- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Good article nomination that was successful. Please do not modify it.
Maelstrom-class battle cruiser
- Nominated by: --Vitus InfinitusTalk 23:47, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
- Nomination comments: Really wish there was no space in battle cruiser.
(3 ACs/2 Users/5 Total)
(Votes required: No additional votes required to pass, please consider reviewing another article.)
Support
- Commander Code-8 Hello There! 14:01, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Long as it is, good work. :P JediMasterMacaroni
(Talk) 03:36, 14 June 2021 (UTC) 
MasterFred
(talk) 22:06, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
UberSoldat93 (talk) 09:20, 23 June 2021 (UTC)- Nice job. 1358 (Talk) 11:02, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Object
UberSoldat
Please split up the opening sentence of the intro.- Done --Vitus InfinitusTalk 19:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
I am unable to see why Ref 2 needs to mention the Venator at all.- It's to ascertain a length for the Maelstrom. The Venator and the Acclamator are the only capital ships of the Republic that we know the size for, and the Venator is larger. Since they were both active in the onset of the war, and the Maelstrom was introduced at that time and said to be the biggest, my goal with the ref note was to explain that it would be larger than the length of the Venator.
- All I'm able to gather from this note is: "Venator exists, so Maelstrom must be bigger than Venator." Why the Venator specifically? The ref note does a very poor job of answering that question. UberSoldat93 (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- I reworded the ref. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 22:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I still don't see what the purpose is of introducing the Venator there. The question above is not satisfied. I would suggest removing this note entirely. UberSoldat93 (talk) 06:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- I respectfully disagree, the reference note provides the length of the Maelstrom. Essentially, the Venator and the Maelstrom served at the same time and the Maelstrom was said to be the larger ship, then the Maelstrom must be larger than the Venator's length. Is there a way to reword the ref note to satisfy the objection? The information is perfectly relevant. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 07:01, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- I'll discuss with the ACs to see what can be done. UberSoldat93 (talk) 07:13, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you, I really appreciate it! --Vitus InfinitusTalk 07:17, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- After discussing with Tommy on IRC, we agreed that the note should state that both of them were capital ships in the Navy, so that a direct relation is established between the two ships. UberSoldat93 (talk) 09:15, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- Done. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 05:34, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
- The way the note is written currently implies that the Maelstrom being longer comes from Complete Vehicles. UberSoldat93 (talk) 05:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
- The way the note is written currently implies that the Maelstrom being longer comes from Complete Vehicles. UberSoldat93
- Done. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 05:34, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
- After discussing with Tommy on IRC, we agreed that the note should state that both of them were capital ships in the Navy, so that a direct relation is established between the two ships. UberSoldat93
- Thank you, I really appreciate it! --Vitus InfinitusTalk 07:17, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- I'll discuss with the ACs to see what can be done. UberSoldat93
- I respectfully disagree, the reference note provides the length of the Maelstrom. Essentially, the Venator and the Maelstrom served at the same time and the Maelstrom was said to be the larger ship, then the Maelstrom must be larger than the Venator's length. Is there a way to reword the ref note to satisfy the objection? The information is perfectly relevant. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 07:01, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I still don't see what the purpose is of introducing the Venator there. The question above is not satisfied. I would suggest removing this note entirely. UberSoldat93
- I reworded the ref. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 22:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- All I'm able to gather from this note is: "Venator exists, so Maelstrom must be bigger than Venator." Why the Venator specifically? The ref note does a very poor job of answering that question. UberSoldat93
- Rewrote the ref note. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 20:59, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
- It's to ascertain a length for the Maelstrom. The Venator and the Acclamator are the only capital ships of the Republic that we know the size for, and the Venator is larger. Since they were both active in the onset of the war, and the Maelstrom was introduced at that time and said to be the biggest, my goal with the ref note was to explain that it would be larger than the length of the Venator.
Erroneous grammar: "The Maelstroms were designed as much to inspire awe in allies as they were fear in enemies."- Reworded --Vitus InfinitusTalk 19:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Considered by whom? "The cruisers were considered to be massive and imposing..."- Source doesn't specify. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 19:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- Then reword it. It's speculative wording unless it's explicitly made clear in the source. UberSoldat93 (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- The source uses those words, I meant that the source doesn't specify who said so. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 22:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- Then reword it. It's speculative wording unless it's explicitly made clear in the source. UberSoldat93
- Source doesn't specify. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 19:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
You don't need to italicize "Maelstrom" on its own, this convention only applies to the ship class (Maelstrom-class).- That's how it is in the source, should I still remove the italication? --Vitus InfinitusTalk 19:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, following real-world conventions. UberSoldat93 (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- Ok, done. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 22:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, following real-world conventions. UberSoldat93
- That's how it is in the source, should I still remove the italication? --Vitus InfinitusTalk 19:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm seeing partially linked proper compound nouns in the article, going against the Manual of Style.UberSoldat93 (talk) 16:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- Okay, I think I got them all, but I'll continue reviewing to see if I missed any. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 19:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- Nope, you didn't get any of them. Please consult the Manual of Style to find what you need to remove. UberSoldat93 (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- Nope, you didn't get any of them. Please consult the Manual of Style to find what you need to remove. UberSoldat93
- Okay, I think I got them all, but I'll continue reviewing to see if I missed any. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 19:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Please break up the Armament paragraph.UberSoldat93 (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- Done --Vitus InfinitusTalk 22:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Please avoid using words like "impressive," "staggering," and "innovative," this falls under NPOV.- These words are also from the source. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 00:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- We wouldn't write "The Republic are the good guys" just because a source says so, that's the purpose of the policy. In this example, the design may be impressive and innovative to the Republic but not to the Separatists. UberSoldat93 (talk) 06:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- Fixed wording. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 18:53, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- Does the source use this wording?: "...considered to be the most impressive..." UberSoldat93 (talk) 09:06, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
- Not specifically, simply the "most impressive" part. I understand NPOV, however, in this case I believe the wording is appropriate as it presents a critical understanding of the design of the vessel. If you'd like for me to remove it, however, I can go ahead and do so. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 13:57, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- It's subjective, so I would appreciate some rewording. UberSoldat93 (talk) 15:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Lead by Example does use the wording "Maelstroms were the largest, and arguably most impressive, vessels in the Republic Navy". So what would you like done?
- Except for "impressive," the examples I pointed out above and any more you find in the article. UberSoldat93 (talk) 16:09, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Removed instead after a conversation with an AC.
- Removed instead after a conversation with an AC.
- Except for "impressive," the examples I pointed out above and any more you find in the article. UberSoldat93
- Lead by Example does use the wording "Maelstroms were the largest, and arguably most impressive, vessels in the Republic Navy". So what would you like done?
- It's subjective, so I would appreciate some rewording. UberSoldat93
- Not specifically, simply the "most impressive" part. I understand NPOV, however, in this case I believe the wording is appropriate as it presents a critical understanding of the design of the vessel. If you'd like for me to remove it, however, I can go ahead and do so. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 13:57, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- Does the source use this wording?: "...considered to be the most impressive..." UberSoldat93
- Fixed wording. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 18:53, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- We wouldn't write "The Republic are the good guys" just because a source says so, that's the purpose of the policy. In this example, the design may be impressive and innovative to the Republic but not to the Separatists. UberSoldat93
- These words are also from the source. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 00:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
"Deflector shield generator" in infobox-exclusive.UberSoldat93 (talk) 08:37, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
- Fixed. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 00:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
There appears to be a 1st and 1stID on the Legends article that are not detailed in the BTS here.UberSoldat93 (talk) 12:37, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- Added. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 17:34, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- You need to list the adventure within the campaign that the ship appears in. Since this is not specified on the Legends page, you will need to investigate this. UberSoldat93 (talk) 18:40, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- Okay, done. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 01:20, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Looks like there is one story published before "Dark Soul," so the BTS needs to be corrected. UberSoldat93 (talk) 09:29, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Ah, fixed. Thank you. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 14:58, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Looks like there is one story published before "Dark Soul," so the BTS needs to be corrected. UberSoldat93
- Okay, done. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 01:20, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- You need to list the adventure within the campaign that the ship appears in. Since this is not specified on the Legends page, you will need to investigate this. UberSoldat93
- Added. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 17:34, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
I do believe the "lead ship of the class, the Maelstrom" warrants a mention in the intro due to the implied significance of that role.UberSoldat93 (talk) 07:50, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- Added --Vitus InfinitusTalk 14:00, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- It would also be appreciated if you could eliminate the repetition of "although" there. UberSoldat93 (talk) 14:04, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- Ah, fixed --Vitus InfinitusTalk 14:07, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- Hopefully my last objection, don't you think "lead ship" means that flagship can be linked in the article? UberSoldat93 (talk) 14:14, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- In this context, lead ship is referring to the first ship of the class. Similar to how the Executor is the lead ship of the Executor-class Star Dreadnought class. Flagship would be the command ship of a commander or fleet. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 17:03, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- Hopefully my last objection, don't you think "lead ship" means that flagship can be linked in the article? UberSoldat93
- Ah, fixed --Vitus InfinitusTalk 14:07, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- It would also be appreciated if you could eliminate the repetition of "although" there. UberSoldat93
- Added --Vitus InfinitusTalk 14:00, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Erebus
Don't know if this is what Shayanomer was implying above, but is it necessary to state that the Venator was a ship of the Republic Navy in ref 2? Doesn't seem relevant to the Maelstrom.- I tried clearing up the reference note. What I essentially want to say is that since the Maelstrom served at X time, and was the largest Republic ship at that time, then it must be larger than 1,137 meters since the Venator also served at X time. The Venator is the largest Republic ship we have a length for. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 22:23, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- The ref note looks better in my opinion, however, that sentence looks like you're saying, "Oh, by the way, the Venator is here, too." If you can't reword it, then I'd recommend removing it because it's not relevant to the topic.
- Okay, I reworded it again. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 22:37, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- Made a copy-edit, if that looks fine to you. But much better.
- Perfect, thanks! --Vitus InfinitusTalk 22:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- Made a copy-edit, if that looks fine to you. But much better.
- Okay, I reworded it again. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 22:37, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- The ref note looks better in my opinion, however, that sentence looks like you're saying, "Oh, by the way, the Venator is here, too." If you can't reword it, then I'd recommend removing it because it's not relevant to the topic.
- I tried clearing up the reference note. What I essentially want to say is that since the Maelstrom served at X time, and was the largest Republic ship at that time, then it must be larger than 1,137 meters since the Venator also served at X time. The Venator is the largest Republic ship we have a length for. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 22:23, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Welcome back, kept it warm for you. Anyway, I think you could add a date for the Clone Wars' onset.- Done. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 18:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
CC-8
Could use a related image in the history section.- Added --Vitus InfinitusTalk 01:33, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
The last sentence of the first history paragraph switches from referring to the ships in plural to singular.Commander Code-8 Hello There! 01:44, 13 May 2021 (UTC)- Fixed --Vitus InfinitusTalk 01:33, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Why is this article so long
"and had consumables for two years" -- wouldn't it be better to say they lasted for two years? Right now it could be read that after two years, the cruisers were no longer given consumables.- Galactic Atlas explicitly states the two dates you're sourcing it to, so I see no need for a written note.
The first sentence of the BTS implies that LBA was its first appearance anywhere, and not specifically in the new canon.- (Reviewing note) Short stories get quotes and not italics. JediMasterMacaroni(Talk) 02:04, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- Fixed all --Vitus InfinitusTalk 02:13, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Ecks
I think the intro can be trimmed a bit. A <1,000 word article does not require three paragraphs. Things that you can trim, for example, are context for the Clone Wars and some of the more specific listed armament. Furthermore, I think the current layout of the intro is a bit disorganized. You first mention it being the largest capital ship at the time, then summarize its history, only to return to characteristics once again. If I may, I suggest trimming the last intro paragraph and combining it with the first paragraph, so that the final result is one paragraph with overview+characteristics+role and the other paragraph is history.- Trimmed --Vitus InfinitusTalk 15:59, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- I still think the Maelstrom as the lead ship should stay. UberSoldat93 (talk) 16:02, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- Re-added! --Vitus InfinitusTalk 18:09, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- Some of the issues I mentioned are still present. You feature fragments of History in both paragraphs. It would be more rational to talk about the Role and Characteristics in the first paragraph and then detailing its operational history in the second paragraph. 1358 (Talk) 13:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
- Rearranged --Vitus InfinitusTalk 15:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
- Some of the issues I mentioned are still present. You feature fragments of History in both paragraphs. It would be more rational to talk about the Role and Characteristics in the first paragraph and then detailing its operational history in the second paragraph. 1358 (Talk) 13:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
- Re-added! --Vitus InfinitusTalk 18:09, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- I still think the Maelstrom as the lead ship should stay. UberSoldat93
- Trimmed --Vitus InfinitusTalk 15:59, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
You currently have three separate paragraphs that all begin with "The Maelstrom-class [...]". Please add some variation.- Fixed --Vitus InfinitusTalk 15:59, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- Normally I wouldn't probably notice this, or leave a standalone objection, but you now have four consecutive paragraphs that begin with "The". 1358 (Talk) 13:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
- Fixed --Vitus InfinitusTalk 15:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
- Normally I wouldn't probably notice this, or leave a standalone objection, but you now have four consecutive paragraphs that begin with "The". 1358 (Talk) 13:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
- Fixed --Vitus InfinitusTalk 15:59, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
"Belonging to the dagger-shaped proto-Star Destroyer family of starships such as [...]" Per WP:DASH, endashes should be used when hyphenating word combinations.- Also fixed --Vitus InfinitusTalk 15:59, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- "Dagged-shaped" does not require an endash, but proto–Star Destroyer does, because "proto" applies to the entire word combination. I've reverted the first endash to a hyphen.
- Also fixed --Vitus InfinitusTalk 15:59, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- I'm confused as to the purpose of the last Bts sentence. You already say in the first sentence that it was introduced in Lead by Example. If it's first introduced/mentioned in the same source as it is first identified (which appears to be the case here), this phrasing is redundant. 1358 (Talk) 15:05, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- That's referring to the Legends version of the Maelstrom that although it appeared earlier, it was first identified in LBE. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 15:59, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- Ah, I presume this is an FFG mess. From what I get, we treat Lead by Example, released in 2016, as both Canon and Legends. This is our conjecture and I would be careful to state that the Maelstrom was first identified in Legends continuity by a post-2014 work. It's also not really relevant detail to the Canon article. Mentioning it was introduced in Legends via WotC would probably suffice. However, I have to ask: if the ship wasn't named in Legends until 2016, did it have any sort of name prior to that? Such information could probably be integrated into the Bts. 1358 (Talk) 13:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
- The ship itself wasn't identified until Lead by Example. Prior to that, there existed content with the Maelstrom, but the ship's type wasn't identified until the FFG book established it. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 15:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
- This is our (Wookieepedia) own conjecture and I would be very careful with the current phrasing. Seeing as the name for the class was introduced simultaneously in both Canon and Legends (from the wiki's FFG perspective, at least), you can just remove the last sentence. It doesn't really convey anything important for this article. 1358 (Talk) 14:45, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- This objection still stands. 1358 (Talk) 11:48, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- Missed this one! Just fixed it, thank you --Vitus InfinitusTalk 16:42, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- This objection still stands. 1358 (Talk) 11:48, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- This is our (Wookieepedia) own conjecture and I would be very careful with the current phrasing. Seeing as the name for the class was introduced simultaneously in both Canon and Legends (from the wiki's FFG perspective, at least), you can just remove the last sentence. It doesn't really convey anything important for this article. 1358 (Talk) 14:45, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- The ship itself wasn't identified until Lead by Example. Prior to that, there existed content with the Maelstrom, but the ship's type wasn't identified until the FFG book established it. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 15:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
- Ah, I presume this is an FFG mess. From what I get, we treat Lead by Example, released in 2016, as both Canon and Legends. This is our conjecture and I would be careful to state that the Maelstrom was first identified in Legends continuity by a post-2014 work. It's also not really relevant detail to the Canon article. Mentioning it was introduced in Legends via WotC would probably suffice. However, I have to ask: if the ship wasn't named in Legends until 2016, did it have any sort of name prior to that? Such information could probably be integrated into the Bts. 1358 (Talk) 13:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
- That's referring to the Legends version of the Maelstrom that although it appeared earlier, it was first identified in LBE. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 15:59, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
The intro and the body seem to imply different things regarding the ship class' Imperial service. In the intro, it is said they served in the Empire but were mothballed and discarded, and these two facts are kind of conflicting. You need to make it clear that they saw limited use as they were discarded early during the Imperial era. Maybe something like "Following the rise of the Galactic Empire, remaining Maelstroms were discarded and mothballed. However, [...]"- Fixed --Vitus InfinitusTalk 00:13, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
The first sentence of Role is a bit of a run-on due to the double "and". See if you could reword it for better flow.- Reworded --Vitus InfinitusTalk 00:13, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
I did some reorganizing in the first paragraph of History. Please ensure the reworded version is still accurate.1358 (Talk) 14:45, 28 June 2021 (UTC)- Looks good, thanks! --Vitus InfinitusTalk 00:13, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
OOM
- (Review note - diff) Per WP:DASH, endashes should be used to hyphenate word combinations.
- I've just reviewed, these changes, thank you.
"Thick armored hull" is infobox-exclusive. Also, the last sentence in the "Design" section is too long and should be split up.OOM 224 ༼༽talk༼༽ 15:46, 27 June 2021 (UTC)- I believe that it would be redundant to add "thick armored hull" when "heavily armored" is already included to describe the hull in the design section. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 15:51, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
- They're not really synonymous, but more on that later. "Thick" contradicts with "long, thin, and heavily armored cranked delta hull," so I'm a little confused here. OOM 224 ༼༽talk༼༽ 16:08, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
- Unfortunately the source material does not clarify. If I were to assume based off the context, the shape of the ship is long and thin, but the armor on the hull is heavy and thick. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 17:31, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. I think this copy-edit solves that problem, please take a look. I'd still add in "thick" if the source uses both that word and "heavily armored" though; as I said, they're not really synonymous, and doing so would fully reflect info from the source, if redundant. OOM 224 ༼༽talk༼༽ 17:57, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
- Oh yeah that's perfect wording thank you. I've changed the wording a bit to include thick as well. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 18:05, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. I think this copy-edit solves that problem, please take a look. I'd still add in "thick" if the source uses both that word and "heavily armored" though; as I said, they're not really synonymous, and doing so would fully reflect info from the source, if redundant. OOM 224 ༼༽talk༼༽ 17:57, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
- Unfortunately the source material does not clarify. If I were to assume based off the context, the shape of the ship is long and thin, but the armor on the hull is heavy and thick. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 17:31, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
- They're not really synonymous, but more on that later. "Thick" contradicts with "long, thin, and heavily armored cranked delta hull," so I'm a little confused here. OOM 224 ༼༽talk༼༽ 16:08, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
- I believe that it would be redundant to add "thick armored hull" when "heavily armored" is already included to describe the hull in the design section. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 15:51, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Comments
Approved as a Good article by AgriCorps 11:02, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
- I am taking a temporary personal leave from the site for the sake of my personal health and happiness, and I expect to return anywhere from one week to several weeks. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 14:41, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Just a heads up, I'll be handling any further objections for this nomination.
- I want to start of with a huge thanks to Erebus who took care of things during my absence. I have returned and ready for more objections :P --Vitus InfinitusTalk 21:51, 2 April 2021 (UTC)