Wookieepedia:Good article nominations/Imperial Garrison Base

< Wookieepedia:Good article nominations
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a good article nomination that was unsuccessful. Please do not modify it.

Imperial Garrison Base

  • Nominated by: Stake black msg 21:15, December 17, 2012 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments:

(0 ACs/1 Users/1 Total)

Support

  1. Found one spelling error and fixed it so I wouldn't have to object. Mattjorgdbb (talk) 04:33, January 8, 2013 (UTC)

Object

Burned at the stake
  • Hey Stake. Good to see you nominating an article for Good status. The rules can be a bit tricky to get the hang of, so don't get dejected if there are a lot of objections --- trial by fire is the best way to learn the ropes. Anyway, here we go!
    • Hey Menk, thanks for taking the time to review it, this is my first attempt at a GA nomination. Stake black msg 17:20, December 18, 2012 (UTC)
  • In the infobox, be sure to always put references inside of a {{Ref}} tag, so that the superscripted number appears smaller. This can be accomplished by writing {{Ref|<ref name="sojourn">''[[Tatooine Sojourn]]''</ref>}}, etc.
  • I notice that your "sojourn" and "spy" references aren't written out in full until their second instance --- make sure to do that on the first instance of each ref note.
  • No ref tags in the intro. The intro is intended to be an abstract of the rest of the article that, for aesthetic reasons, doesn't include references. Anything that needs to be sourced can be sourced in the article body.
  • Building on that --- since the intro is an abstract of the rest of the article, the article body can't rely on information that's been established in the intro. It needs to establish everything again. Currently, the article body begins with "The base was..." What base? The easiest way to go about doing this is to write the intro last. Write an article that establishes all the key facts at the beginning, and when you're done, summarize it in an intro.
    • I think I addressed this by expanding the first paragraph of the Layout section Stake black msg 17:20, December 18, 2012 (UTC)
  • "It also possessed a spire tower that was presumably the command tower." "Presumably" is a no-no; conjecture and guesswork can't be included in articles. Everything needs to be attributable.
  • The article sources almost every sentence --- this isn't necessary. You have multiple instances of the same reference note appearing several times consecutively (eg, three straight sentences being reffed with note [1]). You should never use the same reference note more than once in a row; by definition, a reference note covers everything preceding it that comes after the previous reference note. So, if two sentences in a row can be sourced to ref [1], then only put ref [1] at the end of those two sentences. Make sense?
  • I recommend reading the "Behind the scenes" sections of some other Good articles (and current GAnoms) to get an idea of how BTS sections are usually written. It's always a good idea to first introduce when the article's subject first appeared in canon before getting into anything else. Make sure to link everything you can --- the names of the sources (Tatooine Sojourn, etc), years (1979), etc).
    • I did some work there. Please tell me if you think something else is deserving of mention. Stake black msg 17:20, December 18, 2012 (UTC)
  • "Due to the proximity of the dates" --- what dates? Do you mean 1979 and 2004? They're not even close to each other.
    • Sorry, I didn't make that clear enough. I think I fixed that now. Stake black msg 17:20, December 18, 2012 (UTC)
  • "Behind the scenes" should also detail precisely how the two incarnations of the base differ. There's a little bit of this in the image caption, but it needs to be in the article proper as well (and in much more detail).
    • I detailed it a little bit more but since Sojourn doesn't show a whole lot of the base, it's hard to make an accurate comparison without speculation, I guess. Stake black msg 17:20, December 18, 2012 (UTC)
  • I recommend reading over the Layout Guide. One of your section headers is wrong.
    • I read it, but I'm not sure... What's wrong, specifically?
      • You got it. It was "Notes and references" instead of "References and notes." Menkooroo (talk) 04:57, December 31, 2012 (UTC)
  • That's all for the first round of preliminaries. More to come! Menkooroo (talk) 02:06, December 18, 2012 (UTC)
  • Sorry for the delay. Here's Round 2, as it were. Beef up that intro! We like to say that intro sizes should be relative to the size of the rest of the article, and even though getting that right is an art rather than a science, I can tell you that one sentence in this case definitely isn't enough. You could describe the layout a little and go into more detail of its history, specifically how exactly it was short-lived.
    • I've done some work there, but to be honest I'm not fully satisfied. How do you feel I could improve it?
  • The "Layout" section has three very short paragraphs --- I recommend combining them into one. Especially that second one; one-sentence paragraphs should generally be avoided.
    • I merged the second one and tried to expand the third paragraph. To me they seem like separate ideas that need separate paragraphs, so I tried to make the last one stand on its own feet.
  • There are a couple things that I think could use a bit of context: The Death Star (even just establishing that it was a superweapon, or a battlestation, or something), and Darth Vader.
    • Done.
  • Is there any quote that would be even a little suitable for the "Layout" section? If not, no worries; just thought I'd ask. Menkooroo (talk) 04:57, December 31, 2012 (UTC)
    • I've truly scoured through those sources to find something but I'm afraid all the quotes are already on the article. Stake black msg 16:50, January 3, 2013 (UTC)
Cav
  • Reload the infobox. A few fields are missing.
  • You mention that the garrison was constructed in 0 ABY, seemingly in response to the Rebel victory at Yavin. However, doesn't Inside the Worlds of the Star Wars Trilogy show the garrison to be in operation during the events of Skywalker and Kenobi's trip to Mos Eisley in ANH, indicating a construction date of 0 BBY or prior?
    • That's a good point. I was wondering if maybe the article should be split in two, and the two Garrison bases treated as different bases due to their dissimilarity both visually and location-wise, and Cav's point here pretty much seals it, I think. If the Tatooine Sojourn one is built after the Battle of Yavin, but the Inside the Worlds one is already there before the Battle of Yavin --- coupled with the other major differences between the two --- I think we're looking at two different bases here. Menkooroo (talk) 11:35, January 8, 2013 (UTC)
      • I'm afraid you might be right. Damn. Stake black msg 13:03, January 8, 2013 (UTC)
        • Do you want this nom to be archived? If you want to renom one or both of the bases, your best course of action would probably be to keep this article as the Tatooine Sojourn base (for which it was originally created) and to make a new one for the Mos Eisley base. Menkooroo (talk) 02:39, January 12, 2013 (UTC)
          • Yeah, that's a good idea. Stake black msg 03:17, January 12, 2013 (UTC)
  • Intro: context on Mon Eisley is needed. And Tatooine. And Vader, Luke and Anduvil.
  • Article for the sabotage and destruction of the base in needed.
  • Third paragraph of the History is unreffed.
  • Third paragraph: I think you need to explain in more detail about the correlation between the star maps, the symptoms and the secret Rebel bases.
  • Article needed for the droid's rescue attempt of Skywalker. - Cavalier OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 11:31, January 8, 2013 (UTC)

Comments