need to play out through the Trash compactor, but your "World of Reading original trilogy" article is a complete fabrication, as is "World of Reading Star Wars Rebels." The reading series here is World of Reading. There's no other name for it or defined sub-series as part of World of Reading. If we should have any article for this (which I'm not sure we should, necessarily), it should simply be covered under one centralized "World of Reading" article, and then we can categorize pages from there; example, Category:World of Reading Level 1. I will most likely bring these pages to the Trash compactor. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 19:41, August 17, 2015 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure I agree. I know the name is conjecture, but I still feel that there's a distinct series there and the page is useful to have. Still, if you feel it should go to the trash compactor, that's fine, though I wouldn't object to your idea of simply having a centralized "World of Reading" article. On a side-note, would you be willing to address the discussion below, in Asithol's objections, regarding the requirement or non-requirement of having either an External links or Bibliography section? ProfessorTofty (talk) 00:20, August 30, 2015 (UTC)
  • Site policy requires that you upload a screenshot of the Twitter post from reference 2, a la this. The image file must then be linked in the Twitter citation template.
  • Unsourced item in the infobox. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 19:30, January 5, 2016 (UTC)
    • Artist restored from Pilot Studio to Stéphane Roux per IRC discussion. Sourced from Amazon, Barnes and Noble also corroborates. ProfessorTofty (talk) 02:50, January 6, 2016 (UTC)
  • The Media type infobox field should list all the different versions of this book, which includes paperback, digital, and a hardcover version, as you will see from that link. Basically, long story short, it's a special type of school hardcover binding. Make sure you also detail the hardcover version in the article body. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 03:12, January 6, 2016 (UTC)
    • I just went ahead and did this myself, along with adding in the multiple publication dates for the varying editions. I replaced the iTunes reference with an Amazon reference to keep things simpler, since the eBook is the same everywhere. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 05:26, January 6, 2016 (UTC)
      • Thanks! Oh, if we're done with all of the World of Reading stuff now, could you strike the objection regarding that? Well, if necessary, you did say it "wasn't an objection exactly." ProfessorTofty (talk) 21:31, January 6, 2016 (UTC)
  • After reading through this book myself, I notice that this article has some fairly serious referencing issues. For example, the book never identifies the two ships by name, so this article can't accurately identify them as the Devastator and Tantive IV without proper referencing. You will need to cite their names to a source that actually identifies them as such. The same goes for any other specific nomenclature referenced in this article that is not identified as such in the book. "Imperial Star Destroyer," for example. I would be satisfied with letting you slide on the mentions of Han Solo and Chewbacca, since they are pictured on the last page, but the book doesn't even indirectly mention the Battle of Yavin. You're extrapolating pretty hard there. That, too, will need an independent source. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 04:24, January 7, 2016 (UTC)
    • Alright, how's it looking now? I sourced everything in question to Ultimate Star Wars, since that seemed to be the one source I could find that definitely identified everything by name. ProfessorTofty (talk) 02:47, January 22, 2016 (UTC)
      • Ok, that's not how references work. You basically just have the same redundant reference note duplicating itself four times in a row in the same paragraph. Also, references go after punctuation, not before it. You've been here long enough that you should know this stuff by now. I think what I'm actually going to recommend you do is to rewrite that paragraph while only referring to subjects to the extent that the book does. For example, if the book doesn't call the Star Destroyer the Devastator, then don't explicitly refer to it as such. You can pipelink specifics, but don't go any further than that. That way, you won't have to use supplementary referencing. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 00:36, January 27, 2016 (UTC)
        • You're right, I do know that they go after punctuation. Sorry about that. In any case, I think that's a good idea, so I've done as you suggested. Oh, BTW, about the artwork in the book, I'm looking at a copy now, and it actually says inside the book that Roux did the art. Therefore, I've sourced the reference for the artwork back to the book itself. That takes care of that. ProfessorTofty (talk) 01:18, February 1, 2016 (UTC)
  • The Reception section's information from March 4 is now outdated and should be updated. The book now has 63 reviews and a 4.8/5 rating, for example. This is something that you should check on and update periodically.
    • I've updated it, but do you think this is something that's really necessary to update specifics on a continuous basis? That's a .1 shift in the overall total; it's not like the essence of what's being presented has changed. I could see that if the rating had dropped by half a star or a star or something, but I think readers understand that occasionally new reviews are going to be posted. ProfessorTofty (talk) 00:56, August 6, 2016 (UTC)
      • You're asking if a real-world article needs to be updated regularly to reflect real-world changes? Yes. Yes, it does. As the author and, ideally, maintainer of this article from this point forward, it's up to you how "regularly" you make updates. Yes, readers understand implicitly that this article will not literally be up-to-date daily, but that's why we include the wording "As of August 6, 2016, this article had 240 reviews, etc. etc." But I would definitely recommend monitoring this and updating it at least once a month. If its information becomes too far outdated, it simply becomes eligible for AC review and eventually removal. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 17:29, August 6, 2016 (UTC)
        • Very well. I will make sure is up to date on at least a monthly basis. ProfessorTofty (talk) 00:10, August 7, 2016 (UTC)
  • Portions of the Appearances section simply are not accurate or are lacking. The Devastator is a confirmed ISD-I in canon, which is not reflected here. There are also lasers throughout the book, not just on the last page. The E-11 blaster rifle isn't listed, nor is Han's DL-44 or Skywalker's lightsaber. These are just quick examples I'm pulling off the top of my head. I would strongly suggest going back through every page and checking to see what else you may have missed. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 16:21, July 23, 2016 (UTC)
    • Done. Everything both you and Imperators mentioned added. I also combed through the book and added appearances, and as an added bonus went through the Appearances at the page for the film as well and put in a few based on that. ProfessorTofty (talk) 00:56, August 6, 2016 (UTC)
      • Where's the E-11 blaster rifle? Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 17:29, August 6, 2016 (UTC)
      • There now. ProfessorTofty (talk) 00:10, August 7, 2016 (UTC)
      • One I'm noticing is missing, which I've also reflected in the article body, is Dark Lord of the Sith. Darth Vader is more specifically a Dark Lord than a Sith Lord. Every Dark Lord is a Sith Lord, but not every Sith Lord is a Dark Lord. This is very specifically applied nomenclature in canon that I would recommend learning now to save yourself future trouble and confusion. It's not wrong to call Vader a Sith Lord, but it's more precise to refer to him as a Dark Lord. In any event, Dark Lord needs to be reflected in the Appearances list as well. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 17:29, August 6, 2016 (UTC)
        • Thanks for taking care of it, and also in the Appearances. ProfessorTofty (talk) 00:10, August 7, 2016 (UTC)
      • Another one I'm noticing missing is the Star Destroyer's deflector shield generator(s) (the globes atop its bridge). If you read through our ISD-I article, you'll see that the book Droids in Distress apparently identifies these as shield generators. This will presumably receive official nomenclature in the future (Legends calls them ISD-72x deflector shield generator domes), which will then need to be updated in this article. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 17:29, August 6, 2016 (UTC)
        • Alright, I'm just including everything that the Devastator article says that it's equipped with, including the deflector shield generator, the tractor beam generator and the ion cannon. ProfessorTofty (talk) 00:10, August 7, 2016 (UTC)
          • That doesn't make any sense, because the ion cannon, tractor beam projector, and turbolaser aren't shown in any detail in the illustrations, nor are there any deflector shields or tractor beams being shown. What is being shown are the deflector shield generators and the tractor beam targeting array. You should remove those that I've mentioned and add the targeting array. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 04:58, August 7, 2016 (UTC)
            • Removed all of the ones you mentioned and added the targeting array. ProfessorTofty (talk) 23:22, August 7, 2016 (UTC)
              • But why did you re-add turbolaser? Whee are there turbolasers pictured in the book? Just because we see laser beams being fired from the Star Destroyer doesn't mean we're explicitly seeing a turbolaser battery. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 00:22, August 8, 2016 (UTC)
                • Sorry to butt in here, but at least the cover of the book depicts the turbolaser turrets of Tantive IV. Imperators II(Talk) 03:39, August 8, 2016 (UTC)
                  • Not at all - I think we're all trying to get this right here. Okay, I've marked those as cover artwork only, just like the appearances of Tatoo I / Tatoo II. ProfessorTofty (talk) 19:39, August 9, 2016 (UTC)
                    • I see. Very good. But where in the book is there an XX-9 heavy turbolaser battery? All we see is a laser lancing out from the Star Destroyer. We don't see an actual battery depicted. Unless I've missed it, that should be removed. Shifting gears, this creates a new layer of detail that you've barely begun to scratch. If we're going to list every visible starship component from the Star Destroyer, CR90, X-wing, and TIE, you need to go through those articles' spec lists and see what else can be listed. Just quick things I'm noticing aren't listed are engines (different models), cockpit, window, transparisteel? Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 05:41, August 18, 2016 (UTC)
                      • Ah, back down the rabbit hole, eh? Now, as for the turbolaser battery, I think I may have just gotten confused there. We've been going at this for a while, and I think I got mixed up. Okay, the turbolaser battery removed. Now, as for the items you mentioned, I'm assuming you mean viewport when you say "window." I've added that. I think cockpit may be a bit of a stretch, but I guess you can see the exterior of it on the Tantive IV, so I added that too. Transparisteel also now listed. Some of the other stuff, though, I'm not so sure about, like the engines on the TIE fighters or X-wings just from a picture on the last page. That, and the fact that it doesn't really seem to be standard practice. By that, I mean that for example, the P-s4 ion engine page only uses a "Sources" section and not Appearances, and only reference pages link to it. The same is true for the Legends version. Now, I don't know if there's a reason for that or simply because nobody ever did it, but it does seem like maybe going a bit to far just based on what the book gives us and I'd like to clarify the point. I think I'll try to catch you sometime on IRC over the next couple days if possible and hopefully we can get this finished. ProfessorTofty (talk) 03:47, August 26, 2016 (UTC)
      • The Appearances lists "Binary star." Where is there a binary star in this book? Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 17:32, August 6, 2016 (UTC)
        • On the cover, actually, come to think of it. That was something I had planned to add before but didn't have notability at the time. Specified that it's on the cover and also added "Tatoo I" and "Tatoo II." ProfessorTofty (talk) 00:10, August 7, 2016 (UTC)
      • DH-17 isn't listed. I'd suggest going back through the book page-by-page again and looking at everything a little closer. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 17:35, August 6, 2016 (UTC)
        • Done. I can't say for 100% certain that isn't some very minor thing that has been missed, but I can say with every confidence that I could look through the book three more times and not spot anything else. Also, unless you feel otherwise, I'm not including minutiae that's in every Star Wars story, like "the galaxy" or "limb." ProfessorTofty (talk) 00:10, August 7, 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm going to start a new bullet line, since the last one was getting ridiculous. In response to your last comment, you're making this harder than it needs to be. You've already listed specific starship components like the L-s1 and KX9 laser cannons; now you need to go through and list everything else that's visible in the book. All you need to do is go through the infobox spec lists of the four starships visible and pick out what you can see. For example, the X-wing's engines are clearly visible on the last page, just as those laser cannons are, so you'd list the 4L4 fusial thrust engine (I'm taking this straight from the X-wing article's infobox). The TIE's ion engines are not visible, so you don't need to list those. It's that simple. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 05:28, August 26, 2016 (UTC)
    • Alright. The engines you mentioned have been added. I've gone through the infoboxes on the rest as you said, and added S-foils. The only other thing I thought maybe was MG7 proton torpedo launcher, but from what I get from the illustration in the book, I don't think so. ProfessorTofty (talk) 02:43, August 29, 2016 (UTC)
      • I suppose one could argue that you do see the MG7, since you can see the little slot on the side of the X-wing in the illustration, but I won't push that. Things I am seeing after looking at the book again: Quadanium steel (the Death Star is made of it), Bowcaster (Chewie is holding it), Bandolier (Chewie is wearing it). If this were a Legends article, I would say that you see the Death Star's superlaser, which is basically an interchangeable term for both the green laser itself and the giant firing mechanism/external concave dish on the Death Star, but I have no idea how that terminology applies in Canon. You should check up on that and decide for yourself if Superlaser should be listed based on available source material. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 03:20, August 29, 2016 (UTC)
        • Quadanium steel, bandolier, and bowcaster all added. That's a good catch on the bowcaseter - weird coloring on with that. As for the superlaser, it appears clear to me that we're applying it the way you describe in Legends, so I've added that as well. ProfessorTofty (talk) 01:54, September 3, 2016 (UTC)
Asithol
  • Expanding on Toprawa's last point above, what purpose does the amazon.com link serve at all? As an informational site, Wookieepedia should not be giving even the appearance of endorsing any one particular online bookseller. Any user, knowing the book's title and how to use a search box, can find the book on any bookseller's site he or she chooses. Same is true of the iTunes link, unless iTunes is an exclusive source of the electronic edition, in which case pointing this out falls within the realm of providing information. Asithol (talk) 05:44, August 5, 2015 (UTC)
    • Well, site policy requires an external links or bibliography section of some sort, and in this case, since there is nothing that I know of that would go in the bibliography, then external links it is. And Amazon and iTunes are the choices since they're being cited in the article - Amazon for the release date of the regular print book, and iTunes for the release date of the electronic edition. I suppose if it's preferred, a more neutral source could be used to source the release date, such as Disney's website. It's just that Amazon, in the case of the print release date, anyway, is normally the first one to provide these details, so they're the one that gets posted. And thus I never really saw any need to change it. Same for the other details, before the book was released, which was why I hadn't changed the sourcing on those either. ProfessorTofty (talk) 02:30, August 8, 2015 (UTC)
      • Pardon my ignorance: where is this policy specified? I can't find it in the Bibliography or External links sections of WP:LG/OOU, which is where I'd expect to see it. I'm curious at the rationale for requiring a section even if there's no relevant information to include in that section.

        I think it's fine to cite a commercial web site in a reference when that site provides relevant information. But providing one in the External links section—especially when it's the only one present—sends the unintentional message that Wookieepedia endorses that business as a provider of the item in question. Asithol (talk) 19:26, August 8, 2015 (UTC)

        • Well, you know, I'm actually sort of going by Toprawa here. He's warned both me and Dentface before when creating new articles that simply having Notes and references indicating the existence of a title isn't enough; there has to be either a Bibliography or an External links section of some sort. Presumably, that doesn't stop applying once the article stops being new or the product is released. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding though, exactly what's being gotten at here. Seeing as Toprawa is also reviewing the article, perhaps he can weigh in here. I'm sure this can be cleared up easily enough. ProfessorTofty (talk) 21:31, August 9, 2015 (UTC)
          • Since in six months no one has cited a requirement for an External links section, is it safe to go ahead and remove it? Asithol (talk) 18:13, February 3, 2016 (UTC)
            • Oh yes, I'd certainly like to be free of this particular objection. And seeing as, like you said, nobody can seem to find this particular requirement, I've gone ahead and removed the section. Though, Tope, if you're reading, I'd certain welcome your input on this. If I happen to see you on IRC, I may still ask you about it. ProfessorTofty (talk) 07:27, February 10, 2016 (UTC)
  • The article looks great. There are just a couple minor technical issues that should be addressed:
  • There shouldn't be a comma between the subject and verb in the first sentence of the plot summary.
    • I think that's a relic of when the sentence was phrased differently. Fixed. ProfessorTofty (talk) 03:31, March 5, 2016 (UTC)
  • Typically "princess" is only capitalized as part of a name or in direct address, not in phrases like "the princess."
  • The another type link in "a droid of another type" (referring to C-3PO) should presumably link to protocol droid rather than astromech droid.
    • It sure should. Changed to protocol droid. ProfessorTofty (talk) 03:31, March 5, 2016 (UTC)
  • Merriam-Webster shows "on board" written with a space rather than a hyphen in a prepositional context. (Personally, I'd use the preposition "aboard" here instead.)
    • I went with that then. "Aboard" it is.
  • Using the passive voice for "R2-D2 is found by C-3PO" doesn't seem to add anything, and would probably read better as the more straightforward "C-3PO finds R2-D2." Whichever way it's phrased, though, it should be followed by a comma, since an independent clause follows the conjunction.
  • Although the publisher's summary incorrectly hyphenates "fully illustrated," you shouldn't repeat their error in the Development section.
  • "a U.K. edition by Egmont was issued" is clunkier and seems slightly less clear than "Egmont issued a U.K. edition." I see you're trying to mirror the construction used in the first clause of the sentence, but I'd say clarity is more important here. It might be better to change the first clause to active voice anyway, specifying who released the ebook.
    • Both changes have been made to put them both in the active voice. ProfessorTofty (talk) 03:31, March 5, 2016 (UTC)
  • "...a series of Star Wars titles under the World of Reading banner that retell events...": If you remove the intervening prepositional phrases, the subject/verb disagreement of "a series that retell events" becomes obvious.
    • I'm sorry, I'm not seeing the issue here. Sure "a series that retell events" is obviously wrong, but there's nothing wrong with "a series of titles that retell events." Clarify? ProfessorTofty (talk) 03:31, March 5, 2016 (UTC)
      • You are right; I was parsing one way and failed to see your intended (and correct) syntax.
  • http://lightsaberrattling.com/review-star-wars-escape-from-darth-vader-world-of-reading-level-1 is pulling up a blank page for me. Is this the correct URL? Or did the page just move or disappear?
    • It looks like it's more than just that. It seems the entire site is down. It also seems that due to their robots.txt, we're not going to be able to get anything out of the Internet Archive either. Alright, since it's just not there anymore, I went ahead and pulled it. I think with the Amazon reviews and the Mundie Kids, we have enough anyway. ProfessorTofty (talk) 03:31, March 5, 2016 (UTC)
  • Since Amazon.com provides editorial reviews for some of its books, you might want to clarify that you're not talking about those by saying "24 customer reviews at Amazon.com." (As a side note, that number has nearly doubled since you wrote this, but the article clearly specifies the date on which the number was 24, so that's not really an issue unless you feel like updating all the data about their customer reviews.)
    • Tweak applied. And seeing as it was an easy fix, I went ahead and updated the current info about the reviews as well. Though your point does seem valid that so long as a date is specified and there's no radical shift or anything, it's not something that really needs to be consistently updated. After all, even though the number has nearly doubled, the overall consensus is the same. ProfessorTofty (talk) 03:31, March 5, 2016 (UTC)
  • Similarly, since reviewers typically don't pay for books they review professionally, I'm not convinced the phrase "received a free copy of the title for review" needs to be there. I think clearly distinguishing customer reviews above, which follow different rules, helps makes this phrase unnecessary.
    • Makes sense. Moot point now, though, since I had to pull the reference to Lightsaber Rattling's review. ProfessorTofty (talk) 03:31, March 5, 2016 (UTC)
  • Commas should follow the two instances of the word "stated" where it introduces a quote.
    • Ah, that's a new one on me, but you're right. Commas added.
Props for using "whom" correctly, since that trips up most writers. :) Asithol (talk) 19:20, February 24, 2016 (UTC)
Aw, thanks! P.S.: I've also added a new bit to the Continuity section referencing the fact a version of the story is included a recently released volume titled 5-Minute Star Wars Stories. I think this is the best way to handle it, as this is in some ways a new version of the story that appears in an entirely separate volume.
Makes sense. There seems to be a word missing, though, from "a December 2015 from Disney-Lucasfilm Press". I also think "direct quotations from the film not featured in the original story" is not the most precise way to phrase that, since the film is the original story. Maybe something like "direct quotations from the film not featured in Michael Siglain's version"?
Added the missing word, chose "compilation." And, yes, I agree the wording is better that way, save that I decided to just go with "Siglain's version". ProfessorTofty (talk) 22:52, April 8, 2016 (UTC)
Also, I hope you don't mind that I converted your numbers to bullets. Trying to reply to them otherwise was completely breaking the formatting. ProfessorTofty (talk) 03:31, March 5, 2016 (UTC)
Don't mind at all. I numbered my points expecting you to do a block reply, and thought the numbers would be an easy way for you to refer to a specific point. But you're right, for inline replies the wiki format isn't very agreeable to that. Asithol (talk) 02:52, March 30, 2016 (UTC)
Imperators II
  • Tatooine seems to be the only proper noun in intro to lack any context.
  • Umm... wouldn't it be more meaningful if you put "Sith Lord" as context for Darth Vader in Plot summary rather than "mean and scary"?
    • Well, I was quoting directly from the book, mainly because I find that a rather amusingly apt description of Vader. Still, the book does also describe him as a "Sith Lord," so I can see your point. I changed it to describe him as "feared Sith Lord." ProfessorTofty (talk) 00:56, August 6, 2016 (UTC)
  • In connection to Toprawa's objection above, other things I noticed you should put in Appearances section: Star Destroyer, turbolaser & laser cannon (on Tantive IV), Defender sporting blaster pistol Satine's Lament.
  • Small things I changed in the article:
    • The section title "Publisher's summary" per the Layout Guide
    • "Battlestation" vs. "Battle station" (apparently the former is a Legends article)
    • Linked to Disney–Lucasfilm Press in the article body and added [sic] to a Reception quote. Imperators II(Talk) 20:35, July 26, 2016 (UTC)

Comments

Approved as a Good article by AgriCorps 03:15, September 3, 2016 (UTC)


  • I will say that it might be worth going through the book and adding every appearance, there's a lot of things on wookieepedia that might not occur to you. For example, if an imperial officer is pictured, you can link to Imperial officer's tunic, Imperial officer's uniform, Hat and Boot (since Durasteel-toed boots are not canon) to name a few. If the binary star was pictured only, you can always add the {{Po}} tag :) Manoof (talk) 20:03, February 18, 2015 (UTC)
    • That's not a bad idea. Might be worth one more look through to make sure that anything minor like that hasn't been overlooked. I'll check it out ASAP. Still can't do "binary star" though, unless that term is used somewhere in canon that I don't know about. That's the reason I didn't include it before, because as far as I know it doesn't qualify for a canon article. ProfessorTofty (talk) 22:49, February 18, 2015 (UTC)
      • I have another copy of the book waiting for me at the library and will check it out sometime this week and do a final once-over to make sure there isn't anything missed that could be in Appearances. ProfessorTofty (talk) 03:26, March 2, 2015 (UTC)
  • This doesn't rise to the level of an objection, and I'm not even sure the best way to address it: per our discussion above, you removed references to the defunct Lightsaber Rattling site except for the quote that leads off the Reception section. I see no problem with this quote's presence—it's still a valid quote; a reviewer did actually say that—but the "[src]" link associated with it is dead. Asithol (talk) 05:03, April 15, 2016 (UTC)
    • Hmm. Seems to me this might fall under the recent Mofference thing about expired links and judging their validity. Of course, I'm not sure there's an easy way here to indicate the "information no longer available." ProfessorTofty (talk) 03:06, April 18, 2016 (UTC)
      • Just a heads up: it's saved on the webarchive. I found the quote there as well. Perhaps link the quote's source directly to the archived page? Manoof (talk) 09:39, April 18, 2016 (UTC)
        • Yeah, I'd say definitely that! I'm going to go ahead and do it now. That's interesting, though, because when I had checked before, it was most definitely not on there, which was why I had removed all other reference to it from the Reception section. ProfessorTofty (talk) 02:33, April 19, 2016 (UTC)

Vote to remove nomination (AC only)

  1. ACvote Unaddressed objection over two weeks old. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 18:08, January 21, 2016 (UTC)
    ACvote 1358 (Talk) 18:20, January 21, 2016 (UTC)
    Striking for now on the provision that this is handled within the next 12 hours. 1358 (Talk) 20:08, January 21, 2016 (UTC)
Could I ask that you guys hang on? I'll take care of it this evening, definitely. Sorry, didn't realize it was getting this late. Come on, I've been trying to get this done for over a year and I had to wait nearly four months for a further response after September. Believe me, I don't want this to just slip away. I have to head out right now, but I will address it this evening. ProfessorTofty (talk) 19:28, January 21, 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! I do appreciate it and I've responded to the posted objection and tried to satisfy it. I'll certainly try to be more vigilant in the future. ProfessorTofty (talk) 02:48, January 22, 2016 (UTC)