Wookieepedia:Good article nominations/Mass Shadow Generator

< 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.

Mass Shadow Generator

  • Nominated by: Vitus InfinitusTalk 16:41, April 10, 2018 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: A CA that is now a bit too big

(3 ACs/2 Users/5 Total)

Support

  1. ACvote Good work! Ayrehead02 (talk) 18:56, May 10, 2018 (UTC)
  2. ACvote Keep in mind the "See also" sections are only for topics not linked elsewhere in the article. MasterFredCommerce Guild(Whatever) 06:49, June 1, 2018 (UTC)
  3. ACvote Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 15:54, July 30, 2018 (UTC)
  4. Tommy Imperial Emblem Macaroni 16:00, July 30, 2018 (UTC)
  5. --Lewisr (talk) 16:23, July 30, 2018 (UTC)

Object

Ayrehead
  • You should split the first sentence of the history section. Ayrehead02 (talk) 07:33, April 29, 2018 (UTC)
  • Anywhere that you use the AFE dating system you should clarify that they're years you are talking about since most people aren't use to that format. Ayrehead02 (talk) 07:33, April 29, 2018 (UTC)
    • Done--Vitus InfinitusTalk 13:26, April 29, 2018 (UTC)
      • I'd change it to "the years 14 and 19 AFE" as the current wording requires the reader to know what AFE stands for in order for it to make sense. Ayrehead02 (talk) 20:05, April 30, 2018 (UTC)
  • I think you can date the discovery of the Rebel Files to 34 ABY since they are said to have been buried simultaneously with the Battle of Endor (4 ABY) and a comment says that "no-one has seen them for 30 years". Ayrehead02 (talk) 07:33, April 29, 2018 (UTC)
    • Added. Should I also add a note or just reference it to Rebel Files?--Vitus InfinitusTalk 13:26, April 29, 2018 (UTC)
      • You should definitely add a reference note. If ever in doubt when it comes to referencing a date the safest bet is to write a separate ref, especially with canon. Ayrehead02 (talk) 20:05, April 30, 2018 (UTC)
        • Added--Vitus InfinitusTalk 21:25, April 30, 2018 (UTC)
          • Now I think about it, since you now have an ABY date in the article you should probably change the AFE dates to be BBY as well for consistency. Ayrehead02 (talk) 17:20, May 10, 2018 (UTC)
  • Context for Korr Sella. Ayrehead02 (talk) 07:33, April 29, 2018 (UTC)
  • I think you need to add something to the description section about the image it's based on being from a report that claims the thing might not have ever even existed. Ayrehead02 (talk) 07:33, April 29, 2018 (UTC)
    • Added--Vitus InfinitusTalk 13:26, April 29, 2018 (UTC)
      • I'd reword this to something more like: in a rebel report that acknowledged that the generator might be nothing more than a tall tale, it was depicted as... etc." Ayrehead02 (talk) 20:05, April 30, 2018 (UTC)
Imperators Shadow Generator
  • Formatting and linking in ref 3. Imperators II(Talk) 18:36, May 16, 2018 (UTC)
  • "Since The Rebel Files were buried on the same day as the Battle of Endor" — source? Imperators II(Talk) 18:36, May 16, 2018 (UTC)
  • The formatting of the in-universe Rebel Files' title is inconsistent in the article. Imperators II(Talk) 06:56, May 17, 2018 (UTC)
  • I've removed the fate of the Rebel Files from the article, as it was extraneous and not relevant to the article's subject. Imperators II(Talk) 06:56, May 17, 2018 (UTC)
  • The part about the generator supposedly being able to exist in realspace and hyperspace should be moved to Characteristics. Imperators II(Talk) 11:18, May 27, 2018 (UTC)
  • Also, when you first refer to the generator in that section, you should use its full name. Imperators II(Talk) 11:18, May 27, 2018 (UTC)
Ecks Dee
  • "The generator was part of a report by Haxen Delto in Imperial weapons projects" Not 100% sure what you intend to say here. Do you happen to mean "part of a report by Haxen Delto on Imperial weapons projects"? As in the report was about Imperial weapons projects.
  • The two "would" clauses in the second paragraph of History make for a rather long run-on sentence. Can we please split it up? Also, in general, avoid (over)using "would" as you're just going to run into tense issues. 1358 (Talk) 20:26, June 27, 2018 (UTC)
  • One more: I have some issues with the description. May I recommend something like this: "...it was depicted within the same report as being axially symmetrical in design. In the center, a pair of square pyramids—with truncated tops—was joined by their bases, with a trench running along the connecting line. A smaller pyramid was mounted on top of each of the central pyramids, with two dishes in turn being located atop the smaller pyramids." I feel like it's important to convey that the pyramids were truncated at the top and I also think there's no need to say there's four of them before you describe them—that's obvious from the description itself. Just a suggestion. 1358 (Talk) 10:16, June 30, 2018 (UTC)
Toprawa
  • As we discussed, the mass-market version of The Rebel Files is now available. Therefore, please upload a high-quality scan from the book for this article's image. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 11:28, July 3, 2018 (UTC)
    • Will be getting this done soon. Images are much smaller than I imagined.--Vitus InfinitusTalk 14:12, July 9, 2018 (UTC)
      • After personally obtaining the book and getting HD scans of the images, the images on this article, along with Senatorial arrests and Torpedo Sphere, are of the highest possible quality. If the book were available digitally it might be a different story, but the way these were printed, these are of the best quality.--Vitus InfinitusTalk 02:52, July 14, 2018 (UTC)
        • I'm calling shenanigans on this. You didn't upload anything. All of the images on these articles are the same ones uploaded months ago by you and Tommy that you obtained from the bootleg pdf you found on Kaskus or wherever. I guarantee higher-quality versions can be uploaded using a high-quality scanner. If you got HD scans of these images, upload them and show us. Otherwise, I see no choice here but to consider this objection unaddressed. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 22:22, July 21, 2018 (UTC)
  • There are some infobox fields I think you can be filling in. Like...Shape, Color, Purpose? Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 19:15, July 25, 2018 (UTC)
    • How does it look? Would {{C|rumored}} be necessary in the infobox?--Vitus InfinitusTalk 19:49, July 25, 2018 (UTC)
      • A few things:
        • Firstly, no, I don't think you need to add "rumored" to every field.
        • Secondly, I think you should replace "Rumored" with "Possibly" for the Imperial affiliation. That section of the book explains that the superweapons listed are rumored to exist and that it's possible the Empire may have access to them, not that they're rumored to have them.
        • Since the Owner and Affiliation field is pretty much synonymous, just choose one and go with it. Same with Location -- I would just remove that one. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 20:23, July 25, 2018 (UTC)
  • A few things. I changed the color to "metallic gray," since I think the brown is probably just meant to be a reflection. But more significantly, I rewrote most of the Description to try and more succinctly get the point across of what how this thing is built. Before I go any further, see if you're ok with everything that's there now. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 17:12, July 26, 2018 (UTC)
  • At the very end of the History, I think you should add a brief note reflecting Ematt's handwritten line saying that some of the superweapons had since entered historical logs while some could have been restarted by the First Order.
  • In the BTS, the publication date is not self-sourcing. And I think I'd rather have us using this article as a source for the 11/21 release date rather than Wallace's tweet. Unfortunately, this is a rare instance where Amazon's publication info seems to be incorrect.
    • Added. Instead of "was released on November 21, 2017" I changed it to "was released by November 21, 2017"--Vitus InfinitusTalk 16:02, July 29, 2018 (UTC)
      • Firstly, when implementing Citeweb, remember to fill in as many fields as possible and remove those that aren't used. Secondly, I think you would be fine just to say "on" November 21. That EW article bills itself as an exclusive first look and states that the book is "now available," which, along with the Wallace tweet, I think we can safely interpret to mean that that's the official release date. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 16:20, July 29, 2018 (UTC)
  • I've removed the Imperial projects category, since it's not confirmed to be one -- just a possible project. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 18:16, July 26, 2018 (UTC)
Mass Tommy Generator
  • Context for the First Order and the resistance please.
    • Actually don't worry about this. Tommy Imperial Emblem Macaroni 18:12, July 29, 2018 (UTC)
  • Can all of the history's second paragraph be sourced to ref 3? Tommy Imperial Emblem Macaroni 17:45, July 29, 2018 (UTC)
    • Fixed ref, everything except the date can be sourced to Rebel Files.--Vitus InfinitusTalk 00:42, July 30, 2018 (UTC)

Comments

Approved as a Good article by AgriCorps 17:06, July 30, 2018 (UTC)


  • I will be on vacation and thus unavailable between May 31st to June 18th. I will not be able to address objections during that time as I will have no effective means of doing so. I will be taking care of all raised objections between now to the 31st, thank you for understanding.--Vitus InfinitusTalk 13:47, May 19, 2018 (UTC)
  • Would it be necessary for me to add the image of the Gravity Well Station in the BTS section or is it fine as it is?--Vitus InfinitusTalk 15:48, July 30, 2018 (UTC)