- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a good article nomination that was successful. Please do not modify it.
Krayt's Honor
- Nominated by: Thefourdotelipsis 23:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Nomination comments: And the beat goes on...
(5 AC/2 users/7 total)
Support
- Cavalier One(Squadron channel) 11:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)- I was actually scared for a moment that 4dot actually wrote another Legacy nom :P DC 19:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- IFYLOFD (And now, young Skywalker, you will die.) 20:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Grand Moff Tranner
(Comlink) 01:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC) 
Toprawa and Ralltiir 04:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)- Greyman(Talk) 11:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- —Tommy9281 (Peace is a lie) 19:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Oppose
- IFYLOFD:
Why didn't the Trade Federation want anything to do with Tatooine?- I think that's pretty much tied into TPM's "The Federation has no presence there."...I'm not sure that the specifics of that have been fleshed out though.
Is there an aftermath to the ship's confrontation with the Federation? What happened?- Fraid not. Both the DB entry and SOTG kinda just leave it hanging.
Good work. IFYLOFD (And now, young Skywalker, you will die.) 00:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review. Thefourdotelipsis 05:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Tommy
Is the infobox completely filled out? For instance, wasn't the ship affiliated with someone?- "...independent merchants..." -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 13:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Addressed with the nominator via IRC.—Tommy9281 (Peace is a lie) 19:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Addressed with the nominator via IRC.—Tommy9281
- "...independent merchants..." -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 13:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Are there any quotes?—Tommy9281 (Peace is a lie) 11:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Not my nom but I doubt it very much since the sources are two background appearances in movies and two OOU descriptions. Let's actually read the article and not make objections for the sake of making objections. Please. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 13:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Ackbar, please cut out the attitude. You have no place to say to Tommy, "Let's actually read the article." If someone said that to you, or a friend of yours, your reaction would be tell them to keep their attitudes off of the FAN/GAN page(s), so please do the same. If you have a problem with Tommy, then please take it up with him off the site via IRC or email. Tommy's question, while more appropriate for the comments section, has merit — it was one that I was wondering too, but just forgot to ask 4dot. Tommy did nothing wrong in this matter and his question no where near deserved the curt and brusque response you chose to give on 4dot's behalf. Let's just move it on now, please. Greyman(Talk) 11:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- With all due respect, the appropriate place to respond to GAN objections is on the GAN page, and the bulk of my post was doing just that. Perhaps I was overly brusque and curt and I apologise for that, but I find that such comments have a great deal more effect than overly polite ones that achieve nothing. Additionally, I would have corresponded with him off-site and still would if the message applied solely to him but it doesn't. It's a trend that seems to be on the rise on GAN after seemingly leaving FAN: making objections for the sake of making objections, for building up a "reputation," or because people feel they can't support an article without first finding something wrong with. It doesn't matter; it's something that should be discouraged. So, perhaps I chose to make an example of it here because it was particularly blatant and because Tommy should know better. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 17:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Addressed with the nominator via IRC.—Tommy9281 (Peace is a lie) 19:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Addressed with the nominator via IRC.—Tommy9281
- With all due respect, the appropriate place to respond to GAN objections is on the GAN page, and the bulk of my post was doing just that. Perhaps I was overly brusque and curt and I apologise for that, but I find that such comments have a great deal more effect than overly polite ones that achieve nothing. Additionally, I would have corresponded with him off-site and still would if the message applied solely to him but it doesn't. It's a trend that seems to be on the rise on GAN after seemingly leaving FAN: making objections for the sake of making objections, for building up a "reputation," or because people feel they can't support an article without first finding something wrong with. It doesn't matter; it's something that should be discouraged. So, perhaps I chose to make an example of it here because it was particularly blatant and because Tommy should know better. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 17:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Ackbar, please cut out the attitude. You have no place to say to Tommy, "Let's actually read the article." If someone said that to you, or a friend of yours, your reaction would be tell them to keep their attitudes off of the FAN/GAN page(s), so please do the same. If you have a problem with Tommy, then please take it up with him off the site via IRC or email. Tommy's question, while more appropriate for the comments section, has merit — it was one that I was wondering too, but just forgot to ask 4dot. Tommy did nothing wrong in this matter and his question no where near deserved the curt and brusque response you chose to give on 4dot's behalf. Let's just move it on now, please. Greyman(Talk) 11:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Not my nom but I doubt it very much since the sources are two background appearances in movies and two OOU descriptions. Let's actually read the article and not make objections for the sake of making objections. Please. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 13:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Grand Moff Tranner
Perhaps a little more context on the Trade Federation - what is the Trade Federation? What were they doing in 32 BBY? Why the need for pirates? Etc.Grand Moff Tranner (Comlink) 12:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Comments
Approved as a Good article by AgriCorps 08:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)