- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a good article nomination that was successful. Please do not modify it.
Imperial Support Vessel
- Nominated by:
AnilSerifoglu (talk) 05:29, March 16, 2018 (UTC) - Nomination comments: I'm in a Rebels mood lately.
(3 ACs/2 Users/5 Total)
Support
- Tommy
Macaroni 16:57, April 16, 2018 (UTC) 
Ayrehead02 (talk) 07:10, May 22, 2018 (UTC)
Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 04:34, May 23, 2018 (UTC)- MasterFred(Whatever) 06:24, May 23, 2018 (UTC)
- AV-6R7Crew Pit 21:16, May 25, 2018 (UTC)
Object
Ecks Dee
You have two consecutive [2] references in the History section.- Removed the redundant one. Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 23:11, April 8, 2018 (UTC)
- Removed the redundant one.
Honestly I'd move the Bts concept art to the right as it's currently interfering with the Appearances heading.1358 (Talk) 21:25, April 8, 2018 (UTC)- I don't know why, but that is not the case on my screen, but changed it as you suggested. Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 23:11, April 8, 2018 (UTC)
- I don't know why, but that is not the case on my screen, but changed it as you suggested.
Tommy
"12" should be as "twelve" in the body.- Done. Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 17:52, April 15, 2018 (UTC)
- Done.
When you say "date back to" the Imperial Sourcebook, do you mean that's where it was first mentioned? If so, I think so you make that a bit clearer, and perhaps put that before the Thrawn trilogy bit.- No, its first mention is actually in the novel Lando Calrissian and the Mindharp of Sharu. The Imperial Sourcebook is the source in which the Dreadnaughts were first pictured, thus it is the original design that inspired the Rebels' Support Vessel. "Date back to" was how they described the inspiration in the trivia gallery, and I've just added a minor clarification. Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 17:52, April 15, 2018 (UTC)
- Okay, so perhaps you should mention when it was first mentioned as well. I'd argue that's more relevant to the article than the Legends info on Thrawn's campaign. Also, do you need to source "The Dreadnaught's design, in fact, dates back to[1] the 1989[8] Imperial Sourcebook published by West End Games.[1]" to the trivia gallery? Surely you could just source all of that to the Imperial Sourcebook itself. Tommy Macaroni 17:58, April 15, 2018 (UTC)
- Changed it as you suggested. And about that the Thrawn campaign part, I just wanted to give readers a brief Legends background so that they understand that the ships were used by Thrawn's forces in Legends as well. Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 20:42, April 15, 2018 (UTC)
- Changed it as you suggested. And about that the Thrawn campaign part, I just wanted to give readers a brief Legends background so that they understand that the ships were used by Thrawn's forces in Legends as well.
- Okay, so perhaps you should mention when it was first mentioned as well. I'd argue that's more relevant to the article than the Legends info on Thrawn's campaign. Also, do you need to source "The Dreadnaught's design, in fact, dates back to[1] the 1989[8] Imperial Sourcebook published by West End Games.[1]" to the trivia gallery? Surely you could just source all of that to the Imperial Sourcebook itself. Tommy
- No, its first mention is actually in the novel Lando Calrissian and the Mindharp of Sharu. The Imperial Sourcebook is the source in which the Dreadnaughts were first pictured, thus it is the original design that inspired the Rebels' Support Vessel. "Date back to" was how they described the inspiration in the trivia gallery, and I've just added a minor clarification.
"In these stories, they were used by Grand Admiral Thrawn during his campaign against the New Republic.[6]" You currently source this to the Thrawn Trilogy, but could you make it sourced to one of the books in the trilogy where this takes place?Tommy Macaroni 09:23, April 15, 2018 (UTC)
- Done. Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 17:52, April 15, 2018 (UTC)
- Done.
Ayrehead
I think you could add a little more detail about the ships appearance to description just based on the picture.Ayrehead02 (talk) 18:23, April 19, 2018 (UTC)- How does it look now? Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 00:24, April 21, 2018 (UTC)
- I don't know that rugged is the right word to describe those box-like protrusions. Ayrehead02 (talk) 10:30, April 21, 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, I guess you are right. Changed now. Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 22:10, April 21, 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, I guess you are right. Changed now.
- I don't know that rugged is the right word to describe those box-like protrusions. Ayrehead02 (talk) 10:30, April 21, 2018 (UTC)
- How does it look now?
I think in History you could more directly say that they were used by the Galactic Empire as you do in the intro.Ayrehead02 (talk) 18:23, April 19, 2018 (UTC)- Done. Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 05:59, April 20, 2018 (UTC)
- Done.
Looking again, the last sentence of the intro should be split.Ayrehead02 (talk) 10:30, April 21, 2018 (UTC)- Done. Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 22:10, April 21, 2018 (UTC)
- I meant the sentence should be split into two sentences, not that the intro should be split into two paragraphs. Sorry for any confusion. Ayrehead02 (talk) 09:25, April 28, 2018 (UTC)
- No, it was I who completely misunderstood. It should be fine now. Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 06:18, April 29, 2018 (UTC)
- No, it was I who completely misunderstood. It should be fine now.
- I meant the sentence should be split into two sentences, not that the intro should be split into two paragraphs. Sorry for any confusion. Ayrehead02 (talk) 09:25, April 28, 2018 (UTC)
- Done.
Could you remove a word somewhere in the history so that there isn't the one word overhang beneath the image? I'd suggest maybe "naturally" or "Imperial" from "Imperial occupation". Otherwise you could split the paragraph so it isn't as much of an issue.Ayrehead02 (talk) 09:25, April 28, 2018 (UTC)- Removed the word "Imperial" from "Imperial occupation." Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 06:18, April 29, 2018 (UTC)
- Removed the word "Imperial" from "Imperial occupation."
Shouldn't the sizzle reel technically be first mentioned?Ayrehead02 (talk) 18:14, May 10, 2018 (UTC)- That sizzle reel is just a trailer for the episode that marks the ship's first appearance. I wasn't sure if it should count as its "first mention," but I'll add it if you think otherwise. Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 04:04, May 11, 2018 (UTC)
- I mean it's technically the first time that a canon support vessel was shown so I'd say you should add it. Ayrehead02 (talk) 17:02, May 11, 2018 (UTC)
- I have just rechecked all the Rebels finale trailers and found out that this one is technically the first source that shows the vessel, released a day before that sizzle reel. I've added the trailer to the External links section and made a minor change in the Behind the scenes section, but for some reason I can't add that Disney XD trailer as a reference. Both using the YouTube template or simply putting the link inside square brackets result with this warning message. Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 03:39, May 12, 2018 (UTC)
- I have just rechecked all the Rebels finale trailers and found out that this one is technically the first source that shows the vessel, released a day before that sizzle reel. I've added the trailer to the External links section and made a minor change in the Behind the scenes section, but for some reason I can't add that Disney XD trailer as a reference. Both using the YouTube template or simply putting the link inside square brackets result with this warning message.
- I mean it's technically the first time that a canon support vessel was shown so I'd say you should add it. Ayrehead02 (talk) 17:02, May 11, 2018 (UTC)
- That sizzle reel is just a trailer for the episode that marks the ship's first appearance. I wasn't sure if it should count as its "first mention," but I'll add it if you think otherwise.
Toprawa
Can we not get a higher-resolution version of the Rebels image in the History section? 339 x 248 pixels is kind of pathetic.- Unfortunately not, I cut that image from a 1080p screenshot of the episode. The ship properly appears only in 2 shots and this is the other one. Alternatively, I can change it with a wider shot of the blockade like this one. Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 09:51, May 19, 2018 (UTC)
- Try uploading a wider shot of the blockade in a new file image, and we'll see how that looks. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 09:53, May 19, 2018 (UTC)
- How does it look? Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 10:20, May 19, 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, I think that looks better. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 02:28, May 20, 2018 (UTC)
- How does it look?
- Try uploading a wider shot of the blockade in a new file image, and we'll see how that looks. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 09:53, May 19, 2018 (UTC)
- Unfortunately not, I cut that image from a 1080p screenshot of the episode. The ship properly appears only in 2 shots and this is the other one. Alternatively, I can change it with a wider shot of the blockade like this one.
There has to be a more source-based method for citing "Shortly before the outbreak of the Galactic Civil War" than a freaking Entertainment Weekly article...Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 04:06, May 19, 2018 (UTC)- I too was uncomfortable when using that article as a reference, but as far as I can find, the only time that it is explicitly stated that the Rebels finale takes place right before the events of Rogue One and the original trilogy is the Rebels crew Q&A held after the finale fan screening. Although there are videos of the entire Q&A on YouTube, none of them is from an official source. Only—still unofficial—articles like this or the FANDOM article by our own Brandon Rhea have the necessary part of Filoni's comments from the Q&A. To satisfy your objection, I can change it to something like "some time before the outbreak of GCW/Battle of Scarif/Battle of Yavin." Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 15:51, May 19, 2018 (UTC)
- The Rebels S4 article's infobox dates the season to c. 1 BBY using a very logical source-based reference. I would recommend adapting that here. You don't even have to change the article's wording. Just explain that 1 BBY equates to shortly before the start of the war, which begins with Scarif in 0 BBY, which I believe can all be cited to Galactic Atlas. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 02:28, May 20, 2018 (UTC)
- Galactic Atlas doesn't mention Scarif at all, but it places the mission to Jedha in 0 BBY. I made a modified version of the Rebels chronology citation, please take a look. Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 15:29, May 20, 2018 (UTC)
- For starters, there are a few key things you need to learn about writing references. First and foremost, never, ever use first-person pronouns in formal, encyclopedic writing, such as is being used here: "As such, we can deduce that the liberation of Lothal..." I would strongly recommend reading through this page for a greater understanding of formal writing practices. Secondly, don't ever rely on an unofficial Wookieepedia discussion forum to do your referencing explanations for you. If there's something in that Senate Hall thread that you need to explain, then do so. But don't link to the thread itself in the reference. Thirdly, references do not permit statements of assumption. Even in references, things must be referenced. You write, "The events of "A Fool's Hope" and "Family Reunion – and Farewell" take place after Star Wars Rebels: Heroes of Mandalore, which is the first known episode to take place one year before the Battle of Yavin." According to what? The fact that Heroes of Mandalore takes place in 1 BBY isn't self-referencing. You need to attribute that to something. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 03:20, May 21, 2018 (UTC)
- Oh I know about the formal writing, just that template for Rebels timeline is used so widely in articles, I thought it would be OK to do so. I have made some changes to the chronology note, please take a look. (PS: FYI, Internet Archive works for StarWars.com again!) Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 14:35, May 21, 2018 (UTC)
- I realize that Rebels reference is thrown around a lot and that that's where you got it from, but I want you to understand that it's not written well and shouldn't be used. I've been leaving objections to that end wherever I come across this reference in FANs and GANs. What you've written is much better. I've just made a few minor adjustments and wording revisions. It's always better to say, for example, "therefore, [such and such] must take place in" as opposed to "it can be assumed that..." Assertive language sounds much more authoritative and credible than the guesswork language of assumption. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 04:18, May 22, 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for the advice! Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 12:14, May 22, 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for the advice!
- I realize that Rebels reference is thrown around a lot and that that's where you got it from, but I want you to understand that it's not written well and shouldn't be used. I've been leaving objections to that end wherever I come across this reference in FANs and GANs. What you've written is much better. I've just made a few minor adjustments and wording revisions. It's always better to say, for example, "therefore, [such and such] must take place in" as opposed to "it can be assumed that..." Assertive language sounds much more authoritative and credible than the guesswork language of assumption. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 04:18, May 22, 2018 (UTC)
- Oh I know about the formal writing, just that template for Rebels timeline is used so widely in articles, I thought it would be OK to do so. I have made some changes to the chronology note, please take a look. (PS: FYI, Internet Archive works for StarWars.com again!)
- For starters, there are a few key things you need to learn about writing references. First and foremost, never, ever use first-person pronouns in formal, encyclopedic writing, such as is being used here: "As such, we can deduce that the liberation of Lothal..." I would strongly recommend reading through this page for a greater understanding of formal writing practices. Secondly, don't ever rely on an unofficial Wookieepedia discussion forum to do your referencing explanations for you. If there's something in that Senate Hall thread that you need to explain, then do so. But don't link to the thread itself in the reference. Thirdly, references do not permit statements of assumption. Even in references, things must be referenced. You write, "The events of "A Fool's Hope" and "Family Reunion – and Farewell" take place after Star Wars Rebels: Heroes of Mandalore, which is the first known episode to take place one year before the Battle of Yavin." According to what? The fact that Heroes of Mandalore takes place in 1 BBY isn't self-referencing. You need to attribute that to something. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 03:20, May 21, 2018 (UTC)
- Galactic Atlas doesn't mention Scarif at all, but it places the mission to Jedha in 0 BBY. I made a modified version of the Rebels chronology citation, please take a look.
- The Rebels S4 article's infobox dates the season to c. 1 BBY using a very logical source-based reference. I would recommend adapting that here. You don't even have to change the article's wording. Just explain that 1 BBY equates to shortly before the start of the war, which begins with Scarif in 0 BBY, which I believe can all be cited to Galactic Atlas. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 02:28, May 20, 2018 (UTC)
- I too was uncomfortable when using that article as a reference, but as far as I can find, the only time that it is explicitly stated that the Rebels finale takes place right before the events of Rogue One and the original trilogy is the Rebels crew Q&A held after the finale fan screening. Although there are videos of the entire Q&A on YouTube, none of them is from an official source. Only—still unofficial—articles like this or the FANDOM article by our own Brandon Rhea have the necessary part of Filoni's comments from the Q&A. To satisfy your objection, I can change it to something like "some time before the outbreak of GCW/Battle of Scarif/Battle of Yavin."
It would be fair to refer to this vessel as a capital ship. I would like to see that term used in the intro and Characteristics section. It should also be put into Category:Capital ship classes.Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 09:21, May 22, 2018 (UTC)- Done. Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 12:14, May 22, 2018 (UTC)
- Done.
- Reviewing note: I removed the Mindharp of Sharu bit from the BTS. I realize you took that from the Legends article, but I'm fairly certain that claim is not accurate, and someone else questioned the same thing in the talk page. Mindharp of Sharu makes some general mention of Imperial dreadnaughts, but I don't think it was ever confirmed that they were the same as the Dreadnaught-class. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 04:34, May 23, 2018 (UTC)
Comments
Approved as a Good article by AgriCorps 15:55, May 26, 2018 (UTC)