Wookieepedia:Good article nominations/L-2832

< 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.

L-2832

  • Nominated by: GethralkinHyperwave 08:48, June 7, 2011 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: Failed CAN due to size after answering CAN objections. Begun as a single sentence article, there just turned out to be more info on this ship.

(5 ACs/3 Users/8 Total)

Support

  1. ACvote—Tommy 9281 Thursday, June 30, 2011, 19:53 UTC
  2. ACvote Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 20:27, June 30, 2011 (UTC)
    *See comment below. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 18:05, July 1, 2011 (UTC)
  3. Imperators II(Talk) 20:32, June 30, 2011 (UTC)
  4. ACvote Kilson(Let's have a chat) 20:54, June 30, 2011 (UTC)
  5. Wrooooom (: –Tm_T (Talk) 21:23, June 30, 2011 (UTC)
  6. Very good.--Exiled Jedi Oldrepublic crest (Greetings) 20:42, July 1, 2011 (UTC)
  7. ACvote Toprawa and Ralltiir 00:16, July 2, 2011 (UTC)
  8. ACvote 1358 (Talk) 17:47, July 3, 2011 (UTC)

Object

Tm
  • After you think the objections in the failed CAN has been addressed, try make sure you have the information in their own sections; now some of the description is in the end of the history section.
    • Fixed the misplaced info. GethralkinHyperwave 15:04, June 7, 2011 (UTC)
      • Btw, the CAN objections had mostly to do with the article reaching over 250 words due to the adding of material requested, which was satisfied by sending it to the GAN page. All other CAN objections are fixed. GethralkinHyperwave 14:23, June 9, 2011 (UTC)
  • Also, make sure all information presented in the infobox is in the article body too. –Tm_T (Talk) 09:34, June 7, 2011 (UTC)
  • At the end of Bts section, there's date without a year, you can simply say "in the same year" or something. (: –Tm_T (Talk) 15:17, June 7, 2011 (UTC)
  • Huh, try split the long sentence in the intro.
  • In Characteristics section, you could describe the structure/type of the ship beside just stating the model. Just one sentence would prolly do good.
    • Not sure what you're going for here. As far as structure, the ship is described as being a C-9979 military landing craft. GethralkinHyperwave 14:18, June 16, 2011 (UTC)
      • Yes, and I'm asking if you could elaborate from there a bit. –Tm_T (Talk) 14:49, June 16, 2011 (UTC)
        • Okay, how's that? GethralkinHyperwave 02:04, June 17, 2011 (UTC)
          • I suppose there could be even more, but suffice. (: –Tm_T (Talk) 19:14, June 30, 2011 (UTC)
  • In the same section, could you provide any numbers or something that indicate how much those battle droids it did carry? Even "atleast <thenumbersseeninthesourcesbeingcarried>" or so. –Tm_T (Talk) 08:21, June 16, 2011 (UTC)
    • Can't provide any numbers without speculation, but I did reword it so that it states in the characteristics that it was capable of carrying a full battalion of battle droids—however many that it is we do not know, because sources do not specify. GethralkinHyperwave 14:18, June 16, 2011 (UTC)
      • Suffice. –Tm_T (Talk) 14:49, June 16, 2011 (UTC)
  • Is {{1stp}} meant to indicate {{1st}} and {{Po}}? Either way, IMO 1stp doesn't cover 1st. –Tm_T (Talk) 14:49, June 16, 2011 (UTC)
    • {{1st}} was supposed to have been attached to the TCW appearance, which I have fixed. The {{1stp}} next to the game piece is correct, but the {{1stID}} was missing, as well, and is now fixed. GethralkinHyperwave 02:04, June 17, 2011 (UTC)
Imperators II
Talrrivanian
  • Doesn't follow all the rules listed that a good article must have. --Talrrivanian JaingHead (Headquarters) 14:31, June 7, 2011 (UTC)
    • Please be specific in your critiquing. Which rules? GethralkinHyperwave 15:09, June 7, 2011 (UTC)
  • Sorry, it has several words that could be linked (battle droids for example) --Talrrivanian JaingHead (Headquarters) 17:39, June 7, 2011 (UTC)
    • Let me intervene: per the Manual of Style, subjects are to be linked to in the intro and upon their first mention in the body. Therefore, no subsequent links are required in its current state, save for color(s) in the description. If you don't mind, I'll remove the second battle droid link.—TK-999 Era-imp(Rise of the Empire) 17:52, June 7, 2011 (UTC)
      • TK-999 is correct, Tal. The Manual of Style states: "A subject should be linked once upon its first appearance in the article's infobox, once upon its first mention in the article's intro, and once upon its first mention in the article's main body." Thanks for clearing that up TK. GethralkinHyperwave 04:51, June 8, 2011 (UTC)
        • Since the objection raised has been answered, can you please strike your objections, Tal? GethralkinHyperwave 14:25, June 9, 2011 (UTC)
Jujiggum
  • "L-2832 was once used to deliver a battalion of the T81 Division to the surface of the coral moon, Rugosa, where they were destroyed…" They who? The division? The people aboard L-2832? L-2832 itself?
  • You currently have some infobox-exclusive information. Please specify that there were at least 2 wingtip and at least 2 turret-mounted cannons.
  • "L-2832 was a Confederacy of Independent Systems C-9979 landing craft—a four-winged Confederate Navy military transport outfitted with both wingtip and turret-mounted laser cannons, as well more powerful turbolasers, giving it more destructive power than typical C-9979s." What you have done here is state that C-9979s were four-winged craft with more firepower than typical C-9979s. Please rearrange this sentence grammatically so that it states that the L-2832 had more firepower than typical C-9979s.
  • Incorrect usage of the mdash in the first paragraph of the History section.
  • The article could use a "Commanders and crew" section.
    • There are no known commanders or crew of L-2832. The battalion were passengers and were not involved in the flight of the transport. GethralkinHyperwave 19:48, June 25, 2011 (UTC)
      • I was thinking more along the lines of Asajj Ventress, but on second thought I can let this one go; it wouldn't really be necessary. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 20:27, June 30, 2011 (UTC)
        • Well, just to answer your question, Asajj Ventress was on the moon's surface when L-2832 was sent down, and she left in a small ship at the end of the show. Therefore, she was not a passenger on the transport. GethralkinHyperwave 17:58, July 1, 2011 (UTC)
          • That contradicts what you say in the article: you specify twice that Ventress herself used the ship. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 18:05, July 1, 2011 (UTC)
            • Well, actually no. The ship was her's to use. She was not a commander on baord the ship however. She was the "Admiral" instructing the droid commanders what to do. The droid commanders on board the ship took orders from her, but she herself was not a commander of the ship specifically. It was delegated authority, and we know nothing of the specific individuals inside the transport. But she was not one of the crew. I have fixed the wording to be more clear. GethralkinHyperwave 19:27, July 1, 2011 (UTC)
              • You don't have to be aboard a vessel to be considered its commander. Furthermore, you just now changed it to say that the vessel "was commanded by Dark Acolyte Asajj Ventress," so I don't quite see your argument that she wasn't a commander… Well, nevertheless, thank you for changing the wording in the article; that was all that you needed to do. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 19:43, July 1, 2011 (UTC)
                • Okay, I see your point now. Lack of sleep prevented my earlier understanding. ;) GethralkinHyperwave 04:36, July 2, 2011 (UTC)
  • That's all I've got. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 03:21, June 23, 2011 (UTC)
Toprawa
  • Some preliminary infobox objections first. If the ship has engines, which I must assume it does, it's fair to at least specify "Equipped" in the "engine" infobox field.
  • What is the purpose of adding "2 pair visible" to the armament data in the infobox? That smells like OOU description.
  • "1 battalion of T-81 Division" doesn't make sense. That's like saying "1 division of 101st Airbone." I'm not exactly sure what to suggest as an alternative wording option, but please try to find something that sounds less amateurish. Toprawa and Ralltiir 21:26, June 30, 2011 (UTC)
    • After thinking about this a little bit more, I think it would be best if the article just formatted it like *1 battalion of battle droids **T-81 Division ***Armored Assault Tanks Toprawa and Ralltiir 01:28, July 1, 2011 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I tried to come up with something different, but what you've suggested sounds good. Fixed. GethralkinHyperwave 17:49, July 1, 2011 (UTC)
  • The use of the "1stp" template in the Sources list is tantamount to saying that that item is a "pictured only" source item, which cannot be the case if it is also the first to identify the vessel by formal name. The more appropriate template to use would simply be "1stm." The fact that it is literally pictured on the card or model or whatever effectively becomes a given.
    • I have had so many different suggestions on how to label these, so I am never sure. 1stm added. Should I remove 1stID? GethralkinHyperwave 23:43, July 1, 2011 (UTC)
      • Sorry for butting in, but yeah, if {{1stm}} is there, then using {{1stID}} is redundant. CC7567 (talk) 23:53, July 1, 2011 (UTC)
  • Might I also ask what the literal name of that card/model/whatever is? Because the naming is inconsistent between this article and the individual "Clone Wars" set article.
    • The miniature 's base stand labels it as a "C-9979 landing craft." I have corrected the expansion article. GethralkinHyperwave 23:43, July 1, 2011 (UTC)
  • Xd's objection below regarding reference 4 also somewhat confuses me. Can none of these items simply be referenced to the individual card (i.e., reference 1)? Also, I believe he's suggesting that we try to actually utilize the citation template from reference 1 for reference 4, just without filling in the card field. Toprawa and Ralltiir 22:31, July 1, 2011 (UTC)
    • Hmm... I have fixed the reference to be a little more clear as to what is being cited. Does that help? GethralkinHyperwave 23:49, July 1, 2011 (UTC)
      • Yes, that's fine with me. The option to still use an abbreviated version of the citation template still exists, I believe, but I'll let Xd hammer out anything further with you. Toprawa and Ralltiir 00:16, July 2, 2011 (UTC)
Ecks Dee
  • I'm a little confused about reference 4. Should it be specified to a single card, like reference one? If possible, this should be done. If not, I think the Pocketmodel citation template can be used even if cardname is omitted. 1358 (Talk) 22:23, June 30, 2011 (UTC)
    • It refers to the game rules that establish the faction icon (CIS roundel) on the unit as being the Confederacy/Separatists. That information is not spelled out on the unit itself where the icon is visible. GethralkinHyperwave 17:55, July 1, 2011 (UTC)
      • Also, ships and vehicles are not represented by cards in this game. Cards are a separate random element in the game that affect the way the miniatures are played. "Cardname" is just a placeholder for the game element in the template. Other wise we would have to have a template for cards and a template for miniatures. That just gets too involved to be practical, I think. GethralkinHyperwave 18:02, July 1, 2011 (UTC)

Comments

Approved as a Good article by AgriCorps 17:47, July 3, 2011 (UTC)