Wookieepedia:Good article nominations/Graffiti-bomb

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

Graffiti-bomb

• Nominated by: Kilson^{(Let's have a chat)} 10:01, August 9, 2011 (UTC)
• Nomination comments: There's an American Graffiti joke in there somewhere.

(4 ACs/4 Users/8 Total)

Support

1. Programmable art? ~Savage 17:40, August 10, 2011 (UTC)
2. CC7567 ^(talk) 20:45, August 10, 2011 (UTC)
3. Menkooroo 07:30, August 12, 2011 (UTC)
4. Grand Moff Tranner ^(Comlink) 18:27, August 13, 2011 (UTC)
5. Nice.Talrrivanian ^{(Headquarters)} 06:26, August 14, 2011 (UTC)
6. I guess it'd be like throwing a programmable printer cartridge at a wall... Trak Nar ^{Ramble on} 06:32, August 14, 2011 (UTC)
7. Looks good.--Exiled Jedi (Greetings) 17:09, August 30, 2011 (UTC)
8. Hooray totally obsolete vote! Jonjedigrandmaster ^(Talk) 20:21, September 5, 2011 (UTC)

Object

Prepare to be savaged…

• I've always been bothered by the "affiliation" field for devices/weapons/etc. What exactly do you mean it to mean here?
  • I removed the thing form the affiliation field because the protesters weren't technically an official group, they were just a bunch of angry students using graffiti-bombs.
• In that field, can you replace "a number of" with some other, more descriptive descriptor? Maybe, "dissident sociology students" or something? Also, it looks like we have a precise number: 20, so the vague term "a number of" can be replaced with that too.
  • See above
• Ditto in the lead.
  • Added
• The last sentence of the lead is currently reverse-chronological (Y happened after X). Perhaps retool a bit?
  • Retooled
• Are we sure it's vandalism everywhere? I mean, San Francisco, for instance, sometimes commissions graffiti artists to paint city walls. Perhaps add "on Coruscant" or something.
  • I revised it a bit, but it might be a bit too vague. How does it sound?
• In the body, the current wording has the students protest before they infiltrate (Y happened after X again). Can you rearrange a bit? Otherwise, nice. ~Savage 15:00, August 10, 2011 (UTC)
  • I preferred the previous wording, but how does it look now? And thanks for the review Bob. Kilson^{(Let's have a chat)} 16:24, August 10, 2011 (UTC)
    • All is well! I'd advocate for the re-removal of the non-word "several" (there's virtually no difference between the sentence with or without it), but I'm a support. ~Savage 17:39, August 10, 2011 (UTC)
• Say that Ens and Hidalgo wrote the article in the BTS. You also need a reference to the article's release month and day somewhere. NaruHina ^Talk 21:56, August 10, 2011 (UTC) Objection(s) overridden by AgriCorps 20:21, September 5, 2011 (UTC)
  • Added the authors, although I don't know a source for the date. Do you know of one? Kilson^{(Let's have a chat)} 00:53, August 13, 2011 (UTC)
    • It was published on the eleventh day of the fourth month in 22 BBY per the article's header: "13:4:11." Plug that in however you'd like. NaruHina ^Talk 22:54, August 23, 2011 (UTC)
      • Oh, so I can just source it to the article. That works out well. Kilson^{(Let's have a chat)} 18:02, August 28, 2011 (UTC)

Moffship

• I'm not sure it's entirely accurate to classify this weapon as a projectile. Our own projectiles category is for "any object fired from a projectile weapon," which would not fit this bomb. Furthermore, the HoloNet News article doesn't even say that the protestors threw the graffiti-bombs, so we can't say the weapon was a projectile in that regard either. Grand Moff Tranner ^(Comlink) 16:32, August 12, 2011 (UTC)
  • OK, I fixed the "projectile" issue in the body of the article, but I wasn't sure what category to add, so I put "demolitions." I'm not sure if that works though. Any ideas? Kilson^{(Let's have a chat)} 00:53, August 13, 2011 (UTC)
    • I don't even think you could classify this as a weapon. The generic technology category might be best. Grand Moff Tranner ^(Comlink) 01:14, August 13, 2011 (UTC)
      • Changed the category. There goes my dream of my adding it to the barn-burner. :P Thanks for the review, by the way. Kilson^{(Let's have a chat)} 13:55, August 13, 2011 (UTC)

Comments

Approved as a Good article by AgriCorps 20:21, September 5, 2011 (UTC)

Vote to strike NaruHina's objection (AC only)

1. Was addressed a week ago, and user currently has sporadic activity. CC7567 ^(talk) 03:06, September 5, 2011 (UTC)
2. Grand Moff Tranner ^(Comlink) 13:53, September 5, 2011 (UTC)
3. Jonjedigrandmaster ^(Talk) 20:21, September 5, 2011 (UTC)